It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tea Party Leader, "only property owners ahould be alowed to vote".

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

The sentiment among many taxpayers is that no one should be allowed to vote UNLESS they are taxpayers.


What a load of hogwash, everybody pays taxes... Why don't we just put an income
barrier for voting while we are at it? I propose 10 million dollars!



Unless you are contributing to the tax "pool", then perhaps you should have no say in how the money is spent.


Perhaps you should buy some putty for the holes in your logic???



Funny how many Americans *think* they are taxpayers. But if you take all of the taxes they pay (sales tax, taxes witheld, etc.) and subtract it from the amount they GET from the government (earned income tax credits, tax payment refunds, other "entitlements", etc.), they actually end up with a tax liability of zero or even worse, they end up on the plus side...income redistribution, pure and simple.


So you are saying that rich people and corporations who have good
accountants should be barred form voting?

Or are you speaking of the propaganda which state that poor people don't pay taxes,
because they are known to keep receipts, employ Ivy League tax consultants and
set up business models which eliminate tax burden?



Here's a quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy.
As to who initally made these observations, there is some debate; however, you can see how that is exactly what is happening in America (even though technically we are not a democracy, but a republic).


Here's a thought: Once corporations can control a majority of the information
you receive and the opinions you form, people like you will advocate for abolishing
the democratic method of election,in order to better serve the profit margin of the elite and the ruling powers.
edit on 29-9-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


great post, star for you!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


"There's no freedom under democracy"?


That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on ATS.

There's OBVIOUSLY some freedom. In some cases a LOT of freedom.

NO system is perfect (god knows what you want if not democracy), but democracy and capatalism seem to be the best of a bad lot,.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


what's next???

who knows, but if they passed this, I would suggest that they write a law that they can only send voters into war zones!!!

you have vets out there that have been wounded in wars, some are even homeless!!! they've fought for you guys, your "freedoms", and you have people who are now fighting your danged wars!!!
tell ya something here.......

anyone, I don't care how poor they are, who are off fighting your danged wars should danged well have the right to vote for their commander in chief!!! and during every election, I bet it's those servicemen and women who are disenfranchised the most!!!

and who's owning more and more property every day???
the banks with their cute little mindless robosigners????

and then you have the other, democratic, brainless wonder....
oh, our gov't is in gridlock, we can't accomplish anything, we should just postone any elections till we get the economy stabilized!!!
ya, and then all our brainless wonders in washington would have absolutely no reason whatsoever to stabilize our economy, since hey, they have a guarenteed job as long as the economy is crap!!!!

ya know, these people spend more money getting into office than they make (at least through their elected positions) while in office???? unless there is some other money being generated from the position (bribes??) it seems to be a net loss???
and we expect them to run our economy, and wonder why it's crap???



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


lol!! when did we turn into south africa??

only land owners? that is not the tea party.

i'm a serf, so i don't get to vote? just call me john barleycorn or matty groves.

how would that even work?



people believe anything.
edit on 30-9-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



eta; i don't mean to malign SA. just couldn't think of a country that still or ever practiced that.
edit on 30-9-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)


eta; and i am probably wrong again, sounds like a pre-constitutional thing we had here in the us couple years ago.
edit on 30-9-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


What's dumb about it? You've conceded it is true.

Some freedom, even a lot of freedom, is not freedom. The very fact that a limiter of "some" or "a lot" can be used with a word like "freedom" and people are still okay with that is mind boggling to me.

Being raped a little is not better than being raped a lot.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


To clarify matters for you, I believe here they are referring to "property" as Real Estate.

Not your body. Not your car. Not your shopping cart.

Real Estate. As in home owners.

You're very welcome. If you need further clarifications, I'll be here all week.

So tell me young silly one, would you still get to vote? lol.
edit on 9/30/2011 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 


so paying a mortgage count or rent?


do you need the "deed to the ranch"?


really don't think this is a real story.

what? racist nazi's don't work anymore?

what's next?

tea party giving out smallpox infected blankets?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 



who knows, but if they passed this, I would suggest that they write a law that they can only send voters into war zones!!!


ha! Excellent point! I second it.

Are you little tea party connoisseurs considering the college students that won't get to vote until they graduate, rent for a few years, then finally save up enough to buy a house? Let's see........that puts them voting by what age? 38?

You people have lost your friggin minds. Country would go straight to hell under your antiquated, control-freak dictatorship.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


Yes, Fooks. I think paying a mortgage would count, because we do pay property taxes within that mortgage.

The wealthy, who the ridiculous little buggers represent, unbeknownst to their little followers, still get a mortgage when they purchase their 12 million dollar homes, so of course, any such absurd new "rule", would figure in their best interests. It's another step in dividing the country into two classes, instead of the current three. Or four. I think we actualy have four classes now. Maybe five, because the "tea-teas" apparently want to have a class of their own.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by angeldoll
 


ok, what this sounds like, more than implied, is that "plantation" owners can only vote.

even illegals rent.

so where does that get us?


nowhere.


it's more smear.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
F&S for posting this story but I gotta say that voter suppression has been the mainstay of the the republican party since it's inception. The fact that the Tea Party is also adopting this tactic is nothing more than proof that the two are one.

They're basic philosophy is that; "If you can't win the game, (election) under the current rules, (guidelines) just change the rules." Can't get much simpler than that and for a group of "simple-minded" people, nothing could be an easier sell.


Yep, but it's been to counter the Democrats willingness to let anyone vote, whether they are a citizen, or even ever existed, or not. It's all a wash at the end.

This guy's opinion doesn't reflect every TEA Partier. But I'm coming around to Heinlein's ideology, as well. Some sort of service to be qualified to vote is very attractive.

/TOA
edit on 30-9-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


This is absurd. Literally.

Personal freedom isn't black and white.

There is literally so such thing as absolute freedom.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


What's dumb about it? You've conceded it is true.

Some freedom, even a lot of freedom, is not freedom. The very fact that a limiter of "some" or "a lot" can be used with a word like "freedom" and people are still okay with that is mind boggling to me.

Being raped a little is not better than being raped a lot.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



So people who do want to rape are not truly free because there are laws against that and you find problems with that? I do not understand why people like you stick around in a country that treats you so badly. If you really want freedom you can have it. All you have to do is go where it is. What is stopping you?

I hope you find that haven where freedom really means freedom and anyone that feels like shoving a sharp stick in the eye is free to do just that.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sanndy
 


the only way you can be totally free is to be unattached emotionally, as well as economically, from everything and everybody...

you can't be part of a society, without willingly, or forcibly giving up some of your freedom...
you also cannot be a member of a family...

humans are very social creatures, and well, most of us find the need to share our lives with other people worth the loss of a little freedom.....

so, well, the question is more, just how much loss of freedom is worth being connected with any person, group, community, state, or country???



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


This is absurd. Literally.

Personal freedom isn't black and white.

There is literally so such thing as absolute freedom.



Freedom certainly is black and white. It's that way by default. Gray areas and degrees should always be voluntary. The world as it is run now is based on compulsory force to artificially limit freedom.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

You're not free from gravity.

You're not free from your body.

You're not free from the need to work.

You're not free from your own thoughts.


Absolute freedom, like absolute anything, is a myth. It is a concept, an idea, that resembles something in the real world but does not exist in the physical universe.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

You're not free from gravity.

You're not free from your body.

You're not free from the need to work.

You're not free from your own thoughts.


Absolute freedom, like absolute anything, is a myth. It is a concept, an idea, that resembles something in the real world but does not exist in the physical universe.


I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse or if you really think this way.

Of course nothing is free from the laws of physics.

Some would and could argue they are quite free from their bodies. I wouldnt but some would.

Work has to take place. If I am to eat I am to work. If I am to have shelter I am to work. However, my work is artificially limited by the structure set up around me and my work is penalized by this same structure in the form of taxation. The structure has limited my working options and tethered me to its infrastructure all without consent. That is not freedom.

The same who would argue freedom from body would argue freedom from thoughts.

There are things that exist in a natural state. Body, mind, thermodynamics, etc... and since these things exist by default simply as natural there is nothing in them to be free from. Their existence is inclusive in freedom by default.

Now, the artificial structures that man has created such as laws, tithing, sanctioned relationships, etc... are all unnatural. Often blatantly so as in the banning of a plant or the theft of labor. Their existence is an affront to freedom.

Freedom is voluntarism. Freedom is not coercion and compulsion.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Human actions are part of nature. They're the manifestation of the human mind as it acts i the physical world. The mind is natural, the things we think are natural, the things that we do to limit ourselves and each other are natural.

I agree with the above posts that as long as you are living in a society, you cannot be absolutely free from rules and mores and customs and other restricting factors on your freedom. You can try to maximize freedom but you cannot be absolutely free, not in nature, not in 'artificial' settings.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


So it's natural for a majority to rule a minority and since it is the minority however ruled by the majority should not complain because they are as "free" as nature will allow them to be?

Then, since it happens all over the world and has always happened I guess slavery is completely natural.

Something to me which in my mind proves this artificial structure is not natural is how fervently the majority works to keep the minority in line. One man steps out of line and the whole of society sends armed squads and expends tens of thousands of dollars to reign that man in or exterminate him. That amount of effort to maintain order is not natural nor is it sustainable.
edit on 1-10-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join