"Only property owners should vote"

[video=youtube;Q4knWECRjUs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4knWECRjUs[/video]

This ******* keeps popping up in the news due to his twisted worldview. This week, he loudly proclaimed that only Americans that own some form of property (house, business, etc) should be able to vote. Something that seems lost on Bryan is the fact that you don't have to own property or even live in a certain area to add monetary value to it. Just walking down to the store and buying a snack adds money into the local economy, but I wouldn't expect dear old Fischer's pea sized brain to understand such a complex notion.

I'm a twenty one year old college student who makes decent money, but not enough to own any sort of property. I also pay taxes, and I stay out of trouble. Shouldn't that enough for me to vote? Not all of us have hundreds of thousands to put down on a house or empty property for a business. Many Americans are probably saving up for a house, and just can't afford it yet. Basically, Mr. Fischer doesn't just hate poor people, he also hates many middle class Americans who simply don't have the income to support buying property and paying the appropriate taxes and other expenses on it. He thinks people like me shouldn't vote, so (*)(*)(*)(*) him.

It seems to me that voting disenfranchisement is something that turns these far right types on. It's like they get a mental erection just thinking about taking the rights away from those they deem inferior. I truly believe Fischer and those like him are hardcore fascists, and I know most conservatives probably aren't like this, but these Fischer types definitely have their own little niche in the American right wing. It's especially ironic because Fischer refers to himself as a Christian, but his recent statements prove otherwise.

Just another day in Wingnut land, I guess.

 

This. You can't just strip people off their rights, everyone should be able to vote, and everyone should be able to represent themselves in democracy, a government be affected by the entire population, not a specified ethnic group or social elite.

 

Something else about Fischer's "logic" doesn't add up.

When you really think about it, there is only a finite amount of property in the U.S, so going by Fischer's argument, it would be impossible for everyone to own land, even if everyone was rich and could afford it.

Another factor is the amount of wealth in the U.S. The GDP, last time I checked, is about 15 trillion. Even if you were to redistribute all that money between every citizen, there still probably wouldn't be enough for everyone to own property and maintain it. Not everyone can be rich, simply because wealth is finite.

Looks like Mr. Fischer is talking out of his ass again, but we all know his head has always been lodged up there.

 

It looks as though Mr. Fischer would embrace the old Spanish Colonial Hacienda/Patron social system.

 

I remember reading about "platinum citizenship" in The Onion , hilarious !

 

You did not properly identify the person in the video or provide a link to the entire speech so we have no context to evaluate what he said.

But I wonder if the leftwing wackos who provided the video to you gave you any context either.

Chances are what you posted her is all you know about the man or what he said.

 

Um, the name of the man is in the video title. As for the speech, this is part of an hourly radio program, so I highly doubt there was more to this topic than what is shown.

Secondly, the blog I got this off of had a long analysis of what he said. http://www.examiner.com/article/bryan-fischer-only-landowners-should-have-the-right-to-vote

And thirdly, I have posted about this man numerous times before in this forum, so I'm familiar with what he says.

Now, are you ready to address what he said, or are you just going to attack the OP?

 

Good thing that owning a property isn't the only way of contributing to a country.

 

Fischer?

Is that a first or last name?

Oh, Bryan Fischer.

Never heard of him.

And if you call 3 or 4 paragraphs of bleating by some lib at the Examiner and extensive analysis then you've had it too easy up to now.

I still don't see any context for his statement in the video.

He was about to say something but the lib reporter cut him off.

What did he say before and after the quote in the video?

 

1. They're going at the wrong government entity. Contrary to what seems a popular misconception the STATES control the rights to vote for all offices, even Federal ones, within their states. This guy is going at it nationally, whereas it would be best worked as a "stealth" campaign, with all their resources concentrated in one state. "See, it worked in Rhode Island." (The revolution was quickly quelled and the few rich people hung from lampposts were PROUD to die for the limitation of freedom.)

OTOH the whole idea seems to complete violate the 14th, 15, and 16th Amendments, so we'd have to overturn them first. Hey, maybe we could even restore slavery

2. At one point or another this is going to have to go to the people for a vote; "I pledge, on my sacred vote as Senator, that if all you old and sick people will only vote to take away any of even the tiny influence you now have over me now, you will have my Sacred Word of Honor, that I will not take away ANY of the benefits you now depend on to live, no matter what my actual voting supporters may give me....uh...say"

Uh-huh, rotsa ruck selling that

3. What about net businesses? For the cost of a business license I can become a "professional researcher". And hell, that can be waived if I'm a priest of the Church of No Money, or are you attacking my religious freedom? What's he going to do, disqualify all businesess under a certain capitalization, like the Nazi's did on the very first day under the Enabling Order.

What frightens me is that the American Right is, more and more, beginning to resemble a certain party popular in Germany from the middle 30's to 1945. They were never a majority either, they were just vociferous to the point of violence

 

The person's name is Bryan Fischer. He is a radio talk show host and one of the directors at a think tank called American Family Values.

 

Thank you.

But that does not change the scant evidence that the leftwing spin machine has provided before unleashing all the hate speech.

 

I can see you feel passionately about this. I do believe that there would be many benefits to only giving property owners the vote and what you failed to understand is that it is not so much how they contribute to the economy but more that they're smart, stable and have proved themselves responsible. I do however believe that everybody should be able to vote simply because property owners are more likely to be male and have different hobbies/ opinions than the lower class non property owners.

While the lower classes are often the causes of problems, their voices must be heard.

 

There is nothing leftwing about it. The idea about property owners should only vote was factual in the early days of the Republic and the argument has been used, in one form or another, since the early 2000's, that I know of.

 

The blog and the op on this thread are entirely leftwing.

The argument over voting rights is a deep one with many nuances not given in the brief few seconds provided in the video or the leftwing hate speech in the commentary accompanying the video.

 

How is the OP hate speech, but Bryan Fischer's rant wasn't?

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't make them wrong.

 

What kind of "deep nuances" do you think there are about making anyone who chooses not to own real estate, (I'm assuming that's what you mean by property since otherwise it's everyone without a permanent abode or even a dollar in their pocket,") a non-citizen? A vote is just one vote, but it's all the stake one has in a society. Why should he fight for it, work for it, even obey its laws if the he can get away with not doing so, if he's given no voice in it at all, even a tiny and small one which can barely be heard?

 

I'm absolutely fine with only allowing property owners to vote, so long as the rest of us don't have to pay tax

Hell, no tax for anybody!

 

That's really big of you. I'm sure that all the members of the Catholic Clergy, members of the "lower classes" by your definition, who are sworn to poverty and thus, legally and actually, own nothing, are glad to know you find them equivalent to John Gotti, and Dennis Rodman even though their hobbies and interests are so different than their superiors.

 

voting in townships where property taxes tend to be the majority of revenue then I can see his point. I've sat in several town meetings and budget committee meetings where every nickel was scrutinized. At Town Meeting you ask the voters to approve the expenses. It's comical to see the homeowners yell down the renters over silly expenses. When you are looking at a 10% prop tax increase does the town really need to fund more playgrounds being built?

 

in this day and age I don't agree with not letting non property owners vote but I will agree that only tax payers should be allowed to vote
They are the ones with skin in the game. it is their tax money that is being spent and they should be the only ones who should be allowed to decide how it is spent

you are a ship wreck survivor on a deserted island with 50 other people. you all decide to make decisions democratically
25 of you go out and find and collect food you come back to camp and with the 25 left behind 15 of them built a shelter the other 10 didn't do anything but sat around and complained
now it is time to vote how the gathered food gets split up and the sleeping arrangements in the shelter
should the ones who didn't put in any effort to acquire the gathered food or build the shelter have a vote and how the food is shared or the sleeping arrangements ?

 

Being a property owner doesn't guarantee you the right to vote on taxation that affects that property!

Until I finally sold it, I owned five acres of land in a different state than I live in. The school district that my piece of property was within taxed the living hell out of me, and my taxes on this undeveloped, raw land went up and up every year. I had the right to "protest" the property tax rate each year, but I could not VOTE on whether or not to raise taxes.

The only people who can escape the gouge of property taxes are owners who rent their property out, and can pass the tax increases onto tenants in higher and higher rents. We never should have started a system basing tax support of the public school combines on property! And we never should tax anybody to support public schools who has never had any child enrolled in one of the damn things....

 

The problem Fisher is getting at has to do with voters having the power to rob their neighbor through government.

For instance a bond proposal to raise prosperity taxes that transfers wealth to the poor.

Should a poor person who does not pay the tax but receives the wealth transfer be allowed to vote on the tax?

It smacks of two wolves and sheep stranded on an island voting to decide which one gets eaten for dinner.

The sheep doesn't stand a change against two ravenous hungry wolves.

 

The blog and the OP may be defined as "liberal" or "leftwing," but it does not take any spin to realize what he is saying about only "porpery owners should be allowed to vote."

 

In a country where 1 out of 4 citizens now believe that the sun orbits the Earth..........this might not be a bad idea. Not to mention that the 'taker' class will soon outnumber the 'producer' class and just vote themselves more 'free stuff'.......