Hey TRW-
 Here's one for the Million Mom Marchers- "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Ben Franklin.

How true it is, and how well it applies to these buffoons!

[b]I simply made the statment, women quite frequently let feelings get in the way of facts.[/b]  
I agree some women do.  And some men don’t obtain the facts before voting either.  Should we repeal a right because a few choose to be uneducated and obtain the facts?  Or would you prefer to retain you right, knowing that you will have to suffer the fools to do so?

[b]just because you dont own a house does not mean you should let your neighbors get screwed when they need your help.

once again it seems you have proved my point that you dont care unless it affects "YOU".

You dont have to be affected OR involved to give support.
RipMeyer[/b]

I don’t know that it is possible to clarify this to you any further.  The statement I made was not in reference to my opinion; it was in reference to the same masses that vote for candidates based on attractiveness or because thats who they were told to vote for.  I personally find the idea of voting based on relative attractiveness to be nauseating.  I find the complete emotionality of some women annoying.  In regards to the homeowner taxation issue, I know several of my neighbors were in favor of the raise, while some were not.  Let’s help save some server space by reading a bit more carefully, shall we?

Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with glockgrrrl? She used the word "misogyny" in her first post. Only feminazis use that word. You can't win an argument with a feminazi, dontcha know that? [:)]

[size=1]Please don't hit me glockgrrrl. I'm just kidding. I grovel at your feet mistress.[/size=1]

Agreed, as should you. Why are you of the opinion that I want to repeal ANY rights?

Aparrently we both are having trouble understanding each other.

To me, the fact many women's groups are jumping on the gun issue today is troublesome because in my mind at least, they are mostly unqualified to make voting decisions regarding this issue. They see dead bodies on the news, teenagers killing their peers, and come to the conclusion that the problem is guns. Some men are also unclear in their thinking, but being less driven by emotion and more so my reason, it’s easier to make your case with a man. Men are introduced to violence as children; from elementary school to high school the pecking order is established through tests of strength and will. We know this is the system and we are accustomed to it. In fact, we expect it. Furthermore, men were created to be violent. It is our nature to hunt and protect. Guns are simply our tools. Anyway, this is not something everyone on this board doesn’t already know.

In any case, my original post was in reference to our inclination as Americans to spread our values across the world. In many parts of the world, such as in the Mediterranean, our values our unwelcome. This was the point my boss was trying to make – that our tendency to try to get other people to do things the American way has done nothing but cause animosity. He wasn’t bashing America; he was simply stating that certain issues, such as the way in which Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern men treat their women, is of no concern to us.

In my opinion, certain issues in our culture our better left to men to deal with. I try not to second guess my wife in regards to how the kids are raised, how the food is prepared, what she wears to work, etc. I listen to what she has to say, but in the end it’s my decision as to how the automobiles are maintained and things of that nature. It is also my responsibility as a man to ensure that the means necessary to protect our family are available to us. I do not take kindly to people with no experience in these matters making decisions that affect my ability to protect my family and myself. Anyone who would give away my rights in the hope of obtaining a measure of perceived security, is not my friend. Unfortunately, as of late it seems women are the individuals who are mostly giving away our rights. As long as women see the government, not men, as their protector, things can only get worse.

I think since most women can't make decisions, they should get to vote THREE times in an election...

Best out of three,... WINS one vote!

Soccer Mom Scenario...

hmmm, I like Al's package...vote 1 for Gore

hmmm, but he's ugly...vote 2 for Bush

hmmm, that was such a sweet kiss... vote 3 for Gore

1 vote for Bush, 2 votes for Gore...

Gore gets her vote...

[b]Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with glockgrrrl? She used the word "misogyny" in her first post. Only feminazis use that word. You can't win an argument with a feminazi, dontcha know that?

Please don't hit me glockgrrrl. I'm just kidding. I grovel at your feet mistress.
critter_FR[/b]
I was unaware that only a specific social group is allowed the use of a particular word.  Please define feminazi; if your going to refer to me as something, then we should at least have a definition to go by.  Groveling is a sign of weakness, please take it elsewhere.

[b]Agreed, as should you. Why are you of the opinion that I want to repeal ANY rights?

Aparrently we both are having trouble understanding each other.
RipMeyer[/b]
Apparently we are having trouble communicating.  The opinion on this topic seems to be that because most women are emotions based that none of us should be allowed to vote.  Due to your post concerning the “irrational emotion women display”, I thought you were implicitly implying that this opinion was also your own.

[b]To me, the fact many women's groups are jumping on the gun issue today is troublesome because in my mind at least, they are mostly unqualified to make voting decisions regarding this issue.
As long as women see the government, not men, as their protector, things can only get worse.
mattja[/b]
So what are you doing about it?  Are you assisting them in becoming “qualified”?
I am my own protector, not the government.  

I don't have a problem with women voting( they are some of the smartest people I know). I do think there should be some kind of qualification to vote.
1. You should speak F**KING ENGLISH!!!
2. Be a citizen for 5+ years.
3.pass a test on the Constitution, U.S. history, Current affairs, how government works,etc.
4. Take an oath to protect and defend the U.S. and all it stands for.
I'm sure there are more(like an IQ test).

I'm jumping into the middle of this one, and probaly going to stick both feet right in my mouth, but here goes...

How many of you have said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Isn't voting another form of saying what's on your mind?

Glockgrrl - don't let these guys bother you overmuch.  Personally, I respect a woman willing tostand up for herself - I married one like that, and we get along quite well.  Be intelligent, be assured, and be INDEPENDENT.

Are females ruled by emotion?  Somewhat.  So are a percentage of men - would you strip their right to vote as well?  It has been said that men (logic) need the women (emotion) to balance us, yin and yang.

How would I restrict the franchise?  Have you ever read Starship Troopers by Heinlein?  I'm talking about the novel, NOT rpt NOT the movie.  Limit the franchise to those who prove their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good - the balance and understanding of authority AND responsibility.  The failing of our Replublic (not a Democracy - that is a misnomer) is the lack of balance between individual authority (the vote) and responsibility (the sacrifice.)  Philosophically and morally, that is a very important principle, and one that cannot be ignored if the system is to be maintained.  

Let the dissention begin!

FFZ
[email protected]

It has become exceedingly difficult as of late to voice one’s opinion regarding these matters and not be labeled as mean-spirited, a Neanderthal, or brutish. PC seems to be the norm in women’s groups and for that matter, many men’s groups are not much better. As long as emotion prevails over reason there is no hope. About the best one can hope for is the opportunity to present your case in a cool and friendly fashion. However, as long as gun control is waged as a war of emotions and gun owners are vilified on every occasion, how may one possibly get the voice of reason through to women’s groups, such as MMM?

LOL!  You'd disqualify 80% of the people who bother to vote.  Doesn't mean your proposal isn't a good idea though!

To me the concept of a woman voting is the same as the concept of a woman having a equal democratic say in home matters.

When a woman says I want _________(anything), she 99% of the time has no intentions of actually lifting 1 finger to achieve what she wants.  She has absolutely no concept of what all might be involved including the cost of said thing she just knows she wants it.  This is also coupled with the ability to not be able to see past the end of their pretty little noses. To see the far reaching effects of the decisions they make.

And then when it's all said and done, whether she did it in the voting booth or by putting her foot down in the household.  You can always expect to hear, about how screwed up things are and what are YOU going to do to fix it.

I cringe everytime I see a woman walk into the voting booth!

I read alot of flames and whatnot, but no one's answered Mind Hunter's question about just who's next on the list of groups that shouldn't vote.  Sure, some folks make a case for only landowners being able to vote.  Well does that include people who are still paying on that land?  How many people here are true landowners?  I mean outright own their land without any mortgage or note?  Damn few I'd venture to say.  Are these few to be the only ones to decide the course of government because they are the only ones who actually own land?  

And I'm still waiting for anyone to reply to Mind Hunter's post.  Do you support restricting a person's rights because they don't agree with you?  

The bottom line is I believe a person has the right to vote if they are a citizen.  A person's gender, or race, or ethnic background has nothing to do with it.  Is that "PC"?  No, I think it's just "C".

Ross

Troy and Ross are my [i]heros[/i]!!  [:P]

Seriously, though, you can argue all day long about how things used to be or how they should be in regards to gender roles in this country... because I think that's the real issue here.  Whether women should vote or not is just extrapolation from that original assumption of what role women should play.  

My stance is this.  We [i]do[/i] have the right to vote.  Why not accept it as an opportunity instead of grousing?  It's been said before... women are a relatively untapped reserve for Republicans and pro-2nd Amendment groups.  

Why not get your women out of the kitchen or whereever you keep them stashed (Imbroglio, inflatable women can't actually vote [;)]) and discuss current events with them on a regular basis?  Do something proactive in support of your beliefs.... [:D]  

That questions is why haven't we rationally explained the pro-gun to position to more women. Most women that I rationally and unemotionally explain "No Gun Control" to either come to understand the position or change their position on gun control. Even the most liberal women from Massachusetts chan understand the position.One of the most important issues to women is their personal security and what better security can you have than a fully loaded, sighted-in weapon?

The groveling was a joke. The rest wasn't.

A feminazi is one of two things. Either a lesbian who still hasn't forgiven God for dropping her on earth without a penis, or a woman, who, by ignoring lots of warning signs, and by making very poor choices in her life, has been the target of an abussive male, and thinks that all men are scum.

Misogynist is the word they most often use to apply a negative label to a member of the gender they wish to neuter. In all of my 42 years on this planet, I have never heard that word used in casual conversation, by anyone other than a feminazi.

I have no use for feminazis, and take great pleasure in irritating them whenever possible, by acting like a misogynistic extremist. [:)]

In my mostly democratic district, I regularly bring my inflatable honey to vote and no one says a word about it.

I guess they think I'm one of them, eh? [:)]

You sir, have gotten to the heart of the issues! Major kudos to you!

I kid around a lot about repealing the 19th, but what we really need is a return to the days when one needed to own real property in order to cast a vote, or at least be a productive, tax paying citizen. I also believe that being an employee of the state and being able to cast a vote is a major conflict of interest.

I want to highlight that again! It was NEVER a sex issue, and it was NEVER a race issue. It ALWAYS had to do with property ownership. ALWAYS!

I have challenged a lot of people over the years to show me where in the Constitution it said that women and blacks couldn't vote. No one has ever been able to show me, because that passage does not exist. If you listen to a liberal (synonimous with socialist) you would think that somewhere in there, it says only straight, white males can vote.

Is it not possible that property owners were the only group originally franchised because they were the ones making up the rules?  Certainly a property owner has a great stake in society and how it's run, but is someone a lesser being with no voice in thier future because they don't own property?  Property is the hallmark of the aristocracy.  Should the decisions of government only be based on what a man (or woman) owns?

I am a property owner (if we go by the definition of entered into a contract, and not outright ownership).  My opinions, views, and values have not changed from the time I was in an apartment, nor being a property owner in Texas as an Army Officer, nor as a non-property owning Enlisted man.  I felt just as strong in my oath to the Constitution, and my duty to the nation regardless of what I owned.  I certainly don't feel magically different, nor more worthy to rule over the lesser peons who rent.  

Your fitness to vote should not be decided on titles (which equaled land in the old world).  I have no wish to have serfs (though it would make cutting the lawn eaiser[;)].

Ross

Being a woman, I thought I would post a few thoughts on this subject:

OK, first off, you are correct that there are quite a few women who vote based on purely  emotional reasons ("That kiss was so sweet").  Some of the things I heard those women say on radio talk shows made me ashamed.  Thank goodness not every woman votes that way.

It seems that we have come to a point in our society where a good number of people are willing to vote away our rights for a measure of false security, whether it be the gun issue or money issues (Social Security, health care).  Our elections have become voters looking at the candidates to see which one will give them the most stuff.  

There are too many campaigns urging people to vote, but not telling them to "do their homework first."  We need to start a new campaign VOTE RESPONSIBLY!  Maybe we shouldn't have multiple choice ballots for voting for candidates; make people write in the name of the person they want to vote for.  If you can't name the guy you are voting for, how can you possibly know how he stands on the issues?

So many people just look to others to tell them how to vote anyway, and many pro gun people do the same thing.  We are given a list of people to vote for by the NRA.  I usually look at the list but I do my own homework before I cast my vote!

Val_357,

Will you marry me? [:)]

Sorry, critter, I already got a wonderful guy.

[:)]

Your wonderful guy is very lucky.

This voting thing....I have an idea [:\]

Since my lady always seems to get 2 [:I] to my 1 [>:/]in the bedroom.....
maybe we could even it out at the polls and only give them 1 credit for every 2 votes.  [sex]

Bow  

[b]Have you ever read Starship Troopers by Heinlein?
FreeFire Zone[/b]
Starship Troopers is, without a doubt, one if the most impressive books I have read.  There have been times when I wished the idea of “citizenship” put forth in the book were the current standard to vote.  It would prevent the majority of people from voting, including a number of the people that post here.  Whether that would be a good or bad thing, I am not sure.

[b]Do something proactive in support of your beliefs....
Miss Magnum[/b]
Thank you Miss Magnum.  If it’s important enough to complain and post about, it should be important enough to act on.

[b]A feminazi is one of two things. Either a lesbian who still hasn't forgiven God for dropping her on earth without a penis, or a woman, who, by ignoring lots of warning signs, and by making very poor choices in her life, has been the target of an abussive male, and thinks that all men are scum.

Misogynist is the word they most often use to apply a negative label to a member of the gender they wish to neuter. In all of my 42 years on this planet, I have never heard that word used in casual conversation, by anyone other than a feminazi.
critter_FR[/b]
I am neither a lesbian nor have I been the target of an abusive male.  I don’t wish to neuter anyone, possibly with the exception of sexual predators (i.e. child molesters).  Yet I still used the word misogynist.  Again, simply because you have not heard the word used by anyone other than a specific social group, does not mean that when it is used the person using it belongs to said social group.

Glockgrrl -
 Amazing - someone actually seems to have READ and DIGESTED one of my posts enough to make an intelligent COMMENT on it - I am pleased!  Living in the Bay Area, I am often starved for intelligent philosophical and moral depate, so I take what I can, where I can.  Fortunately, I married an exception (in many ways...)

 I have often thought of the standard as proposed by Heinlein (and ideas from several of his other novels as well, I highly recommend "Time Enough for Love" and "To Sail Beyond the Sunset") and think that it, among all the other possibilities, is the ONLY one that is philosophically, morally, and intellectually correct.  No other system shows any balance between the authority of the individual in the "unlimited franchise" and the responsibility that falls to them as a result.

 It is truly only the military veterans (until service starting in the Klinton era...) that understand the responsibility they carry when they exert the power of the vote.  Even in a Republic such as ours, it is an enourmous amount of authority.  We veterans have begun accepting the responsibility as well.

 Even the idea of not being able to wield that power until seperation (term or career) is a good idea, as it gives one a fuller understanding of what is involved in the totality of politics and participation.  Service will teach you far more than any civics class ever would...

 SO, how do we begin the classes on History and Moral Philosophy?

FFZ

PS - Glockgrrl, please feel free to email me backchannel to start any other discussion you may care to.  I look forward to the debates!

FFZ

I like Women, and especially our feisty pals here.  Some of you should step back, take a deep breath, and try a new approach with Women.  Treat them right.  Listen, you might learn something.  Just doesn't make sense to antagonise over 1/2 the population, when we need their help.  Try painting a vivid picture when discussing our Rights, and not just useing cold "Vulcan" logic.  I'd rather have any number of randomly selected women than some of our male officeholders.

Mike
Prefers hugs to Logic any day!

Boy o boy, gotta break out the Nomex.......
 the bible that I read says that women should not have authority over men.  My wife and I both [puke] at how many, if not most, women vote.  Remember, too, that a large, and ever growing segment of the population is single mothers, primarily due to 'no-fault' divorce - another non-Biblical institution.  Garandman said it already, that women are assuming leadership roles because men are no longer MEN. This leaves a bunch of eunuchs and scared half to death overworked single moms as the majority of the population.  Since most women are more easily swayed by emotion than men, the women's vote will be 'wooed' by emotionalism, not logic, reason, and liberty.   I also agree that those and only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote, and that gov't employees should not be voting for their bosses......
 Ladies, the Bible says that you should be in submission to the man in your life.  Note that I said submissive, not subservient.

Credit where credit is due....

Actually, I believe it was "The Sniper" that said that.

And "Sniper" - well said, ALL of your posts in this thread.

To the Ladies of the Board -

I welcome you here, and I make a simple request. Actually, the same request Miss Magnum made - since women WILL NOT listen to men as the media and Leftist thinking has conditioned them to think ALL males are looking to deprive them of something -

Will YOU ladies work with your "sisters" to get them to THINK in the voting booth???? Only YOU can do it. They won't listen to men. We can't do anything about it.

Lastly, I too am in favor of ONLY landowners having voting rights. Here's why -

1. It will encourage hard work, in an effort to acquire land in order to gain teh right to vote. This will develop ties to the community, and steadiness in the life of teh individual.

2. Landowners are affected THE MOST by any new legislation. Renters simply move on after voting for things that screw up a community.

3. Pay to play. Landowners foot the bills. If those who have to pay for gov't services are the ones voting them up or down, you can imagine they will vote fairly conservatively. Those who stand to benefit more than they pay will of course vote to saddle those who pay the bills.

Of course women should be allowed to vote.
I think we should deny suffrage to people who do not pay taxes.
[smoke]

Considering that the polls reflect only around a 10% split between women and men on most issues, I think you'd be disenfranchising as many supporters as you would be opponents.
If you start declaring women unfit to vote, where does it end? Jews, Blacks, Catholics? Sorry, I don't want to go down that slippery slope.
 As for those of you who quote the Bible in your opposition to female leadership and voting: feel free to practice your faith and use it to guide your personal actions If your wife wants to defer to you , fine. Don't curtail the rest of society with your personal rules.
 Personally, I know a lot of strong women, some more capable of leadership than many men.

Since Liberalism is a mental disorder, people who suffer from this illness should not be allowed to vote.  This would include men as well as women.  If Liberals are allowed to vote, and I do expect they will be, we will lose our country and become Socialistic within a few short years.  Knowing this...and it is true....ask the question again and then answer it as though your lives depended on it.  Diseased people belong in a hospital...not in a voting booth.

AP: how soon before someone defines you as diseased for YOUR political beliefs? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

It is ludicrous to disenfranchise a group because most of them vote a certain way.  I do not know where you guys come up with these stereotypes, but my wife votes "correctly" and insisted that she get a CCW when I got one.  She is more deserving of the vote than 99% of the males I know.  And there are millions of other women like that.

The majority of women who are married vote republican.  It is the singles that tend towards communism.  Divorcing them and leaving them with the kids probably does not help.  Nor does threads like this - why should they respect gun owners, when we evidently feel they are a bunch of retards.

And don't forget, all these pricks who pass and uphold the gun laws are MEN.  In fact, most men are for "reasonable gun control."  So does that mean that all men should not be allowed vote?

As far as restricting the franchise, why use all of these inexact indicators like sex, race, property ownership, military service, etc.  What you really want is to ensure that only people who will vote "correctly" do so.  The most direct way to do this is to only allow people in The Party to vote.  Like in China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, etc.

Troy is right: ecucation and information is the key.  That is what a republic is all about.  If you still believe that women are irrational, that is not a problem.  We just have to get them emotionally and sentimentally attached to ARs like us!  It goes both ways, you just have to learn how to use it to your advantage.

You are largely missing the point.

The problem with women voting is NOT that they vote Liberal or pro-Gore or whatever.

The problem is that they too often base their vote on silly "reasons" - case in point, the huge upswing for Gore after the DNC "kiss."

It it would be a problem whether it were men OR women voting this way.

More typically, it is WOMEN voting that way.

The solution?? I would much prefer we were able to "educate" women / ANY emotional voters. But the problem is that we CAN'T and SHOULD NOT educate women to be anything other than what God created them to be - emotional beings that balance out the short-comings of the human male.

Case in point:

A reporter asked Al Gore what he would have done different if he was to go throught the 2000 campaign again.  Al Gore Said:



See, he knows, and all the other politicians know, that you can play a LOT of people just by emotions.

The assertion that only landowners should have the right to vote is flawed in a couple of respects. First, the fact landowners are affected most by new taxes is not entirely true. While it is true property taxes are paid directly by homeowners, renters also pay their share of property taxes indirectly through renting or leasing. The building owner splits the cost of property taxes among the renters and this charge is reflected in the rent they pay. It's just not itemized. The situation may be different in rent control areas, I don't know.

I suppose one could make a point against those living in public or Section 8 housing having the right to vote on issues that result in increased property taxes. In the latter case, I would assume the building owner would pass the additional costs on to the county in which the building is located. That would certainly be unfair.

We just passed a measure in CA that decreased the majority required for passing school bonds. Previously, I believe a 2/3 vote was required. Now, only a simple majority is needed. There was a lot of talk about how unfair this measure is as homeowners foot the bill and renters get a free ride. But again, the average renter is paying too. He just doesn’t know it.

Should disabled people receiving social security benefits have the right to vote on bills that would increase our social security deduction? Hmm...

OK, by that logic, if I as a SC resident go to California, and buy something at, say, Walmart, then I should have the right to vote in California, even tho I am a SC resident.

You see, built into the price I paid at Walmart are the property taxes on the building and merchandise at the Kali Walmart. Therefore, by your "renters "example, I have legal right to vote in Kali, as I have paid "unitemized" taxes "reflected in the price I paid."

Your example flies in the face of a legal concept called "nexus." Study that concept, then we'll continue.

Renters have no tangible tie to the state in which they live. They have no REAL stake in its governance, and can EASILY up and move AFTER they screw the state up. Sorry to make renters seem like second class citizens, but that's teh way it is.

Ownership of real property (legally defined as land, buildings and building fixtures)  give a person or corporation nexus. Taxes on real property are the LIONS SHARE of taxes paid in ANY community. If you wish to "weight" the vote to favor those who pay the most taxes, tht's not a bad idea either.

BUT THERE IS ****** NO WAY ***** A RENTER OR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LASTING STAKE IN A COMMUNITIES GOVERNANCE SHOULD GET TEH SAME VOTE AS THE LANDOWNERS WHO PAY THE VAST MAJORITY OF TEH MONEY NEEDED TO FUND THE GOV'T AND ITS POLICIES.

"BUT THERE IS ****** NO WAY ***** A RENTER OR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LASTING STAKE IN A COMMUNITIES GOVERNANCE SHOULD GET TEH SAME VOTE AS THE LANDOWNERS WHO PAY THE VAST MAJORITY OF TEH MONEY NEEDED TO FUND THE GOV'T AND ITS POLICIES."

...if you live in NYC and pay your "landowner" $2k-4K a month in rent, you are indirectly footing those tax bills.

A RENTER OR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LASTING STAKE IN A COMMUNITIES...

...I have relatives/ancestors who have RENTED the same Manhattan Apartment since before the Civil War. (passed down, generation to generation)

Building here in the big city start at about 10mil and go up to around a half bil.

major Murph -

That's all nice 'bout your relatives, but it isn't legal nexus, as I described it above. Again, see my post 2 or 3 above yours, and understand that ANYONE who pays "pass thru" taxes would, according to your logic, have legal right to vote in any state that they pay those  taxes to.

By your logic, I would legally be able to vote in five or six states.

Actually, you last line (that i quote above) makes my argument FOR ME. The BUILDER is the one who has a real financial interest - NOT the renter.

AGAIN, THERE IS ***** NO  WAY****** THAT A RENTER, WHO CAN HAVE AS LITTLE AS A $1,000 INTEREST IN A STATE, SHOULD HAVE THE SAME VOTING POWER AS A PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS A $10 MILLION INTEREST IN THAT STATE.

Lastly, lets look at the particulars of renters paying rent.

A renter will ONLY pay fair market value rent on ANY apartment. If the landlord overcharges, the renter moves on, even leaving the state perhaps.

NOW, assume that property taxes go up, but fair market value rent stays the same (far and away the most common occurrence for landlords)

There is NO WAY for the landlord to "pass on" those taxes to the tenants, or he'll soon have an empty building. ITS MONEY OUT OF *****HIS ***** POCKET, AND NO ONE ELSE.

No offense, but some people here show GROSS ignorance of the free market, supply and demand, and simple economic concepts.

I'm a CPA, so this stuff is my bread and butter.

In regards to this property issue:

Lets say I own residential property in 3 states: should I be able to vote in all 3?  Nexus has got to be more than property ownership.

How about if I own $10,000,000 in stock in Michigan Steel, but I rent my house in Detroit.  Do I get to vote?

Let say I make $10,000,000 per year in NYC and pay $2,000,000 in state and local taxes.  I rent (10 year lease) and have lived here my whole life.  Now the guy down the street bought a home, but got it with a VA loan and has no equity.  He pays $1,000 per year in state and local property taxes, but has no taxable income.  He just moved here last year.  Who has your nexus?

Do I have to be an accountant to have an opinion?  Is there something about beancounting that makes accountants somehow better endowed than the rest of us to understand legal and political questions ?  [;)]

IMHO, the whole idea of there being some requirement for voting is abhorent to the ideal of "no taxation without representation."  If I am a taxpaying resident, I should get to vote.  The idea that you should not be able to vote unless you own a home is a relic of when wealth and taxes were derived solely from real estate.

BTW, who pays the taxes on rental property is dependent on the elasticities of supply and demand.  It could go either way.

No, you are not a resident therefore you have no right to vote in this state.



No, not at all. Again, you are not a resident of the PRK therefore you cannot vote here. You should be thankful for that.



On the contrary. Residents, by definition, have nexus by virtue of residency; renters, have nexus by virtue of the fact their share of property taxes is reflected in the rent they pay.



This is also true of people who own real estate. In fact, it's easier to sell your home and move than it is to break your lease and move.



So, should Bill Gates have 60,000 votes to your one vote?



So, in your opinion, renters and those who lease are basically serfs. They don't own property and therefore have no real vested interest in the community in which they reside. The fact they pay property taxes in their rent is of no matter. The fact they might have lived in the same area for 20 years is of no matter. The fact they have family in the area is of no matter. I mean, they can quit their job at a moments notice and leave, correct? I hope you realize how ludicrous this sounds.

Maybe this link will enlighten you a little:

[url]www.nmhc.org/media/rentvsown/debate/body.html[/url]

If land ownership is a requirement for voting, it's simply a return to the middle ages.  There you are, lord of the manor because you own the place, and your tenants (serfs) have no say whatsoever in the way the area they live in is run.  They basically have to do your bidding and that's that.  Simply because you're one of the "Landed Gentry".  

Well, let's take that further.  Does that mean that only the Landowners have to pay taxes?  Income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, NFA taxes, etc?  If the serf has no say in how the tax money is spent, then he should not have to pay any taxes.  Does that mean only the land owning aristocracy should be fighting the wars.  After all, the transient renter has no obligation to the state now, since he pays no taxes and can simply "move on".  So the only people in the military or government would be land owners?  Seems to me you'd be right back to having a King, Lords, Vassals, etc. with the biggest landowner as the monarch.  I don't call that "the American way".  Sounds more like what we got rid of in the first place.  

Are you of the opinion, Grandman, that people who don't own land are non-citizens and therefore have no rights?

If a person is a citizen of the United States, he gets both the benifits and responsibility that goes with that citizenship.  It can work no other way in the US.

Ross

[That's all nice 'bout your relatives, but it isn't legal nexus, as I described it above. Again, see my post 2 or 3 above yours, and understand that ANYONE who pays "pass thru" taxes would, according to your logic, have legal right to vote in any state that they pay those  taxes to.

By your logic, I would legally be able to vote in five or six states.

No offense, but some people here show GROSS ignorance of the free market, supply and demand, and simple economic concepts.

I'm a CPA, so this stuff is my bread and butter.


[/quote]

How dare you use the word LOGIC.  I'm just saying that property ownership should not (and in this century) could not be a requirement for voting rights.
I never suggested that paying rent would be a requirement for voting rights, therefore making one eligible to vote in multiple states.



Picture this HYPOTHETICAL:

Your wife reads this post of yours and gets so upset at how, when your argument is weak, you become condescending, rather than reinforce it with logic. SHE DIVORCES YOU AND TAKES YOUR PROPERTY.  DOES SHE GET YOUR VOTING RIGHTS TOO?

IF SOMEONE TAKES AWAY YOUR LAND, IN A LAWSUIT, DO THEY TAKE AWAY YOUR VOTING RIGHTS TOO?

IF A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY BECOMES ILL AND YOU HAVE TO SELL YOUR LAND TO PAY FOR MEDICAL, SHOULD YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE?

IF you are a CPA, you MUST know, that in certain markets, at certain times, it is financially more wise to rent rather than buy.  Anyone system that would force you to make financially unsound decisions, out of the fear of losing one's right to vote, is a system that is note good for a fre market economy.

But you know this, because you're a CPA.

So the question, therefore is...

What the hell are you talking about, then?

Accepting your presupposition (renting is better than buying in certain markets) , frankly, that is a market I wouldn't want to live in.

But I reject your presuppostion. It is NEVER better for an individual financially to throw their money away in rent than it is to build equity and ownership in real propertythru buying. Essentially, renting is a necessary evil. Look at auto leasing. Who invented THAT concept?? Auto MAKERS, who wanted to separate more fools from their money.

You give me silly hypotheticals. I give you history. AS you trace sufferage thru this nations history, the nation has gotten worse and worse as the right to vote has been taken away fron THOSE WHO PAY THE BILLS, and given to short-timer tenants. That's historical fact. Whether or not you and I like the facts is irrelevant.

And I dare use the word "logic" any time I dang well please.  [}:D]