Why GA is Dying

If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run?

I don't see the connection.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:
There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.

If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
necessarily be a *bad* thing...

Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
landowners.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:47:28 -0500, Emily
wrote:
Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
landowners.

Well, I guess I've owned land all my life... Family ranch that has
been in the family for over 100 years... Started out originally as 1
section (i.e. 640 acres), but thanks to government theft when they
decided to dam a river and make a lake, only about 100 acres is left
now...

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:47:28 -0500, Emily
wrote:

Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
landowners.


Well, I guess I've owned land all my life... Family ranch that has
been in the family for over 100 years... Started out originally as 1
section (i.e. 640 acres), but thanks to government theft when they
decided to dam a river and make a lake, only about 100 acres is left
now...

Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

Matt

In article , Matt Whiting
wrote:

Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

who stole it from other native americans, who stole it from ....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

I think the Dutch paid the Indians $32 in junk jewelry and
beads.


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Grumman-581 wrote:
|
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:47:28 -0500, Emily

| wrote:
|
| Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own
property until two
| years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to
vote than most
| landowners.
|
|
| Well, I guess I've owned land all my life... Family
ranch that has
| been in the family for over 100 years... Started out
originally as 1
| section (i.e. 640 acres), but thanks to government theft
when they
| decided to dam a river and make a lake, only about 100
acres is left
| now...
|
| Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the
native Americans.
|
| Matt

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:47:20 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

Perhaps... Perhaps they stole it from the Neanderthals or whomever was
around before them... Or perhaps they just stole it from other native
Americans... Don't try judging our ancestors by the standards of
today...

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.


If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
necessarily be a *bad* thing...

I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
taxes. After all, if I have no say in the country's governance, then I
shouldn't have to pay for it either.

Matt

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:35:16 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
taxes. After all, if I have no say in the country's governance, then I
shouldn't have to pay for it either.

Best I remember, we didn't have an income tax back then... Probably
just a property tax...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:35:16 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:
I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
taxes.

I'd say only those who pay taxes (about a certain, though relatively
minimal, amount) got to vote. Keeps parasites from voting themselves into
someone else's wallet.