Panem et circenses, Or, if you’re one of these, please don’t vote!

 

 

We’ll soon be subjected to the president’s annual “State of the Union” address.
I’m speechless with anticipation.

 

I don’t necessarily lament low voter turn-out in American elections.  Most people who don’t care enough to vote should, in my judgment, stay home.  The republic will be safer if low-information voters — of the type who vote for congressional candidates because they’re cute, or choose all judicial candidates whose names begin with “b,” to say nothing of those who’re simply seeking to profit from bigger government handouts and, therefore, vote for the most, um, “generous” politician available — were to stay home and continue to watch daytime television or reality shows.  (The government no longer provides gladiatorial contests.  Sorry.)

 

Many of our political and economic problems today come, I believe, because too many such people vote.  And they are the reason why our political campaigns, ads, and debates are so wretchedly awful.

 

I still well remember a lady in my California neighborhood who voted against Richard Nixon for governor because, while he was out holding a rally in the parking lot of the huge mall where she worked, his wife Pat, probably very tired, came in to buy a hat — but didn’t smile while doing it.  There were, of course, plenty of sound reasons for voting against Mr. Nixon at all levels of government, but that struck me, even as a young child, as an extraordinarily flimsy one.

 

People voting on such bases shouldn’t vote.

 

And I would disenfranchise at least three of the women in this commercial, too:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cafatIIF6vw

 

Can you guess which three?  Of course, it would be cleaner and simpler to just ban all of them from voting.

 

 Posted from Orlando, Florida

 

 

Print Friendly

  • kiwi57

    Uh-oh.

    You’ve done it now.

    Just wait until the usual suspects turn up to lament and scold you for your expressed desire to disenfranchise all women everywhere!

    Isn’t that what you said?

    Mind you, voters will vote for all sorts of reasons. Here in New Zealand, one of the two major political parties is the Labour Party. It got its name because it was literally an offshoot of the trade union movement. It was always “the party of the working man,” specifically the blue-collar workers whose union dues funded its political campaigns.

    Then about forty or so years ago there came something of a shift; it became the party of academic lefties and champagne socialists. Its policies and priorities have been driven by their agenda ever since. But it still absolutely owns the blue-collar constituency; they continue to vote for it, almost entirely on the basis of long-standing tradition, because it’s unthinkable for them to do anything else.

    I recently on the radio heard a former Labour MP jeer at a small business person for liking a particular law introduced by the “other” party, because it made it easier to fire bad workers in the first 90 days of employment. It’s bad to like such things, because it puts one on the side of “the bosses.”

    Forgetting, as socialists invariably do, that what is good for business is ultimately good for those they employ, also.

    • Brock Lesnar

      kiwi57 wrote: “You’ve done it now.Just wait until the usual suspects turn up to lament and scold you for your expressed desire to disenfranchise all women everywhere! Isn’t that what you said?”

      Dude, have you been smoking crack again?!

      • DanielPeterson

        Actually, I wouldn’t have been even slightly surprised to see one or more of the usual suspects do exactly what kiwi57 describes.

        However, the preemptive laughter may now have warned them off.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X