Irony Alert! Fox News’ Stossel Says “Dumb People” Shouldn’t Vote

[bripat9643]

The idea of denying the vote to people who aren't considered smart enough or knowledgeable enough could be rightfully dubbed political eugenics.

Or it could be called something else. Making up derogatory names for things we don't like is pure demagoguery. It doesn't prove diddly squat.

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.

Sure we do. Denying them the vote makes exactly as much sense as denying them the right to fly a 747. Voting isn't a right. Controlling your own destiny is one thing. Making decisions that affect millions of others is another entirely.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

He still would have beaten McCain by 100 electoral votes

If stupid were excluded.....McCain would not have had a running mate

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't want people who are ignorant of politics or haven't become educated about the issues and the candidates to vote. Not sure why that is such a bad sentiment to have.

Well, we have a president who's clueless on economics...

just sayin'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who cares?

If the stupid were excluded, Obama would be the last Dem/Socialist elected in America.
We're a center/right nation.

He still would have beaten McCain by 100 electoral votes

If stupid were excluded.....McCain would not have had a running mate

If stupid were excluded, a better candidate than McCain would have been nominated.
And Obama would still be trying to shake down businesses in Chicago.

 

[Crackerjack]

If the stupid were excluded, Obama would be the last Dem/Socialist elected in America.
We're a center/right nation.

He still would have beaten McCain by 100 electoral votes

If stupid were excluded.....McCain would not have had a running mate

If stupid were excluded, a better candidate than McCain would have been nominated.
And Obama would still be trying to shake down businesses in Chicago.

And Joe Biden would still be just another shyster working in Wilmington.

 

[whitehall]

Soros's tax exempt Media Matters must be working overtime. Go home libs. Nothing to see here.

 

[California Girl]

On yesterday’s (1/12/12) Your World, Fox Business Channel’s John Stossel added another bogus argument to the Republican War on Voting when he told host Neil Cavuto that “we shouldn’t have these get-out-the-vote campaigns” because “our intuition sets us astray in a modern economy” and “dumb” or uninformed people shouldn’t vote. That’s 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 don't know if I'd be comfortable with an IQ test (which naturally I would pass ) but I think that people could, maybe, have to demonstrate some actual understanding of the issues. Perhaps a few straightforward questions about the country and a couple about policies, or ask each to give three facts about the stances of each candidate to show they actually know which each candidate supports.

The other benefit of such would be that it would make the candidates themselves focus more on the issues and less on lying about the other guy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea of denying the vote to people who aren't considered smart enough or knowledgeable enough could be rightfully dubbed political eugenics.

Or it could be called something else. Making up derogatory names for things we don't like is pure demagoguery. It doesn't prove diddly squat.

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.

Sure we do. Denying them the vote makes exactly as much sense as denying them the right to fly a 747. Voting isn't a right. Controlling your own destiny is one thing. Making decisions that affect millions of others is another entirely.

Voting is a right, you moron. By your own standards, you not knowing the simple fact that voting is a right makes you too stupid to vote.

btw, the worst states for education are mostly Red states, so careful what you wish for, wingnuts.

 

[Truthmatters]

It would be nice if everyone was well-informed before he voted – but that’s not going to happen, and it never will – hence a Republic, not a democracy.

Correction a Republican not a PURE Democracy.

You see under the definitions of the words a republic is a type of democracy.

Direct or pure democracy is the correct term.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 don't know if I'd be comfortable with an IQ test (which naturally I would pass ) but I think that people could, maybe, have to demonstrate some actual understanding of the issues. Perhaps a few straightforward questions about the country and a couple about policies, or ask each to give three facts about the stances of each candidate to show they actually know which each candidate supports.

The other benefit of such would be that it would make the candidates themselves focus more on the issues and less on lying about the other guy.

Why? Why should they have to 'understand the issues' to some arbitrary standard?

What if a person doesn't give a shit about, or really know shit about, any issue except abortion, and on that they are fervently opposed and will go to the polls just to vote for whoever is anti-abortion.

They are a one issue voter, but don't know a deficit from a debt, and couldn't find Iraq on a map if their life depended on it.

You want to deny that person their right to vote on what they care about?

 

[Truthmatters]

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 don't know if I'd be comfortable with an IQ test (which naturally I would pass ) but I think that people could, maybe, have to demonstrate some actual understanding of the issues. Perhaps a few straightforward questions about the country and a couple about policies, or ask each to give three facts about the stances of each candidate to show they actually know which each candidate supports.

The other benefit of such would be that it would make the candidates themselves focus more on the issues and less on lying about the other guy.

here is proof positive that the right does not believe in Democracy.

They pretend that is why they go to war "to spread Democracy".

But at home they work their asses to try and allow fewer and fewer AMERICANS to have democracy.


Lets not forget Grover Norquist said he wanted to KILL our democracy.


telling Americans they cant vote is the beginings of the death of democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw]Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to be mistaken with the crybabies on the right.

http://i769.photobucket.com/albums/xx340/Infidelzfun/2011-12-20174133.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]

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[/QUOTE]

Palin? Hey, Palin fits into this topic nicely. Remember what she about the death panels? She said the government was going to deny her son Trig healthcare if they determined he wasn't valuable enough to society.

I wonder how she'd feel hearing all you rightwingers saying you want to deny Trig the right to vote someday because he might not be smart enough.

 

[California Girl]

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 don't know if I'd be comfortable with an IQ test (which naturally I would pass ) but I think that people could, maybe, have to demonstrate some actual understanding of the issues. Perhaps a few straightforward questions about the country and a couple about policies, or ask each to give three facts about the stances of each candidate to show they actually know which each candidate supports.

The other benefit of such would be that it would make the candidates themselves focus more on the issues and less on lying about the other guy.

Why? Why should they have to 'understand the issues' to some arbitrary standard?

What if a person doesn't give a shit about, or really know shit about, any issue except abortion, and on that they are fervently opposed and will go to the polls just to vote for whoever is anti-abortion.

They are a one issue voter, but don't know a deficit from a debt, and couldn't find Iraq on a map if their life depended on it.

You want to deny that person their right to vote on what they care about?

How interesting that you take issue with what I said, and not what Dr Grump said. He's the one who wants an IQ test before voting.

It is because he is a left winger?

Your ranting at the right winger and allowing the similar view of the left winger to slide unopposed. Interesting.

Idiot.

 

[California Girl]

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 don't know if I'd be comfortable with an IQ test (which naturally I would pass ) but I think that people could, maybe, have to demonstrate some actual understanding of the issues. Perhaps a few straightforward questions about the country and a couple about policies, or ask each to give three facts about the stances of each candidate to show they actually know which each candidate supports.

The other benefit of such would be that it would make the candidates themselves focus more on the issues and less on lying about the other guy.

here is proof positive that the right does not believe in Democracy.

They pretend that is why they go to war "to spread Democracy".

But at home they work their asses to try and allow fewer and fewer AMERICANS to have democracy.


Lets not forget Grover Norquist said he wanted to KILL our democracy.


telling Americans they cant vote is the beginings of the death of democracy

Your post is proof positive that you are jack shit stupid.

You lack basic comprehension, idiot. I said we 'could, maybe'.... it was meant to be a discussion of the points. You're a bigger liar, and one of the least rational posters on this board.

Moron.

 

[Truthmatters]

when will this country FACE who and what Fox tries to promote?


THey dont want democracy.

Hell they attack the word itself and try to pretend it doesnt mean what it means.

 

[chanel]

Did Stossel say "There ought to be a law"? I doubt it.

The problem with lefties is that they believe in legislating every complaint, concern, bad idea or good idea. Normal people try to solve problems without Big Daddy gubmint. And sometimes they just like to vent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know if I'd be comfortable with an IQ test (which naturally I would pass ) but I think that people could, maybe, have to demonstrate some actual understanding of the issues. Perhaps a few straightforward questions about the country and a couple about policies, or ask each to give three facts about the stances of each candidate to show they actually know which each candidate supports.

The other benefit of such would be that it would make the candidates themselves focus more on the issues and less on lying about the other guy.

Why? Why should they have to 'understand the issues' to some arbitrary standard?

What if a person doesn't give a shit about, or really know shit about, any issue except abortion, and on that they are fervently opposed and will go to the polls just to vote for whoever is anti-abortion.

They are a one issue voter, but don't know a deficit from a debt, and couldn't find Iraq on a map if their life depended on it.

You want to deny that person their right to vote on what they care about?

How interesting that you take issue with what I said, and not what Dr Grump said. He's the one who wants an IQ test before voting.

It is because he is a left winger?

Your ranting at the right winger and allowing the similar view of the left winger to slide unopposed. Interesting.

Idiot.

Translation: 'You're right, but I don't have the class to acknowledge that you're right, so I'll deflect to something inane.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

So could we start this intelligence culling process by eliminating all the people who believe the Earth is about 6000 years old?

 

[California Girl]

Why? Why should they have to 'understand the issues' to some arbitrary standard?

What if a person doesn't give a shit about, or really know shit about, any issue except abortion, and on that they are fervently opposed and will go to the polls just to vote for whoever is anti-abortion.

They are a one issue voter, but don't know a deficit from a debt, and couldn't find Iraq on a map if their life depended on it.

You want to deny that person their right to vote on what they care about?

How interesting that you take issue with what I said, and not what Dr Grump said. He's the one who wants an IQ test before voting.

It is because he is a left winger?

Your ranting at the right winger and allowing the similar view of the left winger to slide unopposed. Interesting.

Idiot.

Translation: 'You're right, but I don't have the class to acknowledge that you're right, so I'll deflect to something inane.'

Translation: "Oops, she has a point so I'll deflect and pretend I'm smarter than I am by deciding what she meant."

Dismissed.