Quinn: "Originally, if you didn't have land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it"
SUMMARY: Discussing the history of taxation and property rights in the United States, War Room with Quinn & Rose co-host Jim Quinn declared: "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited."
On the October 21 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, while reading from an opinion column by conservative blogger Scott Johnson that discussed the history of taxation and property rights in the United States, co-host Jim Quinn declared: "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited." Moments earlier, Quinn said, "Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: 'It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote,' but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any. Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote."
From the October 21 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
QUINN: Now, "given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses." Quote, "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," unquote. That's from Aristotle.
"The Founders of the United States shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown that all democracies" -- all democracies -- "as James Madison put it, are 'incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.' " That's why we have a republic and not a democracy. "Madison and others therefore made it a 'first' " -- 'cause this is a quote -- "first object of government," unquote, "to protect personal property from unjust confiscation."
Now, you see what happened with Kelo versus New London, and the confiscation of one American's property to give it to another private American based on the notion that the government making that decision will get more tax money from the second American than from the first.
This is one of the reasons why, in the original Constitution of the United States, it was only people who were landowners -- property owners were the ones who were allowed to vote. You couldn't vote unless you owned property. Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: "It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote," but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any.
Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote. I know you think this is anti-democratic. Well, actually it is anti-democratic because you don't want a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. You want a republic. Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end. But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited.
He goes on: "Given that one of the clauses" -- I'm sorry. "Given that one of the causes of the American Revolution was an unjust tax, the founders understood very well that taxation could become a way for one group to prey on another group. So while the Constitution empowered the federal government to levy taxes, it limited this power mostly to indirect taxes such as tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. For much of American history, the federal government subsisted solely on those taxes."
Another subtly racist talking point - you must be a landowner to vote. And they don't mean apartment dwellers either. Going this route would basically take away voting rights from about four fiths of every city out there. And gee, what a surprise! Most democrats congregate in the cities! Another fascist statement of the real intentions of the republican party, one party rule. Deutchland, deutchland uber alles indeed.
Most democrats congregate in the cities!
I was wondering the other day why that is true. One could argue that cities have a higher minority population who tend to vote democratic, but that can't be the only reason, can it?
Correct. It's just a fact of life that most businesses are where cities are, so people will live near where they work. The more people living in an area tends to drive up the price of land so it's just logical that becoming a landowner tends to be an expensive proposition. If I hadn't bought my house years ago I'd probably be living in an apartment right now because it's cheaper, and I wouldn't have to mow the lawn!
"Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end."
Translation: Oh, how we long for the days of slavery. Never having to worry about those n*****s getting above there station, you know, uppity, thinking they could do the white mans job of voting. You know, only a white man can do a serious job like voting. That's why those n*****s didn't own land, they lived on our land. Our opinion was their opinion. If things were like they used to be, we wouldn't be seeing all those n*****s standing in line for hours, voting for that n***** Obama.
Hey guys, this has nothing to do with race! Get off that damn topic right now.
You're missing the point. The real problem with Quinn's comments is that they represent an extreme economic royalist argument, one that's truly bizarre for anyone to be positing these days.
Where does this wingnuttery come from? It just shows you how toxic Reaganonomics has been to the mental health of this country, when arguments like this even get an airing on national TV. What's next, people gonna start advocating the rack? Or walking the plank?
It's not about race or slavery!! Quinn's point is much more dangerous than that.
P.S. Another point:
Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote."
This was never the law of the land. See, the problem is that these people are idiots, not racists.
P.S. Another point:
Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote."
This was never the law of the land. See, the problem is that these people are idiots, not racists.
I don't think it was ever the law under the Constitution, but it WAS the law in manu of the original colonies. For example, in my native New Jersey only people who held clear title to one or more parcels of land were allowed to vote. These people were called "freeholders". Some of them were elected to administer the county governments - to this day, these county administrators are called the "Board of Chosen Freeholders".
I beg to differ, because I've heard this very argument made around the water cooler. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming it's completely about race, but race is definitely a factor in this argument. A high percentage of renters are minorities. People making this argument know that.
http://www.ruralhome.org/manager/uploads/RuralRental.pdf
Well some people may be, but I think this guy is just spouting his Ayn Rand boilerplate, and it's not racial, just class warfare in general.
while i'm sure it's partly racial, i do think it's more about class. and while a high percentage of renters are minorties, an even higher percentage, regardless of race, are poor people. i am one of them, and i'm white. i'd lose my right to vote if ignorant jerks like this guy had their way.
True, although minorities would certainly be less likely to own property. Slavery started as contract labor and became slavery as all of the rules were made in favor of property owners. Today that happens with illegal aliens who have no citizenship rights. Minorities get the worst of it but workers in general will get screwed.
While snoopy started this racism tilt...you have taken it off the charts with an incredibly racially charged statement...with little to warrant it from the article.
Snoopy at least claimed it was a subtle hint of racism. If it makes you feel better to blow off that incredible amount of racial bilge...que sera sera.
Hey leave Pearlene alone-- in her life it probably has been racial. My only point is that what this guy is saying is far broader and more insidious-- and not as easy to dismiss. You hear this kind of stuff all the time and that's the problem, this economic royalist, true believer crap.
Wes, Snoopy didn't start ANY racism tilt!
When I was growing up, there were Black children who didn't go to school when I did, they had to work that White man's farm. Now I'm sure you'll find the term "White man's farm" somewhat racist, but check out your African American history and you'll find that's a common phrase to describe what poor Black folks did. Working that farm provided food, cloths and a place to sleep. These children worked from sun up to sun down. During that time anyone who owned land was considered rich. Besides my own, I know of one other African American family that owned land. If Quinn go his wish, and we went back to the time when only landowners voted, WHO do you think would be voting?
When Quinn decides that he longs for the days when only landowners could vote, I can only assume that he's wishing to go back when the majority of land owners were White. When Quinn say "poor folks need to step up to the plate" he damn sure wasn't taking to White folks.
So the next time you see a comment from me that you consider "racial bilge", do yourself a favor, skip it,
It a conspiracy man!
Although Racism may be a/the foundation for this line of thought today it really is Class discrimination more than anything else. If you are the Landed Gentry you have a say in gov't if your not, well then, you smelly Prole/Serf go sit in a pile of slops.
Frightening to think that anyone media/news related is even discussing this. Sounds like "Hey ! Lets bring this back...what a grand idea!" . On the other hand it shows where a certain mindset is and is probably the base cause of American Prole/Serfs being kept where they are.
That line of thinking sees everyone without property has thieves.
I would think it very unlikely that this country would ever revert to that type of societal thinking because the implosion of the people by the people would blow us out of the Western Hemisphere. But really who knows? There is plenty that happens here that people complain about and then they just get used to it.
But never say never....
Block the Vote
Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. & GREG PALAST
Posted Oct 30, 2008 11:10 AM
These days, the old west rail hub of Las Vegas, New Mexico, is little more than a dusty economic dead zone amid a boneyard of bare mesas. In national elections, the town overwhelmingly votes Democratic: More than 80 percent of all residents are Hispanic, and one in four lives below the poverty line. On February 5th, the day of the Super Tuesday caucus, a school-bus driver named Paul Maez arrived at his local polling station to cast his ballot. To his surprise, Maez found that his name had vanished from the list of registered voters, thanks to a statewide effort to deter fraudulent voting. For Maez, the shock was especially acute: He is the supervisor of elections in Las Vegas.
Maez was not alone in being denied his right to vote. On Super Tuesday, one in nine Democrats who tried to cast ballots in New Mexico found their names missing from the registration lists. The numbers were even higher in precincts like Las Vegas, where nearly 20 percent of the county's voters were absent from the rolls. With their status in limbo, the voters were forced to cast "provisional" ballots, which can be reviewed and discarded by election officials without explanation. On Super Tuesday, more than half of all provisional ballots cast were thrown out statewide.
• Video: Behind the Story With Kennedy Jr. and Palast
Snoopy, thanks.
Here's a related link to the voter suppression campaign of the GOP.
"The right-wing attack against ACORN and its voter registration drive is based on clear falsehoods and is the latest chapter in a history of deliberate voter suppression orchestrated by the right, according to this video released by Brave New Films."
First, you do not "enfranchise" any voter as the article states. Every citizen has the right to vote provided they are not felons. It is their responsibility to register themselves to vote. While I do applaud what groups like ACORN are doing it is highly dubios the amount fo fradulent registrations they had. And the fact that most of their registrations were Democrat makes it highly more dubious. While it may not amount to "voter fraud" it certainly shows a broken system that needs to be revamped.
Second, I shouldn't have written first becasue that was my only point.
Why don't you cite for us the amount of fraudulent registrations and how many of those registrants actually cast a vote? Or, you can STFU with your baseless allegations about fraud because I don't think any Republican has any credibility when it comes to election integrity.
First, why be so hostile to someone who is trying to have a discussion based on the facts? I have done nothing to insult you and never claimed to be a Republican. I am Independent and my vote is being cast for Bob Barr.
Second, no one knows the exact number of fraudulent voter registrations, yet, the following article does confirm that a majority of registrations ACORN has submitted have be Democrat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3219310/FBI-investigates-voter-registration-fraud-allegations.html
Third, I know there is a difference between registering and actually casting a ballot. If they broke the law in submitting fals registrations they should of course be brought to justice. All I did say was that this situation shows that an otherwise good idea was implemented poorly and needs to be revised so this sort of thing does not happen again. In fact in the following link you will see where this exact thing has aleready been found in the course of investigating ACORN, they lacked proper oversight:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html
Spare me the plea of innocence, loc. You call liberals socialists and you want civility? Go climb a rope. And I can say I'm barely surprised that you have dumped your Republican affiliation, I mean Republicans suck. I don't blame you for calling yourself independent, but how independent can an ultra-conservative be?
I'm still telling you to STFU with your slanders, you have provided no data that supports your accusation that massive fraud is being committed. The Telegragraph link details no hard fact and Fact Check, confirms that McCain has overstated his claims of fraud. So, stfu until you bring some facts.
The telegraph simply confirms that there is an investigation but that's all it says.
Here's what Fact Check says
Summary The McCain-Palin campaign accuses ACORN, a community activist group that operates nationwide, of perpetrating "massive voter fraud." It says Obama has “long and deep” ties to the group. We find both claims to be exaggerated. But we also find Obama has understated the extent of his work with the group.
I never called liberals socialist. In facy socialism isnt even mentioned in the post we are discussing. I was never a Republican, but that doesn't fit into your narrow view of things.
You aparently didn't read past the summary of the the Fact Check page. It confirms investigations and confirms that they lacked proper oversight. All I ever said was the system needed to be revamped.
I do not care that most of their trgistrations are Democrat, if that is how people want to vote.
And while ACORn has never faced Federal charges check out of few of these easily Googled cases:
12 ACORN workers were indicted on fraud charges in 2006 whebn 40 % of their 35,000 registrations in Kansas City and St. Louis were found to be fraudulent.
ACORN paid $25,000 in a settlement in 2006 for allegations in King County Washington.
You're going to have to substantiate that claim about the 12 ACORN workers because I googled that stuff and followed the Fact Check link and found no such information.
And I did read the Fact Check article.I read sentences like, "There's no evidence of any such democracy-destroying fraud."
"But so far ACORN itself has not been officially charged with any fraud."
"Satterberg: [A] joint federal and state investigation has determined that this
scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.
Instead, the defendants cheated their employer, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN), to get paid for work they did not actually perform."
See, all this Fact Check article does is state what we already know. That actual voter fraud is extremely rare and that the perpetrators of registration fraud who worked for ACORN were dealt with through the legal system.
So I disagree with you that the ACORN system needs to be revamped, it is well monitored and does good work.
The real problem is that conservatives are terrified of poor and minority voters because the ignored and the exploited know damn well that Republican policy has no real intention of bringing broad prosperity to them.
First, it is not the Government's job or within it's ability to bring prosperity to anyone. Read the Constitution it's powers and focus are very limited.
Second, you keep ignoring the following part from the Fact Check article:
"The $8-an-hour employees were charged with providing false information on voter registration forms, and in one case with making a false statement to a public official. Five of the seven who were charged pleaded guilty. ACORN was fined for exercising insufficient oversight, but it was not charged with masterminding any kind of deliberate fraud."
"Whelan told us that ACORN's national management staff trains local directors and travels extensively to supervise offices, but the 2007 Washington state prosecution makes it clear that quality control is lacking in at least some outposts. Prosecutor Satterberg wrote: "We believe that ACORN’s internal quality control procedures were not just deficient but entirely non-existent when it came to the latter stages of their operation in Tacoma." He fined the group $25,000 for failing to exercise sufficient oversight."OR
I am not saying the greater group ACORN did anything wrong. I am saying that based on the evidence they need to rexamine their methods so hopefully this sort of thing won't happen again. I am all for as many people as possible voting, and if they want to vote Democrat, which I have done before, then so be it. My post are not being partisan in any way. I have no fear of people voting.
That's fine, that's all you had to do. Put up a good case for yourself, that's all I ask. We may be in some agreement here, I would love to see ACORN do a better job with their local offices if for no other reason to shut up the right wing liars.
As for, "First, it is not the Government's job or within it's ability to bring prosperity to anyone. Read the Constitution it's powers and focus are very limited."
Oh really? It's not their obligation to insure safe food and clean water? You can't propser if you can't live free from sickness.
It's not their obligation to enforce contracts and consumer protection? You can't prosper if you're being swindled.
It is indeed the job of government to set the rules of the road that ensure fairness and opportunity, hence prosperity.
The Government's job is to provide the opportunities for people to be succesful. Unfortunatly, this sometimes requires them to not be involved at all which is a lesson they have yet to learn.
A lesson we have yet to lear as a nation is to stop seperating Government into a wholy seperate entity. The Government is the people, we are the Government. The sooner we all wake up and realize that the better this nation will be.
The Preamble to the Constitution says that one of the purposes of the government being established is to 'promote the general welfare."
Taxation is written into the Constitution, so redistribution of wealth is enshrined therein--with no restrictions as to where it goes.
And It's not within the ability of the government to ring prosperity to anyone? Defense contractors? Myriads of government employees? Senators? The government brings prosperity to an awful lot of people.
The "general welfare" needs to be taken in context of the document as a whole. And if you read the entire document it in no way supports the massive socialization that has happened in America over the last 60 years.
To say redistribution of wealth is implied it idiocy. The only point of taxes is to run the government and fund wars.
I didn't say it wasn;t in the government's ability to bring wealth to certain individuals. I said it eas not there job.
Stand by your words you sissy. Down thread you're comparing liberal policy to socialism. That's what I'm talking about. You don't get to come here, spout bs and get away with it.
"All I ever said was the system needed to be revamped."
Spineless liar. You said more than that.
You said: "While I do applaud what groups like ACORN are doing it is highly dubios the amount fo fradulent registrations they had. And the fact that most of their registrations were Democrat makes it highly more dubious."
Aside from the implication that a group affiliated with Democratic voter registration is not to be trusted, you made the baseless assertion that ACORN has perpetrated a substantial amount of registration fraud. Stop being a coward already and stand by what you say
Again with the name calling and hostility. It is unecessary and just make you look dumb. It makes it seem that your arguments have little merrit so you feel you have to resort to those tactics to win. I feel sorry for you.
That post referring to socialism is seperate from this post and in response to a post by congero6189599 and in no where in my post do I compare liberals to socialist.
I have stood by what I said. It is suspicious when known fraud occurs that most of it seems to be down a party line.
I look dumb? More like you look thin skinned and have nothing of quality to offer as counterpoint, so you skulk about being outed as a backslider.
Then you have the gall to play stupid. Don't try to tell me you weren't trying to link liberalism to socialism. You're rejoinder to congero's impassioned post on progressive values was "socialism does not..."
Then you tried to slink away from congero by saying, but but but but you said socialism first. Please, kid. You know that congero was blasting the wingnuts who call us socialists.
After metioning Socialism in his post he made a false assertion about it. I simply pointed this out. No where in my post do I compare liberals to Socialist. This is a fantasy that apparently have deluded yourself into believing is reality.
"the following article does confirm that a majority of registrations ACORN has submitted have be Democrat."
Big whoop, they have endorsed Obama. If you want to talk about shady characters, look at this Sprouls guy McCain has hired. Sprouls is the same cat who instructed his canvassers to throw away Democratic registration cards in Nevada in the 2004 presidential election. So I'm not prepared to be lectured about election integrity by a so called 'independent' who has only manufactured anxiety over a liberal community organization but is blind to actual conservative sleazology.
I never said I was blind to conservative tactics. I only used ACORN as an example because it was in the news recently.
Bullcrap. Sprouls has made news recently as he is a recent hire of McCain's. You're a partisan liar.
But he has not made the news lately has having purpurtrated recent fraud. And it might be mentioned that while ACORn employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud Sprouls has never been convicted.
I made sure my vote counted - I voted today at the county's "Early Voting" office. It took about a half-hour, but I know my vote will count.
Took me all of 10 minutes. I spent more time trying to get past the jack@sses who demanded to know if I was voting for McCain. I'm glad the cops showed up.
Took me all of 10 minutes. I spent more time trying to get past the jack@sses who demanded to know if I was voting for McCain. I'm glad the cops showed up.
Snoopy -
A few questions, if you please:
Were those lowlifes blocking access to the polling place?
Were they only allowing McCain supporters through?
Were they arrested?
If so, was the local media contacted???
Yeah Snoop, what is the complete story behind that?
It appeared they were trying to block access to Obama supporters though you couldn't make the claim outright. They demanded to see voter registration cards and tried to turn away anyone who didn't have one which is illegal because you can just show a valid ID here. They did ask who I was voting for, I told them none o' their effing business. Someone else must have called the cops though. I doubt the media was contacted, I got the impression it was the polling place that placed the call and they just wanted to end it pretty darn quick.
Very interesting. Talk about trying to disuade voters from going to the polls. Nice tactics they're using there. I would prefer to think that this was a single instance of this happening, and just by a couple of yahoos, but, it seems to be happening more and more...
But everytime you hear about it there is no evidence offered to support it.
Took me all of 10 minutes. I spent more time trying to get past the jack@sses who demanded to know if I was voting for McCain. I'm glad the cops showed up.
Is there actually electioneering going on? Or protesting? Where is this?
In 40 years of election-watching I have never once heard of protesters at the polls-- a whole new low.
It's going to be a fun election night watching this stuff--
Elitist prig. Just let our betters tell us how to live and what is good for us, I mean after all, that thin minority of the landed gentry can be counted on to vote the interests of every man, woman and child, right?
Like it or not, Quinn, we all have a stake in the future and a voice in the effort to form a more perfect union.
Consider the opposite for a minute. What if the wealthy were refused the right to vote? It's not so far fetched a notion once you realize that the have mores have been redistributing upward for decades, without a drop of compunction, the wealth that we produce. Through union busting, wage suppression, subsidized commodities and shifted tax burden to the have littles, they have been voting to capture the fundamental properties of prosperity of the struggling class for the further aggrandizement of the narrow self interests of the leisure class.
You need to chill out, Quinn, you crypto-fascist pig.
Very true. I've heard this bs from the right for years. Whenever an election doesn't go their way. And they have the nerve to call liberals elitist.
Just let our betters tell us how to live and what is good for us, I mean after all, that thin minority of the landed gentry can be counted on to vote the interests of every man, woman and child, right?---RH
They'd hoard their power by doing whatever they could (institutional discrimination) to prevent others from being able to acquire enough wealth to buy property and join their club.
I guess the logical conclusion to this low life's theory is that McCain should get 8 (or more) votes because he owns so many houses.
Unfortunately for the McCain supporters, trailers will only count as a half vote.
Woo-hoo! That means my double-wide will count as a whole vote! Woot!
And that was only a little insulting to mobile-home dwelling liberals.
;')
king,
What am I missing today? Was there a full moon? Something in the water?
First pearlene weighs in with an uncalled for white hot rant on racism...and now you follow up with your "republicans are trailer trash" wise crack.
Whatever it is...I hope it's temporary and not an epidemic.
Whatever, Wes. At least according to Sarah, those trailer dwellers live in the pro-America parts of the country. I think they can handle a little barb from an anti-American, East Coast Viet Nam vet.
Pay no attention to me Wes. My comment wasn't directed at you, but at those who listen to idiots like Quinn, Bachmann, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, O'Reilly etc.
I sick to fu_king death of being called un-American, un-patriotic, a coward, a traitor, a socialist, a communist, a phoney soldier and every other stereo-type that the right has thrown out there as red meat for their base.
After putting up with this crap since I cast my first presidential vote in 1972, I'm at the point that I'm going to start giving it right back.
I getcha king...no offense was taken.
It seems to me that a lot of people's tempers are getting shorter as this charade of a presidential campaign stumbles toward the finish line and thank god for that.
I made my peace with the whole mess two days ago...when I cast my presidential vote. Obama was way too liberal to ever get any serious consideration for my vote. Yet, after watching McCain over these long torturous campaign months...I finally concluded that he offered very little support to my conservative point of view.
So I did my duty and cast my vote...writing in the names of two good friends...washed my hands...and slept like a log.
Who were your write-ins, wes? Smith and Wesson? ;)
No...but they would have been just as appropriate as the two that I used...
"Obama was way too liberal to ever get any serious consideration for my vote."
Give me a break, Obama, as a liberal, is weak tea compared to Roosevelt.
"So I did my duty and cast my vote...writing in the names of two good friends."
Typical coward move. Even though you wasted your time voting for nothing, I bet you will still be the first to complain about the next president. Good for you. You could have at least had the nerve to send a message to your ridiculous Republican Party that you'd had enough of their "conciliations" and voted for Obama.
Next time you want to b***h about the president, do what you did in the voting booth, just don't bother.
King, you are not far off. If you note the stations that this "Dubious Duo of Dumbness" filter their nonsense through you will see that the TrailerRepublicans (RITO's) are their biggest fans.
But none of this matters, Gov. St. Palin has left the election in the hands of God and expects Him to do the right thing on November 4. When President Obama wins, Gov. Palin will welcome him with open arms because God made the proper choice. I wonder if Radio Rosie will agree with God....or will she say that God is testing her? Who gives a rats behind what this pseudo-Christian thinks..
And Quinn, all you do is read what others write or spout hate. Try having a dialogue with some callers for a few hours--you may learn something. ********For those that know the area..I was in Hollidaysburg, Pa. today and someone had a cut-out of Obama in their front yard...and it was still there hours later. And McCain thinks he has a chance.
Slaves were not considered human beings so they would not have been eligible to vote anyway it took amendments to the constitution for this to happen ...remember? The thrust of this having property to vote was so that power could be held by the propertied in this 'new' democracy. The founders were actually afraid of "WE THE PEOPLE", and althought they spoke about inalieable rights and liberty and justice for all we all know that those rights had to be fought and bleed for just like the now defunct 8 hour work day. Civil rights ,workers rights, womens rights weren't given to us , and today despite Baracks historic journey hard won "rights" are under attack and threatened. It is no joke that we are now "red-baiting" canidates, questioning patriotism, and calling for investigations into who is "anti-American." Progressive tax plan is called "socialist.?????" John McCain and the conservatives represent that segment of our "American" history that fear the common man having power or rights that would threaten their hold on power. The fight today is to make the words of our preamble "WE THE PEOPLE" a reality , a government for all the people not just those with wealth and property.
True that, congero. Well put.
Socialism does not level the playing field. It does not give the common man more say in the government goings on. In fact only in our Representative republic with a Capitalist based economy does the common man have the most say in how things run.
Socialism allows the lite an powerful to use the government as a tool to subjegate the rest of the citizenry. Look at Venezuela, heck look at Britain the CCTV capitol of the world.
insanelok where in the hell in my post did I say anything about "socialism?" My words...The fight today is to make the words of our preamble "WE THE PEOPLE" a reality , a government for all the people not just those with wealth and property...I don't need any lectures about socialism from you. It's truly amazing to me how you could view making this government more representative for the working man and those without power could be viewed by you as something hostile and to be feared????? But then your tag says it all INSANE!
Since he is affiliated with the Party ideology, maybe Loki could give us a treatise on fascism and totalitarianism?
The exact quote from your post was:
"Progressive tax plan is called "socialist.?????" John McCain and the conservatives represent that segment of our "American" history that fear the common man having power or rights that would threaten their hold on power."
I was merely pointing out that while Socialism is a good idea on paper, it has one basic flaw and that is it does not take into account GREED.
Insane the quote you use from my scribe is not talking about socialism. If you read that sentence in context I was talking about how ridiculos it is to mischaracterize Sen. Obamas tax plan AS "socialism," and how McCain was using red-baiting and dogwhistle terminlogy to scare people,and how he represents a powerful segment of American history and society that has always fought against the interest of working and poor people.
But it does talk about Socialism. In that nationalizing anything or in Obama's case getting us close to nationalization, which his health care plan does, is a Socialist policy.
In fact healtcare is solely a State issue since it is not granted as a power to the Federal Government in the Constitution. So to implement a Federal plan like Obama or McCain are suggesting is unconstitutional.
Plus after metioning Socialism you seem to suggest that it gives the common more power.
Hey Quinn
If you are going to "quote" the founding fathers try to get your facts straight They left the requirements to vote up to the states, there is nothing in the Constitution about voting till the 14 and 15 Amendments.
In fact you shot your own argument down, women could own property but could not vote.
Hmmm, this sounds a little "elitist" to me.
Especially when you consider where these same Neoconservatives want electoral franchise limited solely to white male European-American Low Church Christians owning real property On Free and Clear Title.
(As in fully paid for, without any sort of mortgage, lien or encumberance.)
Hmmm, wonder why this guy isn't running for republican anymore? His views are fitting right in there...
I tried to clip Hannity last night, but he's a friend with an unrepentant Neo Nazi named Hal Turner
By John Amato Wednesday Oct 22, 2008 2:15pmI was going to make a video from Hannity and Colmes last night about Biden's remark, but it was so disgusting that I couldn't do it. Hey Sean, how's the white supremacist Hal Turner doing? He's your pal and has his own radio show because of you...Say hi for me will you?
The Nation did a feature on it.
After you read the rest of the article there's still more. Jason Linkins has a little something extra. And Dave first reported on the Hannity-Turner connection back in 2005.
"Given that one of the causes of the American Revolution was an unjust tax, the founders understood very well that taxation could become a way for one group to prey on another group. "
Yeah, Quinn, in fact that unjust tax was being levied upon the disenfranchised peasants by the wealthy land owners you so sycophantically defend.
Originally, if you didn't have sense, you didn't broadcast, and there was a good reason for it.
I write this as a non-land owner myself
While I do not agree with the assertion that you need to be a land owner to vote. I do agree with the notion that if you do not own land you have no buisness voting on bills that would tax land owners.
When it comes to representation and such then yes everyone should be able to and should vote. But when it comes to levying taxes on property for this or that project it should be up to the people who would have to pay those taxes as to whether or not they should have to. Because if you don't own land it is real easy fro you to justify taxing those who do more.
Furthermore I view any form of property tax to be an insult to the American Dream. Part of which is owning a patch of land to call your own. But now if you don't pay the property taxes then your land can get taken away and given to someone else. Sounds more like your paying rent than actually owning anything. Property rights are the rights that have been silently stripped away from every citizen of this country, and no one seems to care.
I write this as a non-land owner myself... I do agree with the notion that if you do not own land you have no buisness voting on bills that would tax land owners.
So you're willing to let those who are doing much better than you are shift their tax burden to you, and you don't want any say in it? Interesting.
No what I am saying is that if those projects are truly worth doing they can find another way of financing it. property owners should not get stuck with a tax burden that they as a majority may not want.
It would not shift the tax burden on non land owners because the bills would simply not pass then there would be no new tax for anyone. If they found another way of taxing to fund the bill then land owners and non land owners would be hit equally, that is the fair thing to do.
You have to consider the benefit to the land owner that said project will or, will not provide. Beyond that, the unfettered, the renters have as much a stake in maintaining infrastructure and drawing business to an area as the landowners. I mean get over it, we are all in this together and if you don't like the concept that all men are created equal, you can start a petition to strike that language from our historical documents. The simple fact of the matter is, that in America, the landowner is no more privileged than the renter.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. But the fact is when it comes to property taxes we are not equal. Some get stuck with the tax burden while others get the benefit without having to pay the tax.
Huh? Explain yourself.
If you own property you are paying property taxes voted in, in part, by those who do not own property and do not have to pay it. It is a fairly obvios assertion.
Whereas if they instituted a sales tax, or a city tax, etc. it would hot everyone equally.
Renters pay property tax. They just pay the landlord's property tax.
Doyou believe that someone who owns an apartment building, who adjusts the rents so that all the property tax is paid for, as well as maintenance and in some cases utilities, and adds a chunk for profit, deserve to have the vote , while the people who pay the money that supports the government should not?
You can make the argument of cost being passed down the line for a myriad of things but the fact is the name on the tax forms isn't the people who live in the rented spaces. They are not the ones responsible if the taxes don't get paid. I did not say that that renters should have no vote.i am simply saying that uses property taxes to fund projects is unfair to to property owners when non porperty owners can outnumber them and force them to pay. There needs to be a better way of funding projects found that hits people more equally.
Mean-spirited has nothing to do with it and neither does racism...it’s just easier to buy votes with the promise of taxfunded handouts, than to actually explain political policy in detail. Too bad the massive personal irresponsibility created by government dependency doesn’t actually create the promised utopia. But that’s what the media is for...to make sure the adverse results of socialist tax and squander are deceitfully attributed to “capitalism.”
AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!
Crooked politicians and other problems are a symptom of the greater disease of voter apathy.
Some things these clowns left out are very important to remembering back to "the good old days". Only Rich WHITE, land owning MEN of the Christian faith could vote. No blacks, Latinos, no women, no non-Christians.
Wow. Quinn is almost as dumb as Glenn Beck.