Fixed that one for you. Though what his elk has to do with anything I'm sure I can't say.
Of course we're all for limited freedom when it comes down to brass, the argument is all about degree.
why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
genuineoriginal
New member
You are such a deer.
History seems to show that the common man will always be ruled by the elite.
To me, the only question is how do we ensure that the rulers will be good and look out for our best interests.
I believe that the founding fathers of the United States examined this issue with a lot more care and concern than anyone in our age is doing, since they were in the process of founding a new country with that goal in mind.
So the answer is "no.":yawn:
You do, I have to admit, make a decent point: The elites always seem to rise, and never really go away.
Caledvwlch
New member
It's because they're better than us, G-Funk. You can tell because they have lots of money.
Ah yes. The surest way to see if you're favored by the almighty is your bank balance.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, I just woke up one morning and on a whim decided to think I was not satisfied with Western politics...
lain: Though to actually answer your question, as opposed to you still not answering mine for the third time of asking then yes, I have and here's a brief overview:
I'm cynical in regards to politics in the West due to the amount of influence exerted by corporate big business and banking over decision making processes. I'm tired of politicians 'elaborate' rhetoric and their tendency to target the vulnerable and less well off in society where it comes to 'financial cuts' whereas at the same time the tycoons and 'fat cats' are sitting on wages that per annum would make a semi responsible average person set for life if he had one years worth of the same. The same would go for unfair taxes in regards to those who work and are not on the bread line as well. I'm sick of the corruption, hypocrisy and double standards, the lies where it comes to 'pledges' only to be dissolved while in power with excuse after excuse as to how they couldn't be maintained - usually because of a previous rival administration - need I go on?
Now, how about you actually answer my question. Should those who can't afford to buy property outright but want to invest long term in a 'community' via mortgage be allowed to have a vote and a voice or not?
genuineoriginal
New member
Your feelings seem to closely match mine.No, I just woke up one morning and on a whim decided to think I was not satisfied with Western politics...
Though to actually answer your question, as opposed to you still not answering mine for the third time of asking then yes, I have and here's a brief overview:
I'm cynical in regards to politics in the West due to the amount of influence exerted by corporate big business and banking over decision making processes. I'm tired of politicians 'elaborate' rhetoric and their tendency to target the vulnerable and less well off in society where it comes to 'financial cuts' whereas at the same time the tycoons and 'fat cats' are sitting on wages that per annum would make a semi responsible average person set for life if he had one years worth of the same. The same would go for unfair taxes in regards to those who work and are not on the bread line as well. I'm sick of the corruption, hypocrisy and double standards, the lies where it comes to 'pledges' only to be dissolved while in power with excuse after excuse as to how they couldn't be maintained - usually because of a previous rival administration - need I go on?
You do realize that mortgages are the way corporate big business and banking have stolen property from Americans, right?
Your support of mortgages is support of shady corporate big business and banking practices.
But, to answer your question, Yes, we should accept the pretense that the mortgagor (borrower) is the legal owner of the property instead of the mortgagee (lender), and as the legal owner of property the mortgagor would have voting rights.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, okay then but if you agree that the poor and less well off in society are targeted where it comes to budget cuts then why would you deny them a voice?
Where did I say I supported how the mortgage system works? My next door neighbour has been paying off hers for 30+ years but it was her only option to 'buy' property as she didn't have multiple tens of thousands of pounds to buy it outright, like most people who aren't 'filthy rich'. What would be your solution and how would it be viable in todays economic climate?
But why are you reducing voting rights to just those who have mortgages or are lucky enough to have enough money to buy property on the spot? For some people who work it's more viable to rent accommodation for all manner of reasons, and why should those on benefits/welfare be denied the same simply because their bank balance doesn't resemble Bill Gates'? Your whole premise rests on voting rights = wealthy - or wealthy enough. How is that either just or fair?
genuineoriginal
New member
Have you heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
The poor and less well off are stuck in the physiological (food, water, clothing, shelter) and safety layers.
As such, their votes are cast without any consideration for any of the higher levels.
By limiting the voting rights to property owners, the voters are presumed to have reached the third level, belonging, which involves having a sense of community.
See my response above.
Morpheus
New member
C'mon now. If Jesus were alive today he wouldn't deserve a right to vote. As a sojourner (transient) what possible sense of community could he have. All right-wing Christians know that he cared nothing about the people around him because his sense of self-preservation prevented it. As Jesus said in the book of Rand 2:374, "Thou shalt look out for number one, lest the least of these steal thine own hard-earned wages through redistribution.
An itinerant jack of all trades without a house. The original couch surferr. A bum who was a civil disobeyer.
That kind of guy I'd actually respect.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, that was about the most pompous and condescending "reason" for denying the less well off the vote. You may as well apply for a job in a merchant bank. You'd fit right in, if you're not already there as it is...
lain:EDIT: You also didn't address any viable solution whereby mortgages can be done away with.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
Was Bin Laden wrong for doing what he did? Of course he was. I shouldn't really have to say that, for it should be obvious, but just in case I want to be clear here.
But Bin Laden was not a mindless monster who just killed people because he wanted to see blood shed. He had reasons for what he did. And once you realize that, its really hard to just wave your flags and advocate brutally torturing people.
The CIA agents who tortured defenseless people, some of whom hadn't even engaged in terrorism, are "the vile" just as Bin Laden is. And even more hypocritcal. Bin Laden never claimed to support liberty.
Americans act like the US was just sitting there and minding its own business when "those vile terrorists" attacked us. Its more complex than that.
Michael Scheuer supports the interrogation techniques because he thinks they will save American lives. He is not ideologically driven and his goal is solely to save Americans. Yet he will tell you this as well. Because its true.
It is not Christian to support torturing people. That doesn't require siding with "the vile"...
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I'd be for not letting non-property owners vote. Voting isn't a real right. Real rights involve the ability to keep your own life, liberty and property. Voting is too often a means to take those things from other people.
And, I don't have property, so I wouldn't be allowed to vote if that were implemented. I'd still be OK with it. If we must have a system where money is forcibly taken from people, the least we can do is limit the decision of what to do to that money to those who are actually paying it.
And, I don't have property, so I wouldn't be allowed to vote if that were implemented. I'd still be OK with it. If we must have a system where money is forcibly taken from people, the least we can do is limit the decision of what to do to that money to those who are actually paying it.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The founding fathers had it right, and the voting laws should have remained as originally written.
IMO, women should never have been given the vote, either.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I privately hold that view as well, though I don't usually share it. I don't mean any disrespect to those women who do seriously think through the issues before voting, but women do tend to be more emotional. That's a biological fact. That doesn't mean women are "inferior." Compassion and sympathy are incredibly important. But "mom culture" is bad for politics and always will be.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Also keep in mind that voting was not as important in the founding society as it is today. Modern, 2015 Americans think of democracy as the ultimate in freedom, but this was not the case in the founding generation. They wanted to avoid tyranny, not to let you pick your tyranny. If government were strictly limited from taking any compulsory taxes of ten percent or higher (or better yet "any compulsory taxes" full stop) and was prohibited from enforcing any laws except to protect individuals and their property, voting would not be that important, and we could all enjoy our liberty.
Yeah, it's a right. That's what people like you don't understand.
republicanchick
New member
that goes w/o saying (knowing you... knowing libs)
only problem: Jesus was not a bum just b/c he was "homeless" ... transient