why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I see you haven't learned to use that thing under your hat for anything but holding your hat up.

I see you have nothing but a lame little insult as response. Disenfranchising people based on lack of money makes you nothing short of a blowhard and a snob.

Oh, and just where is the line where someone counts as not wealthy enough to be allowed to vote?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
GO writes:
It is complete ignorance on your part to think that anyone has a voice with the current voting system.

Barbarian asks:
So it's your argument that it made no difference whether Carter or Reagan won? Or is it your argument that it didn't matter who got the most votes?

GO changes his story:
I am saying that it didn't matter whether YOU voted for Democrat, Republican, or third party in the last three presidential elections because YOUR informed vote was swallowed up in the morass of uninformed votes.

That's not what you said the first time. You aren't a very honest person, are you?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I see you have nothing but a lame little insult as response. Disenfranchising people based on lack of money makes you nothing short of a blowhard and a snob.

Oh, and just where is the line where someone counts as not wealthy enough to be allowed to vote?

It is not wealth that I used as the dividing line.
It is how much of a committment a person has in a community.
People that own property have a greater committment to the community they live in than people that do not own property.

When you consider that it typically costs 10% more to rent a house than to pay the monthly payments to buy the same house, it is clearly not about money, since the people renting are spending more money for their residences than the people that buy property, over a greater number of years.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You aren't a very honest person, are you?
I am a very honest person.

Your projection of your own dishonesty onto others is very telling indeed.

Here is what I said:
It is complete ignorance on your part to think that anyone has a voice with the current voting system.
You were unable to comprehend it, so you asked for an example that would help you to comprehend it.
So it's your argument that it made no difference whether Carter or Reagan won? Or is it your argument that it didn't matter who got the most votes?
Rather than answer your question that had nothing to do with my statement whatsoever, I restated my original statement with specific details about your voting history.
I am saying that it didn't matter whether YOU voted for Democrat, Republican, or third party in the last three presidential elections because YOUR informed vote was swallowed up in the morass of uninformed votes.
As you should have seen in the last three presidential elections, you (just like anyone else that voted) did not actually have a voice in the current voting system.
 

Daniel1611

New member
It doesn't matter who gets the most votes. Whoever the owners want to win will "win." The oligarchy wanted Obama, so they got Obama. Next time they will probably switch to another party so the fools continue to believe they have a choice. But the policies will remain the same regardless of who "wins." So-called "democracy" is a sham.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes;
You aren't a very honest person, are you? Your projection of your own dishonesty onto others is very telling indeed.

GO writes:
It is complete ignorance on your part to think that anyone has a voice with the current voting system.

Barbarian asks:
So it's your argument that it made no difference whether Carter or Reagan won? Or is it your argument that it didn't matter who got the most votes?

Clearly, the voters made a choice, and it had a huge effect on the direction our nation took.

GO changes the story, again:
I am saying that it didn't matter whether YOU voted for Democrat, Republican, or third party in the last three presidential elections because YOUR informed vote was swallowed up in the morass of uninformed votes.

And we each had a say in which way it went. Whether or not you regard Reagan's election as the result of ignorant people voting for him, is immaterial. They had the decisive say in who would be our next leader.

As you should have seen in the last three presidential elections, you (just like anyone else that voted) did not actually have a voice in the current voting system.

Mitt Romney might disagree with you. Millions of people decided that Obama would be a better president. And so he won again.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
It is not wealth that I used as the dividing line.
It is how much of a committment a person has in a community.
People that own property have a greater committment to the community they live in than people that do not own property.

When you consider that it typically costs 10% more to rent a house than to pay the monthly payments to buy the same house, it is clearly not about money, since the people renting are spending more money for their residences than the people that buy property, over a greater number of years.

So your yardstick is whether someone rents or buys a property?! There's a myriad reasons why people rent instead of investing in a property and they're not all to do with lacking an abundance of capital. You're all over the place.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
And if voting doesn't matter, why is GO so all-fired eager to take the right to vote away from most Americans?

There's an agenda here, and he's not willing to be open about it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
You lied.

GO doubles down:
I did not and if you had any integrity you would admit it.

So why do you duck and run whenever I tell you to show where I said illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote? Do you think no one notices?

The longer you deny what you did, the more people will know. Which is fine with me.
 

zoo22

Well-known member

REAL PROPERTY, That which consists of land, and of all rights and profits arising from and annexed to land, of a permanent, immovable nature. In order to make one's interest in land, real estate, it must be an interest not less than for the party's life, because a term of years, even for a thousand years, perpetually renewable, is a mere personal estate. 3 Russ. R. 376. It is usually comprised under the words lands, tenements, and hereditaments. Real property is corporeal, or incorporeal.
2. Corporeal consists wholly of substantial, permanent objects, which may all be comprehended under the general denomination of land. There are some chattels which are so annexed to the inheritance, that they are deemed a part of it, and are called heir looms. (q.v.) Money agreed or directed to be laid out in land is considered as real estate. Newl. on Contr. chap. 3; Fonb. Eq. B. 1, c. 6, Sec. 9; 3 Wheat. Rep. 577.
3. Incorporeal property, consists of certain inheritable rights, which are not, strictly speaking, of a corporeal nature, or land, although they are by their own nature or by use, annexed to corporeal inheritances, and are rights issuing out of them, or which concern them. These distinctions agree with the civil law. Just. Inst. 2, 2; Poth. Traite de la Communaute, part 1, c. 2, art. 1. The incorporeal hereditaments which subsist by the laws of the several states are fewer than those recognized by the English law. In the United States, there are fortunately no advowsons, tithes, nor dignities, as inheritances.
4. The most common incorporeal hereditaments, are, 1. Commons. 2. Ways. 3. Offices. 4. Franchises. 5. Rents. For authorities of what is real or personal property, see 8 Com. Dig. 564; 1 Vern. Rep. by Raithby, 4, n.; 2 Kent, Com. 277; 3 Id. 331; 4 Watts' R. 341; Bac. Ab. Executors, H 3; 1 Mass. Dig. 394; 5 Mass. R. 419, and the references under the article Personal property, (q.v.) and Property. (q.v.)
5. The principal distinctions between real and personal property, are the following: 1. Real property is of a permanent and immovable nature, and the owner has an estate therein at least for life. 2. It descends from the ancestor to the heir instead of becoming the property of an executor or administrator on the death of the owner, as in case of personalty. 3. In case of alienation, it must in general be made by deed, 5 B. & C. 221, and in presenti by the common law; whereas leases for years may commence in futuro, and personal chattels may be transferred by parol or delivery. 4. Real estate when devised, is subject to the widow's dower personal estate can be given away by will discharged of any claim of the widow.
6. These are some interests arising out of, or connected with real property, which in some respects partake of the qualities of personally; as, for example, heir looms, title deeds, which, though in themselves movable, yet relating to land descend from ancestor to heir, or from a vendor to a purchaser. 4 Bin. 106.
7. It is a maxim in equity, that things to be done will be considered as done, and vice versa. According to this doctrine money or goods will be considered as real property, and land will be treated as personal property. Money directed by a will to be laid out in land is, in equity, considered as land, and will pass by the words "lands, tenements, and hereditaments whatsoever and wheresoever." 3 Bro. C. C. 99; 1 Tho. Co. Litt. 219, n. T.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.​

The good old days! Only thing is that by 1856, some women were starting to be allowed to own property! I told those vile liberals that passing laws letting women own property was the beginning of the end!
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The good old days! Only thing is that by 1856, some women were starting to be allowed to own property! I told those vile liberals that passing laws letting women own property was the beginning of the end!

It's enough to make one start wearing a ridiculous false beard...
 

genuineoriginal

New member
And we each had a say in which way it went. Whether or not you regard Reagan's election as the result of ignorant people voting for him, is immaterial. They had the decisive say in who would be our next leader.
It is amazing that you think that Regan became president in 2004, 2008, or 2012.
Looks like you may need to be checked for senile dementia.
:chuckle:


Millions of people decided
Yes, millions of people decided that your vote wouldn't count.
Your vote was just a drop in the ocean and had no effect.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
So your yardstick is whether someone rents or buys a property?!
Yes.
Someone who buys has made a commitment to be part of a community for an extended period of time.
Someone who rents is only looking at being part of the community for a limited time.

There's a myriad reasons why people rent instead of investing in a property and they're not all to do with lacking an abundance of capital.
It took you long enough to realize that.
:chuckle:
 
Top