The_Patriot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,488
- Reaction score
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
i would really like to see proof of what you claim. and as for public voting, wtf? why is it your business how i vote?
Diversions aside, the main election-day business was to vote. A few colonies, including Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Carolina, employed some form of ballot. Others, like Virginia, relied on public voice votes, an English tradition. Voice voting made ballot counts harder to rig and, cast in the presence of friends, neighbors, local officials, and candidates, left no doubt about a voter's intention. In Virginia, voice voting was a spectator event, every voter occupying center stage for a few moments. In his book Gentlemen Freeholders: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia, Charles S. Sydnor wrote:
As each freeholder came before the sheriff, his name was called out in a loud voice, and the sheriff inquired how he would vote. The freeholder replied by giving the name of his preference. The appropriate clerk then wrote down the voter's name, the sheriff announced it as enrolled, and often the candidate for whom he had voted arose, bowed, and publicly thanked him.
seriously, dude, you are no better than anyone else.
I believe those who pay more taxes (or have say served the nation in the military etc) should have more say than those who are on the dole.
I don't think 51 welfare recipients should be able to vote away the wealth of 49 hard working net tax payers
Personally, I like the form of government we have in the USA, a Republic. I think a democracy is too unweildy as a practical way to run a country, it seems better suited for the city-state model it was original developed for.
That's totally non sequitur. It doesn't apply to either Republican or Democratic governments. In a republic you can have 51 representatives of poor constituencies vote away the wealth of 49 rich ones. In a democracy, you can have 51 million voters take away the wealth of 49 mllion.
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.
James Madison had a ****load of poor landless hill billies fighting in front of him.
yeah and the fact that he inspired them to do so showed what a great man he was
That's not what his statement is about. His statement was that people like James Madison and Patrick Henry got us our freedom. Ridiculous. Madison didn't even want to get involved in the war of 1812. Not sure 'who' he inspired tbh with you. More mythology people attribute to the founders I guess. It's almost like Lenin quotes.
That's not what his statement is about. His statement was that people like James Madison and Patrick Henry got us our freedom. Ridiculous. Madison didn't even want to get involved in the war of 1812. Not sure 'who' he inspired tbh with you. More mythology people attribute to the founders I guess. It's almost like Lenin quotes.
What does the War of 1812 have to do with the War of Independence? My assertation is that without the wealthy landowners deciding to band together to throw off British rule we would have never been free. You do understand that during the War of Independence only 10% of the people actually supported the removal of British rule with another 10% being against it. The remaining 80% sat on the fence waiting for the winner. By the way, those percentages are rough ones.
yeah the 1812 comment was sort of a dead herring. One think is for sure-those who drafted the constitution certainly didn't intend to create a society where they would be disarmed and their wealth voted away by the masses.
Yeah it was. He also forgets that it was the wealthy landowners that financed the war and paid for all the equipment used by the Continental Army and Navy. The poor certainly didn't pay for it.
What does the War of 1812 have to do with the War of Independence?
Yeah it was. He also forgets that it was the wealthy landowners that financed the war and paid for all the equipment used by the Continental Army and Navy. The poor certainly didn't pay for it.
Approximately 25,000 American Revolutionaries died during active military service. About 8,000 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 deaths were from disease, including about 8,000 – 12,000 who died while prisoners of war, most in rotting prison ships in New York. The number of Revolutionaries seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000. The total American military casualty figure was therefore as high as 50,000.[58]
About 171,000 sailors served for the British during the war; about 25 to 50 percent of them had been pressed into service. About 1,240 were killed in battle, while 18,500 died from disease. The greatest killer was scurvy, a disease known at the time to be easily preventable by issuing lemon juice to sailors. About 42,000 British sailors deserted during the war.[59]
Approximately 1,200 Germans were killed in action and 6,354 died from illness or accident. About 16,000 of the remaining German troops returned home, but roughly 5,500 remained in the United States after the war for various reasons, many eventually becoming American citizens. No reliable statistics exist for the number of casualties among other groups, including Loyalists, British regulars, Native Americans, French and Spanish troops, and civilians.
Well obviously not.
How many of those people who paid with their lives do you think were rich?
Which Madison had exatcly what role in? James Madison was a politician who sat at home and watched the action go by. Again, what 'freedom' did he grant?
So, you would have all the mega millionaire football, basketball, baseball and movie stars have more voting power than little ole you?I believe those who pay more taxes (or have say served the nation in the military etc) should have more say than those who are on the dole.
I don't think 51 welfare recipients should be able to vote away the wealth of 49 hard working net tax payers
So, you would have all the mega millionaire football, basketball, baseball and movie stars have more voting power than little ole you?
sure, but in the course of things-assuming I live a normal lifespan, I would probably be outvoting many of them most of the time. At 51 I am doing rather well--I see alot of jocks at that age who aren't exactly flush. But yes, someone pays more should have more say
of course the best solution is a tax program where the many non producers cannot vote away the wealth of the producers without suffering additional hardships themselves.
If you people want the rich to pay more of each additional dollar they earn you should be willing to trade that de jure disparate treatment in terms of taxation with de jure disparate benefits
When the 13 independent colonies were freed from the grip of Great Britain, the standard voting practice was done with public votes by land owners. The thinking was that those that actually owned land had a stake in the welfare of the city/county/state/country they resided in and to prevent masses of people from voting themselves largesse from the land owners. This was the way voting was done up until the 1820's when the Whig and Democratic parties platformed for change to allow all white males to vote and was passed in time for Andrew Jackson to be elected. This is why I prefer to call the Republican method of voting.
The current way of voting is that everyone can vote that is 18 and above. This had lead to a large warfare/welfare state where the key issues aren't filled with substance, but about who can redistribute the wealth of the property owners into the pockets of the non-property owners.
Which do you prefer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?