Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This thread is a perfect example of faux outrage.
The lefties here know exactly what Stossel was saying.
What a bunch of crybabies we have as opponents on the left
Not to be mistaken with the crybabies on the right.
This is just more harebrained wingnut fantasy trying to come up with a way to jigger the electoral process in a way that would overcome the simple fact that rightwingers are a silly minority.
How many Dem Presidents received more than 50% of the popular vote since the end of WWII?
How many Republican Presidents?
Johnson 61%
Carter 50.1%
Obama 52.9%
And Clinton was just shy with 49.2% in 1996.
And he didn't have a 50% majority, but we can't forget who won the popular vote in 2000. LOL
All I would have to do is post something about Palin, and the right wing cry babies come out in full force. Just ask Bill Maher, or Family Guy. LOL
How many Dem Presidents received more than 50% of the popular vote since the end of WWII?
How many Republican Presidents?
Johnson 61%
Carter 50.1%
Obama 52.9%
And Clinton was just shy with 49.2% in 1996.
And he didn't have a 50% majority, but we can't forget who won the popular vote in 2000. LOL
And how many Republicans?
All I would have to do is post something about Palin, and the right wing cry babies come out in full force. Just ask Bill Maher, or Family Guy. LOL
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJbzUrrpS5Y&feature=related]FamilyGuy - Cowboy Buttsex - YouTube[/ame]
All I would have to do is post something about Palin, and the right wing cry babies come out in full force. Just ask Bill Maher, or Family Guy. LOL
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJbzUrrpS5Y&feature=related]FamilyGuy - Cowboy Buttsex - YouTube[/ame]
I had no idea you liked butt sex?
That helps explain it..
Or you could have a choice of red or blue. If you vote red, everyone who makes $100,000 a year or more will get an additional $100,000.
Those who make over a $100,000 decide that if they can keep those who make under $100,000 from voting, the red initiative will pass. So they develop a test that only red voters can pass and tell the blue voters they are no longer allowed to vote
Could have. Didn't. Because that would be partisan bullshit and I was going for a basic example of why you want people to be informed about voting. I do apologize if it was over your intellectual pay grade.
Well, at my intellectual pay grade we learned that "one man, one vote" was a cornerstone of the United States. That our founding fathers valued the opinion of a man who toiled in a field as much as the opinion of the man who owns the field.
Could have. Didn't. Because that would be partisan bullshit and I was going for a basic example of why you want people to be informed about voting. I do apologize if it was over your intellectual pay grade.
Well, at my intellectual pay grade we learned that "one man, one vote" was a cornerstone of the United States. That our founding fathers valued the opinion of a man who toiled in a field as much as the opinion of the man who owns the field.
Now, see, if I was being a partisan idiot, I would accuse you of wanting to take the vote away from women. That's an example of taking words too literally... and hence, the importance of 'context'.
I totally agree that the man (or woman) who toiled in a field is as valid a voter as the owner of the field. What I would like is for both to inform themselves (and that is an important point - that they are responsible for ensuring that they access legitimate, valid, accurate information) before they participate in the process. Otherwise, we may end up with something we didn't realize we were voting for. You do see that, right? I find it extraordinary that anyone would support people not informing themselves before they vote. I can think of no legitimate reason why anyone would support that.
Well, at my intellectual pay grade we learned that "one man, one vote" was a cornerstone of the United States. That our founding fathers valued the opinion of a man who toiled in a field as much as the opinion of the man who owns the field.
Now, see, if I was being a partisan idiot, I would accuse you of wanting to take the vote away from women. That's an example of taking words too literally... and hence, the importance of 'context'.
I totally agree that the man (or woman) who toiled in a field is as valid a voter as the owner of the field. What I would like is for both to inform themselves (and that is an important point - that they are responsible for ensuring that they access legitimate, valid, accurate information) before they participate in the process. Otherwise, we may end up with something we didn't realize we were voting for. You do see that, right? I find it extraordinary that anyone would support people not informing themselves before they vote. I can think of no legitimate reason why anyone would support that.
I agree, but we shouldn't force anyone. It is someone's right to be uninformed.
Prime example, this lady I work with. You can not agree with Obama care, and lets be honest there is enough in the bill for right wingers to be mad about.. This woman probably listens to her idiot husband, who then repeats crap that she thinks is in the bill.
Don't like the bill, that is fine, but don't make up stuff.
I don't agree with you, but at least if you are arguing against the bill at least I know you probably know what is actually in it.... not some made up crap your husband told you.
I should add I have pissed a few of my liberal friends off, by telling them they have no clue about certain right wing policies. LOL One friend even told me I wasn't a liberal anymore.
Johnson 61%
Carter 50.1%
Obama 52.9%
And Clinton was just shy with 49.2% in 1996.
And he didn't have a 50% majority, but we can't forget who won the popular vote in 2000. LOL
And how many Republicans?
Just one more, four won the popular vote.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and HW...
Actually I didn't check W against Kerry, but I don't think he had a 50% majority.
Truman I should add was close with 49.6%, so the dems almost had four if you don't count Roosevelt in 44.
And how many Republicans?
Just one more, four won the popular vote.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and HW...
Actually I didn't check W against Kerry, but I don't think he had a 50% majority.
Truman I should add was close with 49.6%, so the dems almost had four if you don't count Roosevelt in 44.
Dems had 3 elections.
Republicans had Eisenhower twice, Nixon once, Reagan twice, GHW Bush, GW Bush once.
Looks like 7 to 3.
Just one more, four won the popular vote.
Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and HW...
Actually I didn't check W against Kerry, but I don't think he had a 50% majority.
Truman I should add was close with 49.6%, so the dems almost had four if you don't count Roosevelt in 44.
Dems had 3 elections.
Republicans had Eisenhower twice, Nixon once, Reagan twice, GHW Bush, GW Bush once.
Looks like 7 to 3.
Who cares?
Dems had 3 elections.
Republicans had Eisenhower twice, Nixon once, Reagan twice, GHW Bush, GW Bush once.
Looks like 7 to 3.
Who cares?
If the stupid were excluded, Obama would be the last Dem/Socialist elected in America.
We're a center/right nation.
On yesterdays (1/12/12) Your World, Fox Business Channels John Stossel added another bogus argument to the Republican War on Voting when he told host Neil Cavuto that we shouldnt have these get-out-the-vote campaigns because our intuition sets us astray in a modern economy and dumb or uninformed people shouldnt vote. Thats pretty funny coming from the channel whose viewers have been shown to be less informed about major news stories than the average American.
Read more
Who cares?
If the stupid were excluded, Obama would be the last Dem/Socialist elected in America.
We're a center/right nation.
Because the right is smarter than the left?
On yesterdays (1/12/12) Your World, Fox Business Channels John Stossel added another bogus argument to the Republican War on Voting when he told host Neil Cavuto that we shouldnt have these get-out-the-vote campaigns because our intuition sets us astray in a modern economy and dumb or uninformed people shouldnt vote. Thats pretty funny coming from the channel whose viewers have been shown to be less informed about major news stories than the average American.
Read more
I agree with Stossel. Have said so before that there should be an IQ test.
However, if there were, there would never be another GoP president in your country...
I agree with Stossel. Have said so before that there should be an IQ test.
However, if there were, there would never be another GoP president in your country...
Depends on who is grading the test.
The idea of denying the vote to people who aren't considered smart enough or knowledgeable enough could be rightfully dubbed political eugenics.
Since none of you who support this are about to exempt the excluded voters from the laws that their representatives will subject them to,
then you have no justfication to deny them their right to vote.
