Tea Partier (tea bagger?), Judson Phillips, would like to rescind voting rights for non-property owners because home owners have "more of a vested interest". Perhaps we should also make that a requirement for serving in the military. You know, because you'll fight better if you have more to lose.
"PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But 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."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/
Originally posted by CliffLandinseems like another case of founding father-worshipping.
Tea Partier (tea bagger?), Judson Phillips, would like to rescind voting rights for non-property owners because home owners have "more of a vested interest". Perhaps we should also make that a requirement for serving in the military. You know, because you'll fight better if you have more to lose.
"PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they p ...[text shortened]... han non-property owners."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/
I'd really like to hear the full audio - I got a sense from the clip he wasn't really advocating this, but rather trying to explain history -- possibly leading into some other argument.
Hate to be a skeptic, but I hate hearing these little clips, they're so often taken way out of context. Perhaps I'm wrong in this case - perhaps not.
Originally posted by joneschrThat's a good point.
I'd really like to hear the full audio - I got a sense from the clip he wasn't really advocating this, but rather trying to explain history -- possibly leading into some other argument.
Hate to be a skeptic, but I hate hearing these little clips, they're so often taken way out of context. Perhaps I'm wrong in this case - perhaps not.
Originally posted by joneschrNevertheless -- it plays on the old idea that the government needs to be doing everything possible to promote homeownership because it "provides the foundation for a strong community".
I'd really like to hear the full audio - I got a sense from the clip he wasn't really advocating this, but rather trying to explain history -- possibly leading into some other argument.
Hate to be a skeptic, but I hate hearing these little clips, they're so often taken way out of context. Perhaps I'm wrong in this case - perhaps not.
But homeownership might also mean that a community can be full of unhappy, clashing people. If you own your home, and you don't like the direction things are going politically or economically, you still have to go through the botheration of selling your house, and this can take many months. But if a renter doesn't like where things are going, he can quickly move out, and be replaced by someone who's happier with to live in that community - or at least tolerates it better. So a community with many renters may well be stronger than one with many homeowners.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't disagree. And to take it a step further, I think you could easily make the argument that the home owner of a rented property - who possibly resides states away - probably has less awareness and interest in improving the community than the resident renter of that property. Which is why we vote in the communities we reside in - not the communities we own property in.
Nevertheless -- it plays on the old idea that the government needs to be doing everything possible to promote homeownership because it "provides the foundation for a strong community".
But homeownership might also mean that a community can be full of unhappy, clashing people. If you own your home, and you don't like the direction things are going polit etter. So a community with many renters may well be stronger than one with many homeowners.
But lets try to give the guy a little benefit of the doubt before bashing him and try to understand what his point actually was - so that we can debate it more effectively.
I for one don't have a clue what the guy is really trying to advocate. I seriously doubt the guy really advocates taking away everyone's voting rights - which makes me wonder who is stupider - him, for advocating such a position, or us for being gullible enough to believe he advocates it.
Originally posted by CliffLandinWould you be in favor of letting illegals vote? In other words, what are your own personal criteria for being allowed to vote?
Tea Partier (tea bagger?), Judson Phillips, would like to rescind voting rights for non-property owners because home owners have "more of a vested interest". Perhaps we should also make that a requirement for serving in the military. You know, because you'll fight better if you have more to lose.
"PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they p ...[text shortened]... han non-property owners."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/30/tea-party-voting-property/
Originally posted by whodeyReally?! Let's have some more of your right winged, illegal alien paranoia.
Would you be in favor of letting illegals vote? In other words, what are your own personal criteria for being allowed to vote?
My criteria, is that one must be 18, so you'll have to wait a few more years, and one must be a citizen.
EDIT: And you must be registered. Pretty simple, actually.