Founded by Geniuses; Run by Idiots

[AndyDufresne]

Most people think geniuses are stupid and the stupid genius. Most people are just content to do what they are told or what to think. Mindless drones.

i r am agrement


--Andy

[Haggis_McMutton]

Most people think geniuses are stupid and the stupid genius. Most people are just content to do what they are told or what to think. Mindless drones.

i r am agrement


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

Most people think geniuses are stupid and the stupid genius. Most people are just content to do what they are told or what to think. Mindless drones.

i r am agrement


--Andy

--Andy

[DoomYoshi]

ooge has an ugly avatar, therefore what he says is wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

being last is never fun.

[BigBallinStalin]

will you admit up front that voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect, much less prosecute? As well as when a state has been decided by 8% points, will you admit up front that most if not all of any cases of voter fraud are dropped in those areas. How many people Have to be in on the Fraud? it would never stay quiet.This being a pet issue of republicans They would prosecute. and scream from the rooftops If they found widespread cases of voter fraud. On the other hand If your party was defeated badly in an election The way to delegitimize the president and spoil the waters of his beginning presidency is to claim voter fraud.This is were I differ from conservatives the most. If you lose you lost,Your Ideas were rejected. To continue to fight immediately after the election is bad for the country and un American. Bush stealing the election in Ohio? The left using the same delegitimizing tactic....Your poll? do a poll on the death tax people will say "what you get taxed for dieing?" instead of calling it the "death tax" and call it by its true name "the inheritance tax" And explain we have this because The country does not believe in royalty witch is what would happen after several generations of a wealthy family.

Can't one submit votes on behalf of an organization?

(I'm mostly in agreement with you ITT; just askin').

Are you talking about voting for a corporation to run the country? or corporations having the ability to vote,with their voting power weighed by how much they are worth?....give it time it will happen.

I'm talking about two kinds of organizations:

(1) Those which collect votes and then puts them in the records (e.g. for early voters, or voters abroad).

(2) Those which 'help' people vote (e.g. ACORN and other places).

[AndyDufresne]

I'd like everyone to know I conduct voter fraud on all CC Polls. Please have mercy on my monkey soul.


--Andy

[patches70]

I'd like everyone to know I conduct voter fraud on all CC Polls. Please have mercy on my monkey soul.


--Andy

Don't worry, Andy, everyone already knows you have a bunch of monkey accounts.

[Ray Rider]

I'd like everyone to know I conduct voter fraud on all CC Polls. Please have mercy on my monkey soul.


--Andy

Don't worry, Andy, everyone already knows you have a bunch of monkey accounts.

Has he been monkeying around again?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

op sounds like a fwd:fwd:fwd: from my grandmother.

Thanks, Gram.

-TG

[tzor]

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check or check out a library book, but not to vote… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you live in a Democracy and you think the best way to decide elections is to have the fewest amount of people or "acceptable" people to vote as possible....You are a conservative

(Does a quick check of my current space time location ... ) Technically speaking, I don't live in a "Democracy" but a "Constitutional Republic."

And the lack of Voter ID scares the crap out of me and it has ever since I've been a voter in Long Island. The only difference between me and my father for many years was my lack of a middle name. We were on adjoining lines of the registry. Can I really trust the handwriting expertise of a volunteer to determine if someone didn't forge my signature?

If you don't have a photo ID you can't legally buy booze. Look, every so often I have my mean streak, but I think that's more important than voting, since more people drink than vote. So a proper photo ID for everyone!

[tzor]

I'm going to have to disagree with Phatscotty's premise. It is not run by "idiots." It is run by myopic bureaucrats. They don't notice the wide variances in their regulations because they never look at the forest; only their own favorite tree.

[ooge]

will you admit up front that voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect, much less prosecute? As well as when a state has been decided by 8% points, will you admit up front that most if not all of any cases of voter fraud are dropped in those areas. How many people Have to be in on the Fraud? it would never stay quiet.This being a pet issue of republicans They would prosecute. and scream from the rooftops If they found widespread cases of voter fraud. On the other hand If your party was defeated badly in an election The way to delegitimize the president and spoil the waters of his beginning presidency is to claim voter fraud.This is were I differ from conservatives the most. If you lose you lost,Your Ideas were rejected. To continue to fight immediately after the election is bad for the country and un American. Bush stealing the election in Ohio? The left using the same delegitimizing tactic....Your poll? do a poll on the death tax people will say "what you get taxed for dieing?" instead of calling it the "death tax" and call it by its true name "the inheritance tax" And explain we have this because The country does not believe in royalty witch is what would happen after several generations of a wealthy family.

Can't one submit votes on behalf of an organization?

(I'm mostly in agreement with you ITT; just askin').

Are you talking about voting for a corporation to run the country? or corporations having the ability to vote,with their voting power weighed by how much they are worth?....give it time it will happen.

I'm talking about two kinds of organizations:

(1) Those which collect votes and then puts them in the records (e.g. for early voters, or voters abroad).

(2) Those which 'help' people vote (e.g. ACORN and other places).

1. who puts them into records? members of both party's and who are sworn under legal prosecution to do it legally.
2. ACORN no longer exists. A judge ruled they were slandered with made up evidence,but they already had their funding stream pulled,so they folded.Acorn was a straw man.

[john9blue]

see, if one of the liberals had made a straw man as obvious as this you'd be jumping down their throat about the atheist liberal cult or whatever else.

i guess it would be a straw man if someone didn't start a thread in this very forum which put forth that very argument.

sometimes truth is stranger than fiction

[BigBallinStalin]

will you admit up front that voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect, much less prosecute? As well as when a state has been decided by 8% points, will you admit up front that most if not all of any cases of voter fraud are dropped in those areas. How many people Have to be in on the Fraud? it would never stay quiet.This being a pet issue of republicans They would prosecute. and scream from the rooftops If they found widespread cases of voter fraud. On the other hand If your party was defeated badly in an election The way to delegitimize the president and spoil the waters of his beginning presidency is to claim voter fraud.This is were I differ from conservatives the most. If you lose you lost,Your Ideas were rejected. To continue to fight immediately after the election is bad for the country and un American. Bush stealing the election in Ohio? The left using the same delegitimizing tactic....Your poll? do a poll on the death tax people will say "what you get taxed for dieing?" instead of calling it the "death tax" and call it by its true name "the inheritance tax" And explain we have this because The country does not believe in royalty witch is what would happen after several generations of a wealthy family.

Can't one submit votes on behalf of an organization?

(I'm mostly in agreement with you ITT; just askin').

Are you talking about voting for a corporation to run the country? or corporations having the ability to vote,with their voting power weighed by how much they are worth?....give it time it will happen.

I'm talking about two kinds of organizations:

(1) Those which collect votes and then puts them in the records (e.g. for early voters, or voters abroad).

(2) Those which 'help' people vote (e.g. ACORN and other places).

1. who puts them into records? members of both party's and who are sworn under legal prosecution to do it legally.
2. ACORN no longer exists. A judge ruled they were slandered with made up evidence,but they already had their funding stream pulled,so they folded.Acorn was a straw man.

1. So, you're assuming that the law is enforced perfectly? Or extremely well--better than most?
2. ACORN's an example. There are plenty of organizations similar to ACORN. Just wonderin' if they can submit votes on behalf of their 'members'/whoever uses their services.


About fraud. Here's a main question: Is the system corrupt, or is the electorate that uninformed?

[saxitoxin]

3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check or check out a library book, but not to vote… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you live in a Democracy and you think the best way to decide elections is to have the fewest amount of people or "acceptable" people to vote as possible....You are a conservative

(Does a quick check of my current space time location ... ) Technically speaking, I don't live in a "Democracy" but a "Constitutional Republic."

I have to respectfully disagree with tzor on this point. The term "constitutional republic" is not a real term. It is a pretend term made-up by Bob Welch in the 1950s to define a certain type of state he theorized existed in his first JB Society pamphlet. It obtained a modicum of popular awareness after None Dare Call it Conspiracy was published in the 70s, and then blew-up on the talk radio circuit in the 1990s. But it's not a real term that describes something real. It's a pop culture term invented by a retired candy salesman (Welch) and its existence can be traced back no earlier than the 1950s, though some people who use it have backwards assigned it a place in history all the way to the 1780s.

Most amusingly, a new generation have started to embellish this fictitious term. In Utah they declared schools needed to teach in civics class the U.S. was a "compound constitutional republic."

But how common was that term before Utah passed the law? Adam Brown, an assistant professor of political science at BYU, in a blog, Utah Data Points, performs the analysis.

From his blog: "First, let’s look at whether the term 'compound Constitutional Republic' existed before HB 220. This is a factual question that is easy to test. The answer: No. The legislature pretty much made this one up."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogschalk ... c.html.csp

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds like "constitutional dictatorship," or "constitutional socialism" or "constitutional communism."

[warmonger1981]

Just words. Like "Homeland Security" or "Center for Disease Control". Do you feel any safer? Do Color codes and yellow tape keep you safe? A word will change meaning if a lawyer is paid enough.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Constitutional Homeland Security"
"Constitutional Center for Disease Control"

Hmm...

I'm sorry, warmonger, but your examples don't work here.

[ooge]

If everyone would rather believe in "black helicopters" I cant help you.

[Phatscotty]

Given that we are talking about the USA here,in cases where the OP does not specify we can safely assume this,can I ask one question?By what criteria can it be said the USA was founded by geniuses,and if this is so,how did so many geniuses come to be concentrated in one place at the same time?

I think it was the times and the opportunity more than the people that many of us consider geniuses. They had a reason to study governments of the past, why they did work and why they didn't. They had a reason to study equality and the words of Plato and ancient Greeks and to study the Roman empire and the Byzantine. They had a reason to study religions and religious persecution and move the cause of religious freedom forward. After winning the war they had an opportunity to found a nation and try to get it right, and I believe they got it right, and that it was a nation built on Freedom and Liberty for the right reasons, and the reason why we did not seat a King like most other countries. They grew up as a free people. There was not a central education system dedicated to teaching them what to think. They were allowed to develop for themselves in their own ways the ability to think, and they thought for us even to this day.

When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Bill Clinton said, amongst appointing all his cabinet members and having them all together in one room, "There hasn't been this concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.”

Benjamin Franklin - certified genius. I'm grateful it was his son who remained loyal to the British.

[chang50]

Given that we are talking about the USA here,in cases where the OP does not specify we can safely assume this,can I ask one question?By what criteria can it be said the USA was founded by geniuses,and if this is so,how did so many geniuses come to be concentrated in one place at the same time?

I think it was the times and the opportunity more than the people that many of us consider geniuses. They had a reason to study governments of the past, why they did work and why they didn't. They had a reason to study equality and the words of Plato and ancient Greeks and to study the Roman empire and the Byzantine. They had a reason to study religions and religious persecution and move the cause of religious freedom forward. After winning the war they had an opportunity to found a nation and try to get it right, and I believe they got it right, and that it was a nation built on Freedom and Liberty for the right reasons, and the reason why we did not seat a King like most other countries. They grew up as a free people. There was not a central education system dedicated to teaching them what to think. They were allowed to develop for themselves in their own ways the ability to think, and they thought for us even to this day.

When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Bill Clinton said, amongst appointing all his cabinet members and having them all together in one room, "There hasn't been this concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.”

Benjamin Franklin - certified genius. I'm grateful it was his son who remained loyal to the British.

I can agree there were many great,and several exceptional people involved who seized the zeitgeist and created something novel and unprecedented.However it has not been an unqualified success story and other models of government have evolved that are just as admirable,but less prone to self praise and absurd flag-waving.The average Brit would be embarassed by regarding their country as exceptional and the elevation of their historical/political figures to geniushood.What I'm trying to say,and please do not take this as an insult as opposed to an honest opinion, is your country has never been as special as you and many others seem to think.

[Phatscotty]

I understand, I don't totally disagree. Your bit about flag waving...hey, we won WW1 and WW2, that's gonna happen. I don't think there isn't something bigger going on either, like the education system pumping kids full of our founding and winning the big wars, and then a bunch of Liberalism from 1950's to current, and I think a reason for that may be our individual "self esteem" is part of some bigger organized goal, as it's true our self esteem is through the roof in some areas where young people will just say we are #1 at everything without thinking about it.

I don't think you are talking about me though, because not being #1 is what drives me, and returning to the fundamental principles geared towards Liberty that helped us be #1 in the past is what I'm pushin

[Lootifer]

You wouldnt find this kind of silly rhetoric on a wonderful channel like ABC!

[chang50]

I understand, I don't totally disagree. Your bit about flag waving...hey, we won WW1 and WW2, that's gonna happen. I don't think there isn't something bigger going on either, like the education system pumping kids full of our founding and winning the big wars, and then a bunch of Liberalism from 1950's to current, and I think a reason for that may be our individual "self esteem" is part of some bigger organized goal, as it's true our self esteem is through the roof in some areas where young people will just say we are #1 at everything without thinking about it.

I don't think you are talking about me though, because not being #1 is what drives me, and returning to the fundamental principles geared towards Liberty that helped us be #1 in the past is what I'm pushin

So we do share some common ground,who'd have thought it?