It's the stupidity stupid
I'm with Flack here ... this story is a pathetic piece of reporting by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and reveals a level of voter ignorance in the South that is staggering (and not really representative of the reality of the situation).
How absurd is it that Tony Hutson won't vote for Mitt Romney because he's a Morman? Or that the Aldridges are relying on lies about Barack Obama to base a decision on him (well that and blatant sexism)?
How absurd is it that Tony Hutson won't vote for Mitt Romney because he's a Morman? Or that the Aldridges are relying on lies about Barack Obama to base a decision on him (well that and blatant sexism)?
posted by Jmac at 4:22 PM
8 Comments:
I don't think voter ignorance is original to the south.
Your party is the one that wants to make it easier to vote, by the way. If we made people jump through even the tiniest hoop, we could keep some of the morons away.
Remember, there is absolutely no right to vote.
So, by default, your party desires to restrict voting access? I'll take mine any day of the week then.
Of course, we could try to, you know, educate voters rather than give them spin or, well, Fox News.
Fred is a "Moorman", Mitt is a "Mormon"
Because morons are the ones who don't have photo ID, Josh? Could you explain the point, there?
As for the claim that there is no right to vote, is it your argument that there is no such right because it is not granted as one in the Constitution, or that, fundamentally speaking, no such right exists?
Absolutely, I want to restrict voting access, while you guys want to open it up to felons and illegal immigrants.
It's true, I'm an animal. I do truly, honestly believe that you should only be able to vote if you are a productive member of society. If you are on welfare, your vote is taken away until you can right yourself. Why should people who are taking from the government get to decide how to run it? That doesn't seem the least bit insane?
And if you can't even take the time to get an ID, I don't want you deciding how the rest of us live. (Cue "the handicapped." If you can get to the election booth, you can to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.)
Why should people who are taking from the government get to decide how to run it?
The answer to that is that they generally don't.
"Why should people who are taking from the government get to decide how to run it?"
So would that mean that all those CEOs who get all that corporate welfare should also be denied the vote? :-)
For one, situating yourself as the glamorous monstrosity does nothing to support the rhetoric or logic of your argument, Josh. I don't think you're an animal or an oddball; I just don't understand what you're claiming.
Also, be cautious with the "you guys" thing. Not everyone who disagrees with your position is doing so for the same reasons.
It doesn't seem insane to me for someone who benefits from the policies and practices of the state to wish to have some say in how it works to benefit them. While I agree with Hillary's point, which I think is quite true, I'd also add that as a matter of humility the one who serves should seek to accommodate the wishes of the one served. I prefer my governments to be humble, as Christ Jesus demands that of them--or should the whole of this "Judeo-Christian" West find some other model than the one our contemporaries love to suggest in him? The point, as I'm making it, is just that if we demand the state only be influenced by those who have the power to influence, then we will get the state that is most in bed with the most powerful of people. There is no incentive for it to appease or concern itself with the middle class, the elderly, the infant, the sick, and so on. As conservatives like to point out, some ridiculously large percentage of the budget for the state is paid by the taxes levied on some ridiculously small number of people. Your political, practical philosophy would have us, therefore, live in a state that only listens to that small number.
Because, afterall, why should the arbitrary number of acceptable giving into the state be set just below what you put in? How is it decided that you're included in the list of acceptable givers? Perhaps, so it goes, you should be giving several million dollars in taxes to the state before it pays any attention to you. Afterall, even people on welfare pay sales taxes--just not as much as you do. Yet, you do not pay as much as those with more wealth.
It's a convenient way of floating the demarcating line for "productive member," that it includes people who pay several thousand dollars in taxes, when there are those who suffer the pain of several millions. You are just not as productive as they are. Therefore, your vote matters little in relation to theirs.
Or else the whole point of a democratic vote is meaningless.
Post a Comment
<< Home