Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[countrygrl]

Of course Jefferson loved the Rebellion. It gave the opening for the federal power grab. The riff raff getting agitated can be easily manipulated by those in power.

Oh please! You and I both know that Jefferson was a pretty guy at promoting the well-being of the riff-raff. And .shane., from the moment Jefferson had power in Virginia or in Congress he was always presenting legislation to promote education of the masses and promote property ownership.

 

[kosiosko 1]

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.

read the op... they never quite give up on the idea that so many people just should not be allowed to vote, they are not quite 'good' enough,are not quite responsible enough, heck according to some they are not invested enough in the future good of the US, not quite true Americans

"the price of freedom, is eternal vigilance", i think you mentioned Jefferson

 

[.Shane.]

Oh please! You and I both know that Jefferson was a pretty guy at promoting the well-being of the riff-raff. And .shane., from the moment Jefferson had power in Virginia or in Congress he was always presenting legislation to promote education of the masses and promote property ownership.

Um... I'm referring specifically to your quote, not the body of Jefferson's work. He hardly governed by that whole "tree of liberty... blood of patriots..." stuff that is so frequently quoted.

 

[Xanikk999]

Oh please! You and I both know that Jefferson was a pretty guy at promoting the well-being of the riff-raff. And .shane., from the moment Jefferson had power in Virginia or in Congress he was always presenting legislation to promote education of the masses and promote property ownership.

You should know Jolly Roger likes to be extremely sarcastic at times. At the very least its a cover up for his comments on the rare occasion he is wrong.

 

[countrygrl]

Um... I'm referring specifically to your quote, not the body of Jefferson's work. He hardly governed by that whole "tree of liberty... blood of patriots..." stuff that is so frequently quoted.

Anything that you're specifically talking about? It's important to note that he was a diplomat and was neutered quite a bit by others through the course of his political career. But during his presidency he reduced taxes on the common people, promoted education, repealed the Sedition Acts immediately, pardoned everyone who was imprisoned from the Sedition Acts, removed Adam's midnight judges, and many other positive things. He wasn't perfect. He was obviously torn over slavery, and I find his opinions about Native American's repugnant, but he was surely a positive force in developing America.

You should know Jolly Roger likes to be extremely sarcastic at times. At the very least its a cover up for his comments on the rare occasion he is wrong.

I know, he's my favorite poster. He's the reason I decided to come back

 

[.Shane.]

Anything that you're specifically talking about? It's important to note that he was a diplomat and was neutered quite a bit by others through the course of his political career. But during his presidency he reduced taxes on the common people, promoted education, repealed the Sedition Acts immediately, pardoned everyone who was imprisoned from the Sedition Acts, removed Adam's midnight judges, and many other positive things. He wasn't perfect. He was obviously torn over slavery, and I find his opinions about Native American's repugnant, but he was surely a positive force in developing America.

Do you realize you're agreeing with what I was saying?

You quoted one of his extremely hyperbolic quotes as an indication of the kind of thinking you agree with. I simply pointed out that his actions quite betrayed that bombastic statement. All the actions you have listed above support my point.

 

[countrygrl]

Do you realize you're agreeing with what I was saying?

You quoted one of his extremely hyperbolic quotes as an indication of the kind of thinking you agree with. I simply pointed out that his actions quite betrayed that bombastic statement. All the actions you have listed above support my point.

How so? It's not a bombastic statement. It's extremely meaningful and carries great weight even to this day. Especially in its complete context! All I was saying was that there were plenty of people who supported the Rebellion in Founding Father circles. That's it! If the necessary requirements for a justified rebellion do not exist, and if Jefferson acted as president in a way that diffused rebellions, then what is your point?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The fact that people are seriously discussing this is making my head explode.

Except that nobody is agreeing with him. I may understand where he's coming from, but I still strongly disagree with him.

 

[useless]

Lets stop 'em poors from votin'.

 

[bhsup]

Lets stop 'em poors from votin'.

Well not just the poor. This'll also stop all those bleeding heart wealthy liberals renting expensive apartments in NYC. That's a good thing

 

[GenMarshall]

Don't tread on me!!!

Do not take away my right to vote!

 

[NYHunter]

So a person living off welfare should be able to leech off my money and then vote to ensure I continually have to pay them?

In a Democracy, yes. And you know what? They had the right to vote in the 1990's and we still enacted welfare reform. Obviously they aren't a very influential group to begin with, so what's the big deal?

 

[Tee Kay]

Don't tread on me!!!

Do not take away my right to vote!

God damns whoever got the idea of giving to vote to freaking plebs in the first place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

In a Democracy, yes. And you know what? They had the right to vote in the 1990's and we still enacted welfare reform. Obviously they aren't a very influential group to begin with, so what's the big deal?

Because they aren't contributing anything, so why should they choose where my money goes?

Now, if they did taxation my way (Just a 12% sales tax and inheritance tax) then I would agree no reform is needed. But with a highly lopsided system like we have now, something is needed. I still don't agree with Philips though.

 

[Newbunkle]

Because they aren't contributing anything, so why should they choose where my money goes?

Um, because they want to be producing something, and if they're helped they will in turn help everybody else? The only reason you can live and make money is because society made it possible for you. If you don't want to contribute why don't you leave?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Um, because they want to be producing something, and if they're helped they will in turn help everybody else? The only reason you can live and make money is because society made it possible for you. If you don't want to contribute why don't you leave?

Well I don't live in your country so the "Why don't you leave" makes no sense. But frankly, our family are lower middle-class, yet we make it without any help from the government. Now, I'm aware there are times when its needed, but why should certain people get to live off the government (Off our money) for three years, and then get to tell the government how they want our money spent? It makes no sense.

 

[Bill3000]

Well I don't live in your country so the "Why don't you leave" makes no sense. But frankly, our family are lower middle-class, yet we make it without any help from the government.

Of course you got help from the government. The government protects your property rights. The government provides your peers with an education. The government insulates you from foreign threats. The government helps to deter and punish crime. The government protects your house against fire. You don't want to really live without the help of the government.

 

[GenMarshall]

God damns whoever got the idea of giving to vote to freaking plebs in the first place.

Umm, unless it was not noted. I am in favor of citizens irregardless of social class to vote.

 

[Newbunkle]

Well I don't live in your country so the "Why don't you leave" makes no sense. But frankly, our family are lower middle-class, yet we make it without any help from the government. Now, I'm aware there are times when its needed, but why should certain people get to live off the government (Off our money) for three years, and then get to tell the government how they want our money spent? It makes no sense.

You've had plenty of help from society, such as a basic education and low crime rates.

The vast majority of those people don't want to be living off government money.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You've had plenty of help from society, such as a basic education and low crime rates.

The vast majority of those people don't want to be living off government money.

I haven't even gotten most of my education from society. I believe pre-school and that's it. (Are charter schools funded by tax money? If so then 3rd and 4th as well.)

Low crime rates I agree with though.

As for living off government money, listen to what I am saying. Three years is more than the amount of time you should even be ALLOWED to be on welfare.

If you aren't contributing anything to society, why do you deserve a voice in how that society is run? Answer: Because stealing is supposedly OK if it "Helps the poor."