Via the whole of the internet, here is the worst analogy in a long time:
Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?
Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.
Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.
Can't tell if trolling or if just profoundly evil.
Happy Labor Day.
Wow – I'm speechless (and that's unusual).
Any bets on the author being a Tea Party supporter?
Poe's law and the 'can't tell if trolling' meme are very, very similar. Any other versions of this out there?
Oh,and some analogies are like plastic forks — they break too easily, and you look like an idiot for even trying to use them.
The poster may be trolling, but I can't say the commenters are…
Honestly, if there were anything more required to vote beyond being a citizen, registering and voting, it still wouldn't matter because nothing can guarantee us the "perfect" president. But they're ignoring similarities and making up differences. When will people stop acting like one's worth is measured by their place in society? No life is worth more or less than another imo, and no amount of paid taxes can change that.
@aikin Nice analogy :p I see what you did there~
Edit: Should have said 'No degree of exclusivity can guarantee anyone the perfect president.' as opposed to "it still wouldn't matter".
The article to which you link is by the author of "Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, published in May 2011. Fascinating….
But he's right – we shouldn't allow anybody to vote for a politician who they believe will implement spending policies that they support. That type of self-interest and redistribution of wealth is incompatible with democracy. If you receive a benefit from the government, be it welfare, Social Security, EITC, a subsidy for your business or industry… you should be barred from voting. If you want the government to spend money on something – anything – whether it's repaving a local road, schools, parks, environmental regulation, the military… you should be barred from voting. If you're taking advantage of government spending and want to be able to continue to do so – for example by walking down public sidewalks, driving on public roads, using airports, etc. – you should be barred from voting.
It's good that somebody is finally making some sense.
(I don't know why there's a style sheet attached to that, particularly given that the formatting is so awful….)
I had the same thought Aaron. It seems he does have an objection to people voting their interests. This would apply universally, except those people whose interests are in line with the interests of everyone else by definition or for the most part. I guess this would be the rich. But that claim seems to be a false one.
Sorry about the way your comment came out. I fixed that.
If we are to ban anyone from voting to support their interests, then Congressional members should not be allowed to vote any anything that supports their interests. Congressmen should have to abstain from voting on bills regarding funding in their home state or other such allignment.
The question would then come up about bills that benefit the general public…If everyone is banned from voting, then who votes in the bill?
Personally, I believe that our Constitution should be rewritten. It is now the oldest Constitution in existence of any industrialized nation. It is time for a change in how government works, and the only viable solution to the problems we face is to get rid of the system that does not work and put into place one that does. Viva Revolution!
Change for the sake of change?