View Poll Results: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Republican

    9 39.13%
  • Democracy

    9 39.13%
  • Other (Explain)

    5 21.74%
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 120

Thread: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

  1. #61
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    You know who got us our freedom from Great Britain? It was the wealthy land owners like James Madison and Patrick Henry. It wasn't the bottom feeders of their day that got us our freedom.
    The so called "bottom feeders" died by British bullets and artillary fighting for our freedom.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  2. #62
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    The so called "bottom feeders" died by British bullets and artillary fighting for our freedom.
    As did many of the wealthy people, but it was the wealthy ones that got us to throw off the shackles of British rule. Being in the military, there is no such thing as a rich or poor man, but a man. The service looks at the merits of the individual instead.

  3. #63
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    As did many of the wealthy people, but it was the wealthy ones that got us to throw off the shackles of British rule. Being in the military, there is no such thing as a rich or poor man, but a man. The service looks at the merits of the individual instead.
    Yet you make distinctions on which individuals get to vote based on mere possessions, which inevitably does carve out a HUGE distinction between rich man and poor man, so most assuredly there was, and there would be a huge distinction between a rich man and a poor man in the military.

    We do not have unlimited land that can be just staked out by claiming it anymore, why should a rural recluse in the back woods of West Virginia who along with 6 other cousins inherited a dirt cheap plot of land his trailer sits on from his peepaw have the right to vote while a teacher and a fireman who cannot afford the price of property in NYC would not have the same opportunity?
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  4. #64
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    Yet you make distinctions on which individuals get to vote based on mere possessions, which inevitably does carve out a HUGE distinction between rich man and poor man, so most assuredly there was, and there would be a huge distinction between a rich man and a poor man in the military.

    We do not have unlimited land that can be just staked out by claiming it anymore, why should a rural recluse in the back woods of West Virginia who along with 6 other cousins inherited a dirt cheap plot of land his trailer sits on from his peepaw have the right to vote while a teacher and a fireman who cannot afford the price of property in NYC would not have the same opportunity?
    If the fireman and teacher fail to own property in NYC they do have a choice of where they can live at by moving to a place that does allow them to buy land. The inheritance of land is a red herring since the original intent of this country was to prohibit class warfare. You're using the inheritance thing as a form of class warfare. Besides it's their family's property and they are free to dispose of it as they wish.

  5. #65
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    If the fireman and teacher fail to own property in NYC they do have a choice of where they can live at by moving to a place that does allow them to buy land. The inheritance of land is a red herring since the original intent of this country was to prohibit class warfare. You're using the inheritance thing as a form of class warfare. Besides it's their family's property and they are free to dispose of it as they wish.
    It is not a red herring, we are no longer a largely rural agrarian soceity with land to be had for all, we live in cites, our property is all ultimately on loan from a bank, our soceity lives largely in urban areas and we do not own our land, it is not reasonable, nor rationale to base our voting rights on land ownership, that is the class warfare, a landowner is a higher class citizen, regardless of "contributions" to our society, just because they have property they are of higher status? Of course I am going to use the relative contributions of people living in different environments to highlight how this is not an effective system, nor an effective idea.

    This concept is regressive, and would ultimately lead to a disproportionate representation based on what areas had lower property values, this is no red herring, this is an innate flaw in your concept, our nation has changed in the last 235 years, land is a not anywhere even close to a viable barometer for the right to vote, it is mostly owned by banks and business interests, aside from people who are sedentary and have remained on their familial plot of land for generations, we do not own our land, and just a desire to pick up and move, or to change neighborhoods or to attempt to move up in our soceity and relying on taking out a loan to do so would mean potentially sacrificing the right to vote.

    Talk about tyranny of the few, your idea is horrifically dated, and horrifically flawed
    Last edited by marduc; 07-12-10 at 02:39 AM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  6. #66
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    I'd buy 10 acres, split it up into 1 square inch plots and give them away to every poor, muslim, hispanic, black, gay, or highly educated person in the country just to piss you off.

  7. #67
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'd buy 10 acres, split it up into 1 square inch plots and give them away to every poor, muslim, hispanic, black, gay, or highly educated person in the country just to piss you off.
    I had been entertaining that idea since I first started reading this thread, 1" square plots of land for all!!!
    Last edited by marduc; 07-12-10 at 02:41 AM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  8. #68
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    It is not a red herring, we are no longer a largely rural agrarian soceity with land to be had for all, we live in cites, our property is all ultimately on loan from a bank, our soceity lives largely in urban areas and we do not own our land, it is not reasonable, nor rationale to base our voting rights on land ownership, that is the class warfare, a landowner is a higher class citizen, regardless of "contributions" to our society, just because they have property they are of higher status? Of course I am going to use the relative contributions of people living in different environments to highlight how this is not an effective system, nor an effective idea.

    This concept is regressive, and would ultimately lead to a disproportionate representation based on what areas had lower property values, this is no red herring, this is an innate flaw in your concept, our nation has changed in the last 235 years, land is a not anywhere even close to a viable barometer for the right to vote, it is mostly owned by banks and business interests, aside from people who are sedentary and have remained on their familial plot of land for generations, we do not own our land, and just a desire to pick up and move, or to change neighborhoods or to attempt to move up in our soceity and relying on taking out a loan to do so would mean potentially sacrificing the right to vote.

    Talk about tyranny of the few, your idea is horrifically dated, and horrifically flawed
    If you think that is flawed then explain to me why the US government is the biggest landholder out of anyone in the non-13 original states? There is land to be owned, but the federal government refuses to release it like it was supposed to under the Louisiana Purchase. So yes, being a property owner is still a valid barometer.

  9. #69
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    If you think that is flawed then explain to me why the US government is the biggest landholder out of anyone in the non-13 original states? There is land to be owned, but the federal government refuses to release it like it was supposed to under the Louisiana Purchase. So yes, being a property owner is still a valid barometer.
    It is flawed in part because you are wanting to drive everyone out of established population centers and habitated areas, and push them out to rural areas, to accomplish what? Are we going to abandon our cities, have mass rushes for land claims, dole out our protected lands and our national parks so that we can live in the middle of nowhere and be able to vote (btw... you do know a lot of our land is basically uninhabitable right? you know deserts, mountains, badlands, swamps and what have you? -this a considerable part of what the government owns) Sorry this pesky thing happened while you were trapped in past centuries, we had an industrial revolution, we became became more and more urbanized as we exchanged our agrarian ways for industrial.

    The desirable land was snatched up, we built these things called cities where many of us happen to live and work in now, and in the process we enhanced and developed this land and created this thing we like to refer to as an infrastructure that enables us to live on this land more effectively and does crazy things like magically whisks away our **** and allows for high population densities that has been integral to our status as a world powerhouse and is a crucial component that distinquishes us from what we now refer to colloquially as "third world countries"

    Our nation is what is today due to urbanization, and although there are numerous other reasons it is our urbanization that ultimately destroys any semblance of feasibility a contemporary implementation of your idea may have even had in the first place.
    Last edited by marduc; 07-12-10 at 03:42 AM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

  10. #70
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Republican vs. Democracy Voting

    Quote Originally Posted by marduc View Post
    It is flawed in part because you are wanting to drive everyone out of established population centers and habitated areas, and push them out to rural areas, to accomplish what? Are we going to abandon our cities, have mass rushes for land claims, dole out our protected lands and our national parks so that we can live in the middle of nowhere and be able to vote (btw... you do know a lot of our land is basically uninhabitable right? you know deserts, mountains, badlands, swamps and what have you? -this a considerable part of what the government owns) Sorry this pesky thing happened while you were trapped in past centuries, we had an industrial revolution, we became became more and more urbanized as we exchanged our agrarian ways for industrial.

    The desirable land was snatched up, we built these things called cities where many of us happen to live and work in now, and in the process we enhanced and developed this land and created this thing we like to refer to as an infrastructure that enables us to live on this land more effectively and does crazy things like magically whisks away our **** and allows for high population densities that has been integral to our status as a world powerhouse and is a crucial component that distinquishes us from what we now refer to colloquially as "third world countries"

    Our nation is what is today due to urbanization, and although there are numerous other reasons it is our urbanization that ultimately destroys any semblance of feasibility a contemporary implementation of your idea may have even had in the first place.
    If that was the case then why are millions of prime acreage in the western states left in the hands of the government? Also, I said property owners not land owners. One can own condos and it is a type of property ownership. The republican system can work in today's modern age.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •