Would you support rescinding the voting rights of some citizens?

[mirraflake]

EXACTLY!

They can LEASE or RENT the property,though

Just like communist China does to the US investors right? Only third world countries do as you want.  Free countries allow non citizens to buy property and it makes those countries better in the long run because it brings in investment money

[Bigun]

I really do hate having to be the one to point out the fact that there is no "right" to vote.

[mirraflake]

I have heard over at TOS that some people think women should lose the right to vote.  I figure they are Democrats trying to make us look bad.  Otherwise how can they be serious.

Nope, some conservatives feel that way. FR poster bmwcycle is one..

I bet most though are loser males with the ladies.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I really do hate having to be the one to point out the fact that there is no "right" to vote.

Rights are funny things. Libertarian/Conservative types will always say that "right" are God given, not given by the government.

In the end it's just a worthless semantics argument IMO.

[sneakypete]

Just like communist China does to the US investors right? Only third world countries do as you want.  Free countries allow non citizens to buy property and it makes those countries better in the long run because it brings in investment money

Get off your high horse,princess. ONLY countries that care about remaining sovereign restrict property ownership to citizens. Is Japan a 3rd World Country? Go to Japan and try to buy real property.

If you sell your nation to foreigners with no sense of loyalty to you,don't be surprised when they stab you in the back and try to take your nation away from you.

And your argument that it brings in investment money is completely bogus. The way that works in the local and state politicians cut them enormous tax breaks as well as give them "free" land to get them to come here. How are American companies supposed to compete with that kind of thing in your imaginary paradise?

Lease deals even allows foreign investors  to build plants here with less initial capital outlay,and since this same option is available to American investors,it makes for a level playing field without compromising your sovereignty or political system.

[mirraflake]

Get off your high horse,princess. ONLY countries that care about remaining sovereign restrict property ownership to citizens. Is Japan a 3rd World Country? Go to Japan and try to buy real property.

If you sell your nation to foreigners with no sense of loyalty to you,don't be surprised when they stab you in the back and try to take your nation away from you.

And your argument that it brings in investment money is completely bogus. The way that works in the local and state politicians cut them enormous tax breaks as well as give them "free" land to get them to come here. How are American companies supposed to compete with that kind of thing in your imaginary paradise?

Lease deals even allows foreign investors  to build plants here with less initial capital outlay,and since this same option is available to American investors,it makes for a level playing field without compromising your sovereignty or political system.

1. Yeah look at Japan..economy in the dumpster compared to ours and 230 times debt to GDP ratio while the US is only 100. And I don't see world investors buying Japanese currency like the US

2. What are the foreigners going to do take the land and houses back to their home country? Japan learned that lesson in the early 80's.

3. All companies, domestic and foreign  get tax breaks and incentives to build in a certain local..the best deal gets the jobs. Investment money brings good paying jobs that support local infrstructure and other business in the area

4. If leasing is so great why are all the foreign companies buying land in the South and building plants. Leasing is TERRIBLE for long term. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

1. Yeah look at Japan..economy in the dumpster compared to ours and 230 times debt to GDP ratio while the US is only 100. And I don't see world investors buying Japanese currency like the US

2. What are the foreigners going to do take the land and houses back to their home country? Japan learned that lesson in the early 80's.

3. All companies, domestic and foreign  get tax breaks and incentives to build in a certain local..the best deal gets the jobs. Investment money brings good paying jobs that support local infrstructure and other business in the area

4. If leasing is so great why are all the foreign companies buying land in the South and building plants. Leasing is TERRIBLE for long term.

 

[sneakypete]

1. Yeah look at Japan..economy in the dumpster compared to ours and 230 times debt to GDP ratio while the US is only 100. And I don't see world investors buying Japanese currency like the US

Is alluding that this is all because Japan doesn't allow foreign powers to buy up their property the best you can do?

2. What are the foreigners going to do take the land and houses back to their home country? Japan learned that lesson in the early 80's.

WHAT lesson? And are you REALLY so thick you think that buying property in the US doesn't directly relate to buying crucial votes from local congressmen? They OWN the freaking land. Which means they control it to the point where they can just move away and refuse to sell,rent,or lease it to anyone else,which would have devastating effects on the local economy. If it is leased or rented,the lease or rent can be directed related to occupancy and production or the lease will be null and void.

3. All companies, domestic and foreign  get tax breaks and incentives to build in a certain local..the best deal gets the jobs. Investment money brings good paying jobs that support local infrstructure and other business in the area

So what? The same things apply. The only thing related to all the listed that is different is that foreigners don't own the land. Are you trying to claim that Honda,Nissan,BMW,etc,etc,etc wouldn't have moved assembly plants here if they had of had to lease the land instead of buying it?

4. If leasing is so great why are all the foreign companies buying land in the South and building plants. Leasing is TERRIBLE for long term.

One big reason is with land ownership comes political influence. Land sales to foreign corporations are also almost always at WELL below market rates because the local and state taxpayers pay the difference between purchase price and fair market value.

This is in addition to all the tax breaks they are given as well as other considerations.  As for leases being bad,many,many businesses lease land and buildings rather than buy it. Which one is "best" from the POV of the corporation varies from deal to deal,but if they can turn a profit while operating under a lease,they will take the lease deal. Don't forget,they are not putting up plants in America because they want to do us a favor. They are putting them up to help them turn a profit.

[sneakypete]

You,too? Seriously?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You,too? Seriously?

Yes, allowing foreigners to own land benefits our own citizens.

[sneakypete]

Yes, allowing foreigners to own land benefits our own citizens.

A temporary benefit for a permanent loss. You should run for public office.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A temporary benefit for a permanent loss. You should run for public office.

Me? No I hate wearing suits.

[WorkingClassFilth]

I support voting for land or property holding citizens as did some of the early Founders. The catagory is open to all if they have skin in the game. Without it, all manner of rootless loons will eventually dominate.

Sound familiar?

[geronl]

I don't want government having the power to make those decisions

[Suppressed]

BTW,people who are not citizens should NOT be allowed to own real property in the US,either. They can lease or rent property if they legally come here to work or operate a business,but not allowed to own property until they become US citizens.

Wow, I really liked the 80s, and you're taking me back!

This would be a nice way to crash the economy and make property values plummet.  It would allow those not able to afford real estate to get into the market (if they still had money after investment in America was yanked).  So it's not all a bad idea.

[Chieftain]

I support voting for land or property holding citizens as did some of the early Founders. The catagory is open to all if they have skin in the game. Without it, all manner of rootless loons will eventually dominate.

Sound familiar?

Sounds un-Constitutional.

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I support voting for land or property holding citizens as did some of the early Founders. The catagory is open to all if they have skin in the game. Without it, all manner of rootless loons will eventually dominate.

Sound familiar?

I keep hearing this from conservative/libertarian types. Problem is that they found a way around it way back when:

Although we have arrived at that point only once, in 1876, vote manipulation in presidential elections goes back to the very beginning. In 1800, Aaron Burr circumvented New York's requirement that voters own a minimum amount of property by persuading landless Republicans to pool their funds and purchase enough as "joint tenants" to meet the requirement. The special magic of the joint tenancy was that each tenant, no matter how large the group or how small his contribution, "owned" the entire estate. The Federalists responded by locating a loophole in New Jersey law, which did not specifically exclude women from voting. They marched their wives, daughters, and any other females they could find to the polls and buried the male Republican vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm

Stupid idea IMO.

[Bigun]

 

Would you support rescinding the voting rights of some citizens?

No I would not but I sure would fix it so that everyone who can vote also gets a part of the bill for the government we vote for!

[sneakypete]

Wow, I really liked the 80s, and you're taking me back!

This would be a nice way to crash the economy and make property values plummet.  It would allow those not able to afford real estate to get into the market (if they still had money after investment in America was yanked).  So it's not all a bad idea.

NONE of it is a bad idea. Protecting and preserving our sovereignty and Constitution is more important than profits or anything else. It's why we fought wars..

Until recently,that is. These days we fight wars because some foreign dictator has even cash to bribe our politicians to use American troops to fight his wars for him.

[sneakypete]

Sounds un-Constitutional.

 

If you really thing that you don't have a very firm understanding of the Constitution,or the early days of America.

[sneakypete]

I keep hearing this from conservative/libertarian types. Problem is that they found a way around it way back when:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm

Stupid idea IMO.

No,what's stupid is throwing up your hands in surrender even though you know the system has been corrupted and what needs to be done to save it.

[Chieftain]

If you really thing that you don't have a very firm understanding of the Constitution,or the early days of America.

And you would be mistaken.

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No,what's stupid is throwing up your hands in surrender even though you know the system has been corrupted and what needs to be done to save it.

If you say so. Fact is it was done before and failed that time. Nothing to suggest a second time would be any different.

[rodamala]

Dear old Ma always said the nation started going to Hell when they started letting women vote.

[sneakypete]

And you would be mistaken.

 

I am not the one that thinks limited voting to property owners is un-Constitutional.