Why GA is Dying

If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run?

I don't see the connection.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership
to vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land
ownership?

We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
was a mistake going away from it...

As long as the non-land owners don't have to abide by the laws, no problem!
;-)

But since everyone is expected to abide by the law, everyone should get to
vote on the people who make those laws - right?

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:
There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax,
then
the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.

If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
necessarily be a *bad* thing...

I don't disagree with you. But then the law of unintended consequences
kicks in. Someone subdivides their property into 1 inch square pieces and
sells each piece for $1 so that everyone can participate. If you try to
place limits on the minimum amount of property or the minimum value of
property required, that causes other problems, so they came up with the idea
of a "poll tax" to weed-out those that that didn't have enough of a vested
interest to pay the tax.

Morgans wrote:
snip

That only works for a request for one individual person, right? If so, why
do you think a crook would want to single out you?

Dunno. The last I heard, someone filed for the entire Texas list.

In any event, you've never seen me drive.

Morgans wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Grumman-581 wrote:
snip
Women are expected to be carrying purses...
That's what everyone says until they see the size of my purse. TINY.

Purses are cheap.

Not the ones I carry.


Get as bigger one.

Used to. I ended up having more in it than my flight bag. Now I'm back
to a tiny one.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:29:36 -0500, Emily
wrote:
And since in my state, you can't have a gun where alcohol sales make up
a certain amount of revenue, it's a moot point.

It's 51%... Not a problem in most cases unless you are going to a
place that is primarily a bar... Just having a bar in a restaurant is
unlikely to exceed the 51% rule...

I've been in a lot of restaurants that have 30.06 signs up. In fact,
most places I go do. Maybe that's a statement on me more than anything
else, but I notice them in quite a few places. Hell, the FBO I fly at
has one up. Not sure if that's legal or not, I'm not that up on my
Texas law.

If you do not have it concealed, it better be for a
situation in which your life is threatened, and if so, at that time,
do you really care what some liberal ass politician might have decided
should be the law?

Yes, I do care. Unfortunately, liberal ass politicians are in charge.
I'd rather be dead than in jail.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:30:24 -0500, Emily
wrote:
It is.

With the required 1" letters? In English and Spanish?

If so, then for me at least, it boils down to whether there is a metal
detector / x-ray machine / guard searching packages... If not, then I
would probably carry anyway...

As much as some people like to think that Texas has liberal gun laws,
in fact, we don't... We are still left with a lot of laws due to the
oppression that resulted during Reconstruction after the War of
Northern Aggression... Slowly, we're throwing off this yoke of
oppression, but we're not quite there yet...

Yeah, right. Texas is the most regulated state I've ever lived in.
Don't even get me started on auto issues..

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:
There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.

If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
necessarily be a *bad* thing...

Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
landowners.

Tom Conner wrote:
"Grumman-581" wrote in message
snipI would bring back the Civilian
Conservation Corp and provide that as another option for providing a period
of service to your country in lieu of the military.

Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Conner wrote:
"Grumman-581" wrote in message
snipI would bring back the Civilian
Conservation Corp and provide that as another option for
providing a period of service to your country in lieu of
the military.

Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.

Nobody said anything about mandatory military duty.