Xequecal wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Right... because that's what happened in the only historical era we have as evidence?
Yeah... I thought so. Bare assertion, and a bad one at that.
Not to mention the offense I take at you giving me, and many others here, the label of "slave maker".
As opposed to the label of thief/looter you are essentially giving the people who can vote now but couldn't under your system?
Strawman.
Quote:
Every empire in history has been killed by the wealthy snatching up as much wealth as they can and moving on to greener pastures, leaving everyone else to rot. That's how the British Empire died, the wealthy invested all their money in the US and bankrupted them, and when it started to fall apart they all moved here. It's how the US is dying now, everyone who has wealth is sending it to China and they'll all be moving there to repeat the process when the US dies.
Where the **** are you getting your history and economics from? This is a) not the cause of the decline of the British Empire, b) a non-logical and apologistic view of poor decision and policy making in general, as the wealthy are not beholden to the masses regardless of how much money they try to vote themselves or how economically detrimental the policies they advocate might be, and c) not the cause of the current US decline.
WTB a better argument, paying big plat!
Quote:
Finally, the requirement of having property to vote was not enshrined in the Constitution,
True. It was left to the individual states, as a states rights issue. I personally believe that the Constitution should be amended to install a property/business/military requirement for
federal elections.
Quote:
it was not in effect everywhere or for all elected positions,
Of course it wasn't. No one has indicated they believed it was. Nor has anyone indicated it would be a good idea.
Quote:
and the requirement of having wealth to vote was in fact abused quite regularly.
Bare assertion.
Quote:
Or do you think poll taxes were a good idea?
Strawman.
Quote:
Furthermore, you really think the lower classes were better off in the 1800s than they are now?
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Quote:
During the Industrial Revolution the people whom you want to disenfranchise were only one small step above being slaves.
Bare assertion
_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Ezekiel 23:19-20
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
