Reply
Sat 23 May, 2009 10:35 am
The national debate over waterboarding over the last week has made it crystal clear that anybody who still thinks the Bush admin committed any sort of a crime in waterboarding those three top terror bosses is a blithering idiot.
Nonetheless as we can see on this board and other forums, many still do.
Now, I can accept the fact that there will always be a certain number of idiots walking around and I can deal with it up to a certain point, and that is the point at which idiots start making decisions which affect my life or, more realistically, at which unscrupulous people start succeeding at USING idiots to make decisions which affect my life.
Some sort of a basic IQ test for voting is clearly in order. Not that anything fancy is needed or required, there is no need for an explanation of special relativity or anything; some sort of a simple test to weed out the total slobbering, blithering idiots and vegetables (like Gargamel here for instance), would suffice.
One example of how such a thing could work arose in the 1960s and involved a story about a couple of young democrats from West Virginia who tried to volunteer for the army upon graduating high school. The brighter of the two went in to take the test and an old sergeant told him he'd need to answer three questions, any one correct answer would suffice.
The sergeant asked the boy how many states there were in the union; the boy answered "50" which was correct, and the sergeant told him he'd ask him the other two just to see how he'd answer them: the first question involved the colors of the flag and the boy answered "red, white, and purple", and the final question was the name of the president to which the boy answered "Lyndon Johnson" which was correct at the time and since he only needed the one answer, he passed.
Now this kid went out and explained all of this to his buddy who replied "Jeez, I'll never remember all that...". The first suggested he write the answers on the waistband of his BVDs and stand there with thumbs inside waistbands as hillbillies often do, and the buddy replied that he didn't have any underwear on since it wasn't Sunday, and so the first kid wrote the answers down on the waistband of HIS underwear, removed same, and the second kid went into the office wearing his buddies BVDs.
The sergeant asked him the first question: How many states are there in the union? The answer came back "thirty six!" which, of course, was incorrect.
Next question: Who is the president of the United States: "Why, Mister Haynes!" came the reply. The sergeant told him he had one more shot at it:
What color is the flag? "Why, red, and white, and spots of brown....."
See what I mean? A simple test like that would let such democrats as there might be with ordinary intelligence vote, but would prevent the absolute, total blithering idiots from poisoning our political system.
@gungasnake,
Another dick post from a loony.
A cavalier and invidious reflection upon un-offending loonies everywhere.
@Setanta,
Barking Moonbat Liberal Loons are everywhere
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
A cavalier and invidious reflection upon un-offending loonies everywhere.
the kind that gives that kind a bad name ?
A test to qualify to vote would likely not be doable in this century. However, a universal draft that included women might be able to instill a degree of awareness, about the nation's security, that lefties would then see a diminishing population of eager recruits to the leftist cause. Some veterans would however likely be immune to the positive effects of a draft though. Some people might just insist on being alienated from those that offer the most long term benefits?
@Foofie,
All I really want is a test good enough to weed out the total vegetables and zombies, two or three questions like "Whose body lies in Grant's Tomb?" and so fourth. I'm fairly certain that twenty or thirty percent of dems would fail such a test and that would suffice to eliminate the problem.
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
All I really want is a test good enough to weed out the total vegetables and zombies, two or three questions like "Whose body lies in Grant's Tomb?" and so fourth. I'm fairly certain that twenty or thirty percent of dems would fail such a test and that would suffice to eliminate the problem.
Have you thought of a loyalty oath, as a prerequisite to voting eligibility? The oath could be detailed, in that it could make the oath taker promise to uphold the sovereignty of the U.S., its laws, and its people, born or unborn.
@Foofie,
Quote:
Have you thought of a loyalty oath, as a prerequisite to voting eligibility? The oath could be detailed, in that it could make the oath taker promise to uphold the sovereignty of the U.S., its laws, and its people, born or unborn.
I'd settle for the IQ test... Aside from any problems I might have with the "right2life" idea, democrats do not think in terms of loyalty to the United States or anything like that and view themselves as "citizens of the world", whatever that is supposed to mean. The fact that other "citizens of the world" still own slaves and eat people doesn't phase them much.
Interviews with Oinkbama voters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
That's the basic problem. Another description of the problem was stated rather eloquently back in the 50s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k
The idea was to bury the person alive until their brain died from lack of oxygen, but enough of their body remained functional to pull voting levers....