Tea Party President: Only property owners should vote

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Every week, the Tea Party Nation hosts a weekly radio program, calling itself a “home for conservatives.” Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put “certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.” He continued, “One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners
Click to expand...

pretty much eliminates youth vote. most of you wouldnt be able to vote

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/
 
Yeah, great ****ing idea. Lets bring back the poll tax as well. It's nice to know that since I only rent I have no vested interest in my community.
 
What about people who rent/lease? It sounds like just the landlord would get a vote. I wonder how much Phillips likes the idea of serfs.
 
No Limit said:
Yeah, great ****ing idea. Lets bring back the poll tax as well. It's nice to know that since I only rent I have no vested interest in my community.
Click to expand...

it has the added benefit of shutting out most immigrants/minorities
 
Holy mid-20th-century Northern Ireland, Batman!
Next he'll be saying business owners should get extra votes.
 
erm the president of teaparty nation is now the president of the tea party?
 
I find it very ironic that this idea comes from an organisation with a name that has a strong association with the phrase 'no taxation without representation'.
 
Their ideology is much closer to "no taxation."

It isn't like the Tea Party will ever get real influence. The game is rigged in favor of the two existing major parties so heavily that breaking into the voting scene is impossible for anyone else.
 
Come on, they should give the non-property owners some worth. How about 3/5 of a vote?
 
Lol, like hell I'm ever going to buy land in Texas. Even if it is cheap.
 
The founding fathers did mean democracy was only for affluent white people.

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.~James Madison
Click to expand...

The American revolution was really more about a bunch of ungrateful tax dodgers not willing to repay Britain for their defence in the seven years war, than America inventing freedom and democracy.
 
Ungrateful tax dodgers? I think a few more minor things played in to the american revolution other than the fact that they didn't like to pay taxes. Such as the crazy idea that they shouldn't be treated as second class citizens. I have a hard time believing that all those people lost their life and took such great risks because they didn't like to pay taxes. Don't get me wrong, I really do hate the IRS, but I'm not about to start a revolution over it.
 
I don't think the idea of being a second class citizen occured to people much in the 18th century, espically considering the colonists were much better off than the people in Britain. They were all loyal to Britain, when the british were saving their arses from the French and Indians, but when the time came to pay off the war debt suddenly they weren't so loyal.
 
Yeah, if only they had some kind of representation and equal protection under the law to make all those decisions. Maybe we would all have a british accent right now. I'm sure not having British soldiers take over your home and killing your fellow americans for protesting would have been a small bonus as well.
 
Mr Stabby said:
I don't think the idea of being a second class citizen occured to people much in the 18th century, espically considering the colonists were much better off than the people in Britain. They were all loyal to Britain, when the british were saving their arses from the French and Indians, but when the time came to pay off the war debt suddenly they weren't so loyal.
Click to expand...

America was a British colony and was making them assloads of money in trade considering they could grow massive amounts of cotton and tobacco which was like plant-gold back then. Not to mention the fur trade was a hot ticket in those days as well. America was a heaping money pit. The French and Indian war was a fairly expensive endeavor, but it was necessary if Britain wanted to maintain the ridiculously worthwhile trade goods they received. They had two basic options - write off the cost of the war and recoup it from trading American goods throughout Europe or giving the growing colonist population some representation and continue taxing. Either one probably would have been enough to stave off war without much of a concession. King George was greedy. The resolution never required war, just a little concession.

It would be somewhat like one of the variou times we went to war and then expecting the country we defended to pay us a bunch of money. Like in Korea or Vietnam... we were in those wars mostly to stave off communism and Russian backed military aggression. Britain was in the French and Indian war just to protect their lucrative colony.
 
No Limit said:
No. Was Michael Moore yours?
Click to expand...


No, I can't stand Micheal Moore, but I did find out about Madisonian democracy from a Noam Chomsky book.



StarBob said:
America was a British colony and was making them assloads of money in trade considering they could grow massive amounts of cotton and tobacco which was like plant-gold back then. Not to mention the fur trade was a hot ticket in those days as well. America was a heaping money pit. The French and Indian war was a fairly expensive endeavor, but it was necessary if Britain wanted to maintain the ridiculously worthwhile trade goods they received. They had two basic options - write off the cost of the war and recoup it from trading American goods throughout Europe or giving the growing colonist population some representation and continue taxing. Either one probably would have been enough to stave off war without much of a concession. King George was greedy. The resolution never required war, just a little concession.
Click to expand...

Trans-Atlantic wars were very expensive, the kingdom of France never recovered from the debts it incurred in the seven years war. The taxes imposed on the colonies by the standards of the time were quite fair. My original point was when they said representation, they only meant for white land owners. King George was a dick, and the form of government that emerged in America is better than the one it repleaced , but the notion that America invented freedom and democracy when the architects of the American republic were opposed to it, is nonsense.

It would be somewhat like one of the variou times we went to war and then expecting the country we defended to pay us a bunch of money. Like in Korea or Vietnam... we were in those wars mostly to stave off communism and Russian backed military aggression. Britain was in the French and Indian war just to protect their lucrative colony.
Click to expand...

The colony could well afford to pay for their defence, so I think it was reasonable to expect them too.
America billed Britain for the aid it gave them in WW2, America was the only country to profit from WW2.
 
Mr Stabby said:
The founding fathers did mean democracy was only for affluent white people.



The American revolution was really more about a bunch of ungrateful tax dodgers not willing to repay Britain for their defence in the seven years war, than America inventing freedom and democracy.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of Thomas Paines rights of man?
 
Mr Stabby said:
No, I can't stand Micheal Moore, but I did find out about Madisonian democracy from a Noam Chomsky book.





Trans-Atlantic wars were very expensive, the kingdom of France never recovered from the debts it incurred in the seven years war. The taxes imposed on the colonies by the standards of the time were quite fair. My original point was when they said representation, they only meant for white land owners. King George was a dick, and the form of government that emerged in America is better than the one it repleaced , but the notion that America invented freedom and democracy when the architects of the American republic were opposed to it, is nonsense.



The colony could well afford to pay for their defence, so I think it was reasonable to expect them too.
America billed Britain for the aid it gave them in WW2, America was the only country to profit from WW2.
Click to expand...

Well America certainly didn't 'invent' freedom or democracy. They just spent a couple hundred years figuring out how to do it better. How did this even start?

Also, the US profited from WW2 because they had multiple Axis countries paying them repirations for an eternity after the war while suffering no infrastructural damage at all. Not to mention they were SELLING Britain supplies and miltary equipment before 1942. America made out like bandits just because of the nature of the war. It made sense from Brtain's standpoint to want money directly from colonists instead of indirectly from the resale of tons of goods because well... it would be a lot of money, but the entire problem wasn't so much the taxes but the lack of a voice within the government of Britain. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a group of people to pay for something they would have received no matter what given the desire to maintain profitable colony, then not have any say over how much they pay over any amount of time. These were people that left the highly taxed tyrannical rule of Britain for a more liberal lifesyle in America. They didn't want that blind overwhelming rule to extend to their new home without some way to limit it.
 
Great... let's split up the United states into as many chunks as there are people in the country and continue to do it as more are born, and I'm fine with it.

That's the only way such a retarded idea would be good. I mean come the **** on, that's the stupidest god damn thing I've ever heard. Most people can't own property because it's too ****ing expensive and owned by larger more powerful groups than your average citizen.

Tea Baggers against the average american citizen.
 
Solaris said:
Have you ever heard of Thomas Paines rights of man?
Click to expand...

Thomas Paine was not a member of the Continental congress.

StarBob said:
Well America certainly didn't 'invent' freedom or democracy. They just spent a couple hundred years figuring out how to do it better. How did this even start?

Also, the US profited from WW2 because they had multiple Axis countries paying them repirations for an eternity after the war while suffering no infrastructural damage at all. Not to mention they were SELLING Britain supplies and miltary equipment before 1942. America made out like bandits just because of the nature of the war. It made sense from Brtain's standpoint to want money directly from colonists instead of indirectly from the resale of tons of goods because well... it would be a lot of money, but the entire problem wasn't so much the taxes but the lack of a voice within the government of Britain. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a group of people to pay for something they would have received no matter what given the desire to maintain profitable colony, then not have any say over how much they pay over any amount of time. These were people that left the highly taxed tyrannical rule of Britain for a more liberal lifesyle in America. They didn't want that blind overwhelming rule to extend to their new home without some way to limit it.
Click to expand...

So did you think it was wrong for America to charge Britain and the commonwealth for lend lease?

The decision to seperate from Britain was not a populist one, it was by the ironically unelected continental congress. The point I'm trying to make is that the colonies didn't become democratic, and were never intended to become democratic. Even if the average colonist thought they were fighting for democracy is as irrelevant as if some wehrmacht soldiers thought they was protecting western civilisation from communist aggression. The architects of the new government were interested only in their own class. Who wanted the revolution because they didn't like the taxes, to pay off the costs of having the arses saved in the seven years war.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Even if the average colonist thought they were fighting for democracy is as irrelevant as if some wehrmacht soldiers thought they was protecting western civilisation from communist aggression.
Click to expand...

Godwin's Law proves correct again.
 
I never understood how references to Nazis invalidated an argument. Could someone explain this? All I've ever been able to find is that eventually Nazis will be mentioned, and that's it.
 
I was merely pointing out the Godwin's Law main claim was holding true, not that Stabby had "Godwin'd himself." Carry on.
 
It does not seem to apply here, having read the corollaries. I see, however, that Mutoid Man did not intend to use it in that manner anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
Tea Party founder says Tea Party members are douchebags.
Replies
8
Views
1K
Cancer
Cancer
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Warped
Iranian Elections Erupt in Utter Chaos
2 3
Replies
86
Views
5K
Warped
Warped
CptStern
Thoughts from the hood: Immortal Technique writes about the election
Replies
2
Views
707
lame-o
lame-o
Atomic_Piggy
Zimbawe stands on a precipice
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
cjohnson
cjohnson
Back
Top