Why do I get upset about O'Reilly, anyway?

[Anti_Hypeman]

And the problem is that these people vote. I wish there were some sort of intelligence test that people would have to pass before they could vote.

Its called a geniocracy. Welcome to the movement brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geniocracy

 

[jimlintott]

There is a test for voting.

At the right time and place you have to show up. Many even fail this.

=================================

Slingblade for ruler of the world!!

I'd show up to vote for that.

 

[Forty-Two]

Maybe on some level you are threatened by his logical arguments.

I see nothing logical about the statement where he claimed that people are vehement in their support of gay marriage only because they want to erase all traditions in this country. Even if you have the viewpoint that heterosexual-only union is a tradition to be preserved, it does not logically follow that proponents of gay marriage are against all traditions just because they are traditions. That's faulty logic, and to some people it passes as reason.

I don't want to turn this thread into a gay marriage debate, though. The issue at hand O'Reilly's form of argument, not his topic.

 

[The Painter]

How the hell is it liberal elitism to suggest that voters should have some idea of what the f*ck they're voting for?! Or are you admitting that conservatives are idiots?

Conservatives aren’t idiots, but you clearly are. I think you are too close to the forest to see the trees. A test that would separate the public into a voting and a nonvoting class is against all aspects of equality. Should voters be informed and knowledgeable of the issues they’re voting on? Yes, of course they should. Do they have to be? No, they don’t. If a city of crackheads wants to elect a mayor who’s a crackhead, so be it. Maybe they think he can better relate to them. It happened in Washington DC. Do we limit voting to only the intelligentsia? Only to the rich? Only to the land owners? Just keep it out of the hands of the hoi polloi, right? I would rather see more people vote than less people vote. Voter turnout is too small as it is. Your idea would make it even lower. Not only is your idea of a test elitist, it is unconstitutional.

 

[shemp]

Conservatives aren’t idiots, but you clearly are. I think you are too close to the forest to see the trees. A test that would separate the public into a voting and a nonvoting class is against all aspects of equality. Should voters be informed and knowledgeable of the issues they’re voting on? Yes, of course they should. Do they have to be? No, they don’t. If a city of crackheads wants to elect a mayor who’s a crackhead, so be it. Maybe they think he can better relate to them. It happened in Washington DC. Do we limit voting to only the intelligentsia? Only to the rich? Only to the land owners? Just keep it out of the hands of the hoi polloi, right? I would rather see more people vote than less people vote. Voter turnout is too small as it is. Your idea would make it even lower. Not only is your idea of a test elitist, it is unconstitutional.

I think that separating them might encourage many people to pay attention, study and learn about government and politics. I think the end result would be that most people would move into the voting class. It appears that you think that the majority is always right, which is untrue and which is actually dangerous for minorities in a democracy. You sound like you'd make a great politician; I doubt you'd have much trouble getting crackheads to vote for you. Just give them what they want.

 

[The Painter]

It appears that you think that the majority is always right,

Not at all. Just check the election of 2000. Thank God the minority won.

Oh, just for the record, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. There is a difference. Hey, I think you just failed the test. Sorry, you can’t vote.

 

[shemp]

Not at all. Just check the election of 2000. Thank God the minority won.

Oh, just for the record, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. There is a difference. Hey, I think you just failed the test. Sorry, you can’t vote.

I think you and Jocko should get married.

Do not make personal remarks. Stick to the topic at hand, or all bickering will be moved to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[DavidJames]

I think you and Jocko should get married.

That was cruel - you know thanks to their party, they never will be able to.

 

[The Painter]

I suppose that makes sense to you. Is that some kind of homosexual, pedophile dig? Are you calling me a child? I don’t get it. You’re just too witty for me. Name calling; The refuge of a weak argument.

 

[Forty-Two]

Hey, guys -- I'm not a mod or anything, but this thread is really getting petty. It's ironic, seeing as how a thread I started bemoaning the erosion of civil debate has itself degraded to this childish argument.

 

[Forty-Two]

That was cruel - you know thanks to their party, they never will be able to.

Okay, this is what I was talking about. The Painter is arguing against the idea of requiring voters to pass an intelligence test -- This isn't an indicator of which political party he belongs to, nor does it in any way reveal his stance on gay marriage. If we're going to set a good example of civil, intelligent debate, we have to debate civilly and intelligently.

*ETA: Okay, I see where The Painter is happy that Bush won, which would indicate party alliance. But even so, the past few posts have been less than civil.

 

[Forty-Two]

*double post.*

 

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan :

RandFan, you Pinko Commie Leftist Puking Wussy!!

I know, I got a laugh at that too. That so reminds me of the lyrics in Uneasy Rider.

"He's a friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko fags!
I betchya he's even got a commie flag
tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."

"He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys.
He may look dumb but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage"

--Charlie Daniels

In my defense let me say that I don't have a garage.

BTW, when do I get the supersekrit commie handshake?

 

[Skeptic]

ree

I disagree. I believe intelligent, well-informed people can have very differing viewpoints on whether the U.S. should have gone into Iraq, on what should be done in Iraq now now, on what the minimum wage should be, on what the tax structure should be, and on a number of other divisive issue.

True, true. But the same can be said of good Christians: some of them are pro-Iraqi war, some anti. So restricting the vote to them will surely not hurt democracy. For that matter, the same could be said of white men with property. So perhaps America should go back to the way voting was in the 1780s, where only they could vote. Saves a bundle on counting votes, etc.

Ehhmm. So could you tell me if people who have high IQ are all right wing or all left wing? Inquisitive minds want to know. For the record I think even a test without a political bias would be a terrible idea, but that doesn't change the fact that wanting only intelligent people to vote, is different form wanting only people who oppose/support gay marriage to vote.

The point is that left-wingers tend to believe that all (or most) of the intelligent people vote left-wing, while right-wingers tend to believe that all (or most) morally upright (or Christian, or religious) people vote right-wing.

I tend to agree with you that, if ever such a restriction is passed and only high-IQ or high-morality people will vote, the outcome would probably quite surprise those who promoted either side; the high-IQ people will vote a lot more "right", and the high-morality people a lot more "left", than expected by promoters of such a limit.

But nevertheless this doesn't change the fact that promoters of "only high-IQ" voting, while accepting that high-IQ voters could think differently than them, are highly confident that they wouldn't do so; and similarly for pormotes of high-morality-only voting.

(In any case, even if it were true that 100% of intelligent people were left-wing and 100% of moral people right-wing--which assumes there is no overlap between the groups, for starters--it would give us no guide at all for what the correct choice is in any specific situation; if the moral recommendation and the intelligent one clash, who wins? The nazis (yeah yeah, Godwin, whatever) were very intelligent, but their choices utterly immoral; on the other hand, one doesn't need to look hard to find groups of devoutly moral but naive and stupid people whose plans all come to grief due to lack of understanding of the world.)

 

[Skeptic]

I think that separating them might encourage many people to pay attention, study and learn about government and politics.

And restricting voting to only those who are highly moral and of good character will encourage people to better their ways and become better people, so as to gain the right to vote. And restricting voting to only those who have property will encourage people to work hard and make money so as to get the right to vote.

Therefore, it's surely a good idea to restrict voting to only moral, property-owning people.

Not that intelligent tests for voting weren't tried before. Remember the south's "literacy test", which, in theory, was there for the same reason--not allowing ignoramouses choose about things they know nothing about? In practice, for some strange reason, it just happened to allow every white yokel to vote, but excluded 99.99% of blacks--including doctors, lawyers, professors in black colleges (there were no black ones in 'white' colleges then), etc., etc. But that's surely just because they didn't pay attention and study.

Why? Well, because the result of dividing society into voting and non-voting class, no matter what the division is, will--and always had, throughout history--simply be the exclusion of the non-voting class from political power in perpetuity, since all power is held by the voting class, and they're not going to give up that power.

Do you think a voter-class mother is going to stand for one of her sons not voting any more, while the son of some non-voting ignoramous yokel being allowed to take his place? Get real. Two weeks after the voting class is established, their first act will be to vote on a motion that changes the crietrion for voting and makes it hereditary, making only children of those who belong to the voting class eligible to vote, and excluding (as much as possible at least) the children of those from the non-voting class joining the voting class.

This amendment, surprise surprise surprise, will be enthusiastically supported by 90% of the voting class. It is grossly unfair to the non-voting class, but what are the non-voting class going to do--vote against it???

 

[shemp]

It's amazing how many people are upset about an idea that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of happening. I don't care whether any of you like it not, but it's my opinion that people who are more intelligent should have more say in political matters, REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION, RACE, RELIGION (OR LACK THEREOF) SEX, COLOR, OR OPINIONS, than unintelligent clods who can't be bothered to spend 10 f*cking minutes a day reading a newspaper or news website, and who can't be bothered to even learn the name of their governor, senators and representative. Fug 'em. Fug 'em all. Fug all of you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Skeptic's MO, Shemp. Make the issue you.

 

[peptoabysmal]

If you guys think that bad of Bill, what about Hannity, or Savage?

Bill comes up with some good points now and then when he isn't on a tear about his pet conspiracy theory "secular progressives." I don't listen much to Hannity, sometimes Savage, but IMO Savage goes a bit over the top at times.
Mostly I listen to Rush, because he is more entertaining than the others combined, but I don't take what Rush says as Gospel. This is more for entertainment value than educational.

I find that I have to read at least two sources any more, one from the left, one from the right, to get the most information, if I really want to know about a story. It is amazing to me what is left out of reporting these days on both sides. Have they completely forgotten about who, what, when, why and how?

ETA: lol I forgot about where

 

[Skeptic]

It's amazing how many people are upset about an idea that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

People aren't getting upset at the possiblity of millions being denied the vote. People are getting upset at YOU--at the fact that you would deny the votes to millions if you only could.

I mean, if I said I wanted to kill everybody named "Steve", that would be reason enough to get upset at me, even if you know there wasn't much of a probability of it happening.

So now you're throwing a hissy fit because we are not receptive to the idea that people you think worthy should get extra rights.

it's my opinion that people who are more intelligent should have more say in political matters, REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION, RACE, RELIGION (OR LACK THEREOF) SEX, COLOR, OR OPINIONS, than unintelligent clods who can't be bothered to spend 10 f*cking minutes a day reading a newspaper or news website,

That's nice. Well, it's my opinion that people who a richer should have more say in political matter, REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION, RACE, RELIGION (OR LACK THEREOF), SEX, COLOR, OR OPINIONS, than poor clods who can't be bothered to save money or buy property, and thus have a much lower stake at what happens to the country.

I realize that this might well mean you won't get the right to vote, but hey, you should have thought about that before you decided not to become rich. Voting is a priviledge, you know, not a right; only people who are up to my standards should be allowed to do it.

Hey, no hard feelings, right? After all, at least property ownership is an objective crieterion, unlike "intelligent people" which really means "people who do not disagree to strongly with Shemp's political views" (I mean, who else but stupid people would have a political opinion Shemp considers stupid?). And you shouldn't get upset about something that has no chance of occuring, anyway.

 

[Kerberos]

Why? Please explain the democratic justification for claiming that only smart people should vote, and them compare that to the claim that only Asian people should vote.

I never said anything about any democratic justification in fact i seem to recall saying twice I though it was a bad idea. The argument in favour is however very very simple, and I refuse to believe you're to dimwited to figure out what it is or why it doesn't apply to only letting Assians vote. It just so happens that I think that the advantages, would far from outweight the disadvantages