Obviously that one is not, on the face of it, a hateful opinion in either sense of the phrase. But most of them are, and I was addressing the OP's overall point.
Presumably the OP included it because it's the type of thing you often hear in debates over abortion. In that context it implies hate of the pro-choicer (child murderer!), an accusation most pro-choicer's would find hateful I imagine.
Which means that when some crazed lunatic declares that the devil made him do it, we cannot blame the lunatic and should instead seek out and lock up the devil.
Only if you have poor logic skills. Lock 'em both up. Or if the lunatic manages to resist the Devil's imprecations just lock the Devil up for trying it. Which is essentially what Twitter are doing.
I pointed out that the year wasn't over and it is quite possible to have an unusually cold November and December to average it out.
You were fried to a crisp in July, and frozen solid in January. But on average it was lovely!
Super intelligent alien beings that have interstellar spaceships and artificial gravity, and yet act like idiots? Really?
You've never run into naval ratings on shore leave from their nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I presume.
Which of these is hate speech:
None of them are. They are merely expressions of hateful opinions. To be hate speech the speaker must incite others to hatred or violence against the object of his hatred.
People will simply stay home if they thing their candidate is to far behind.
Ah, you're worried about exit polls being published before the polls close. That shouldn't happen, I agree. But they should be taken, preferably at every polling station.
bar exit polling
Why on Earth would you do that? How will we tell when an election has been stolen?
Not at all. It's par for the course in the USA.
It's not all done by funking the machines of course. To pick one link at random:
So good they named it twice.
So you're saying that somehow the DNC generated 3.7 million more votes for Clinton than Sanders?
We often discuss voting machines here. We don't like them.
You do not own anything if you are renting it. It is absurd to think otherwise.
It depends what is meant by 'own' of course. If you can dispose of something as you want and prevent others from using it you 'own' it even if those rights are conferred by a contract with the community rather than by a promise from God or the strength of your arm. You said yourself if you stop paying your tax they will take your land.
Everything you are trying to accomplish is already accounted for.
Some jurisdictions come close I suppose but what I am proposing (the idea comes primarily from Henry George if you missed it) is less a material change than a different way of thinking about it, which can lead to a better way of doing it.
I think you've drifted into confusion between the rental value and the sale value, also the unimproved value and the improved value. Property taxes are generally assessed on the sale value which includes improvements.
I am saying that a landowner should, in effect, rent the land from the community at its market rate as unimproved land. If he makes improvements that should not affect the 'ground rent'.
If he sells it with improvements, for more than he bought it for, he can keep the profit. He earned it.
If the community builds a city round it and rezones it as suitable for millionaires' mansions, that should affect the ground rent.
That may mean it is no longer viable as cattle pasture (or whatever) in which case the owner can either build mansions or sell it to a mansion builder.
If he sells, should he keep the profit? He didn't really earn it, it was created by the community. But the community is recovering the additional value through the increased ground rent, so perhaps we can consider the profit as compensation for having to move.
Property taxes were one of the first taxes in the U.S.
In the early days property was one of the few sources of wealth. Only property owners were worth taxing.
Property taxes have several desirable characteristics: they are hard to evade, they cannot be shifted onto others, they are fairly easy to assess and they are fairly constant. If they are high enough they discourage speculation and hoarding. They keep land prices affordable and they encourage wide ownership and development.
over the years, even at lower values, more taxes than the current value of the land would have been paid. I'm not sure it is important to distinguish between the rental value in this regard.
The sale value largely depends on the rental value. The rental value depends not only on the land itself but on its surroundings. Improvements to the surroundings made by the community increase the rental value of the land through no effort of the landowner. That increment rightly belongs to the community.
That's really a non point.
Many people these days are trying to figure out exactly how the elite are screwing them over. The private monopolisation of land and natural resources is one of the ways. It makes no difference that today's landlords are not the original expropriators, they are still extracting unearned income from the nation.
Society already accounts for it via taxes and if you don't pay them, they take it from you.
It depends where you live. The landlords always try to use their considerable political clout to move taxation off land and onto labour. The entire rental value of the unimproved land should be taxed. Not many places do that.
Needs it for what exactly?
Everyone needs land, if only for a place to stand.
Market rental value. It's only zero until someone wants to use it.
Land becomes valuable when you build something useful on it
Or someone else builds something near it.