Voters are hungry for change - again - Maggie's Farm
Voters are hungry for change - again
We are a fickle nation, are we not?
Buyer's remorse. We bought a pig in a poke, and now people are wising up. Well, every generation needs to get conned by a few pols before they understand the game. That's why nobody under 40 should be allowed to vote unless they are in the Armed Services.
Vodkaman: Handicapping the House � Weekend Brief
Obama didn't sell me - or reassure me.
Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:10 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)
"That's why nobody under 40 should be allowed to vote unless they are in the Armed Services."
Nice sentiment. But completely irrational given our form of government.
As next you'll be adding land owner, tax payer, stock owner, professional associations, etc...
It is our burden to make ourselves heard in such a way as to elicit votes from those... to whom you would abrogate as worthless in the general debate, whose perceived self interest would dictate otherwise.
That is the chasm we need cross.
#1 Mike3/9 on 2010-10-17 22:30 (Reply)
Only those who own land, serve in the armed forces, and/or have a salaried job or own a company should have the vote.
That would exclude all the moochers and looters from voting, as well as most of them from running for elected office (anyone who can't vote of course also can't run for office).
Of course it would also mean there'd be a shortage of people to run for elected office, as everyone'd be too busy with office politics to play political games at national level.
"It is our burden to make ourselves heard in such a way as to elicit votes from those... to whom you would abrogate as worthless in the general debate, whose perceived self interest would dictate otherwise."
Effectively impossible. Those peoples' interests are diametrically opposed to those of the working classes, their interest lies in squeezing those who generate wealth for that wealth so they can appropriate it for themselves.
#2 J.T. Wenting on 2010-10-18 01:21 (Reply)
"Only those who own land, serve in the armed forces, and/or have a salaried job or own a company should have the vote."
This is the most arrogant, elitist and foolish nonsense I've heard in many a day. Who has been conned more than our volunteer soldiers, sent off to die in senseless wars for the benefit of, let's say, 'dual citizens'?
"salaried job'? I guess that excludes blue-collar hourly workers?
"Land owners"? Indeed. The logical extension of this is to give the Ted Turners of the world a proportionately greater number of votes than someone who owns just a home or a tract, or lets just base it on the amount in your bank account, because everyone knows the rich have a wisdom and morality far greater than the poor.
It is the non-laboring drones who live off the sweat of the workers who excel at 'appropriation'. Owners who presume that they are indispensable 'creators' of wealth better think again. They can be easily replaced by capable managers found in any class of men and women.
#2.1 steven on 2010-10-18 05:27 (Reply)
It is my belief that the United States will not be dis-enfranchising any particular class of voter anytime soon, no matter the wishful thinking of some. That horse left the barn years ago.
Therefore, as a practical matter, my suggestion that we must invent new ways and methods of dialog so as to more effectively communicate to those, as per Mr. Wenting's definition "Those peoples' interests are diametrically opposed to those of the working classes, their interest lies in squeezing those who generate wealth for that wealth so they can appropriate it for themselves." that such behavior can only last so long before the golden egg laying goose is dead.
I believe the 'tea party' movement to be the very beginning stages of such a process. Which, of course, is one of many reasons why the tea party has been so vilified and denigrated by the media and the Left.
Truth and honesty can be highly effective tools of persuasion when presented by those with either no self-interest or interest only in seeing to the survival of this country. Though yes, there are many who's goal is to see to the destruction of this country. But they are a minority in my opinion, though a minority that for the last fifty years has held the bullhorn. That needs to change, and, to my mind is changing due to the internet and greater dissemination of information.
#2.2 Mike3/9 on 2010-10-18 12:34 (Reply)
In reply to [ Top level ]#1: Mike3/9 on 2010-10-17 22:30 #2: J.T. Wenting on 2010-10-18 01:21 #2.1: steven on 2010-10-18 05:27 #2.2: Mike3/9 on 2010-10-18 12:34
Voters are hungry for change - again - Maggie's Farm
Voters are hungry for change - again
We are a fickle nation, are we not?
Buyer's remorse. We bought a pig in a poke, and now people are wising up. Well, every generation needs to get conned by a few pols before they understand the game. That's why nobody under 40 should be allowed to vote unless they are in the Armed Services.
Vodkaman: Handicapping the House � Weekend Brief
Obama didn't sell me - or reassure me.
Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:10 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)
"That's why nobody under 40 should be allowed to vote unless they are in the Armed Services."
Nice sentiment. But completely irrational given our form of government.
As next you'll be adding land owner, tax payer, stock owner, professional associations, etc...
It is our burden to make ourselves heard in such a way as to elicit votes from those... to whom you would abrogate as worthless in the general debate, whose perceived self interest would dictate otherwise.
That is the chasm we need cross.
#1 Mike3/9 on 2010-10-17 22:30 (Reply)
Only those who own land, serve in the armed forces, and/or have a salaried job or own a company should have the vote.
That would exclude all the moochers and looters from voting, as well as most of them from running for elected office (anyone who can't vote of course also can't run for office).
Of course it would also mean there'd be a shortage of people to run for elected office, as everyone'd be too busy with office politics to play political games at national level.
"It is our burden to make ourselves heard in such a way as to elicit votes from those... to whom you would abrogate as worthless in the general debate, whose perceived self interest would dictate otherwise."
Effectively impossible. Those peoples' interests are diametrically opposed to those of the working classes, their interest lies in squeezing those who generate wealth for that wealth so they can appropriate it for themselves.
#2 J.T. Wenting on 2010-10-18 01:21 (Reply)
"Only those who own land, serve in the armed forces, and/or have a salaried job or own a company should have the vote."
This is the most arrogant, elitist and foolish nonsense I've heard in many a day. Who has been conned more than our volunteer soldiers, sent o
ff to die in senseless wars for the benefit of, let's say, 'dual citizens'?
"salaried job'? I guess that excludes blue-collar hourly workers?
"Land owners"? Indeed. The logical extension of this is to give the Ted Turners of the world a proportionately greater number of votes than someone who owns just a home or a tract, or lets just base it on the amount in your bank account, because everyone knows the rich have a wisdom and morality far greater than the poor.
It is the non-laboring drones who live off the sweat of the workers who excel at 'appropriation'. Owners who presume that they are indispensable 'creators' of wealth better think again. They can be easily replaced by capable managers found in any class of men and women.
#2.1 steven on 2010-10-18 05:27 (Reply)
It is my belief that the United States will not be dis-enfranchising any particular class of voter anytime soon, no matter the wishful thinking of some. That horse left the barn years ago.
Therefore, as a practical matter, my suggestion that we must invent new ways and methods of dialog so as to more effectively communicate to those, as per Mr. Wenting's definition "Those peoples' interests are diametrically opposed to those of the working classes, their interest lies in squeezing those who generate wealth for that wealth so they can appropriate it for themselves." that such behavior can only last so long before the golden egg laying goose is dead.
I believe the 'tea party' movement to be the very beginning stages of such a process. Which, of course, is one of many reasons why the tea party has been so vilified and denigrated by the media and the Left.
Truth and honesty can be highly effective tools of persuasion when presented by those with either no self-interest or interest only in seeing to the survival of this country. Though yes, there are many who's goal is to see to the destruction of this country. But they are a minority in my opinion, though a minority that for the last fifty years has held the bullhorn. That needs to change, and, to my mind is changing due to the internet and greater dissemination of information.
#2.2 Mike3/9 on 2010-10-18 12:34 (Reply)
In reply to [ Top level ]#1: Mike3/9 on 2010-10-17 22:30 #2: J.T. Wenting on 2010-10-18 01:21 #2.1: steven on 2010-10-18 05:27 #2.2: Mike3/9 on 2010-10-18 12:34