Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
i see you posted on the same subject i did. horrifically fascinating isn't it? I even got a comment from "anonymous" hmmm, why is it that when people choose to comment, they can't have the guts to add their name to it, (even a fake one- what the hell!)?!Salud!
I have a rule or algorithm that governs what comments I post.if it's anonymous and not insulting or a good point, I publish it.if it's anonymous and insulting/stupid/non-sequitir, I don't publish it as it's typically a troll with no life and a blog that comes nowhere near relevancy.People who put the fake names up and then make idiotic points or critique me on my grammar (you'd be surprised how often THAT is the primary complaint), they go into the bin of never-published/posted.The other thing is to not let these morons even bother you in the slightest. I used to have the open posting mentality when I realized when you let idiots post, it ruins the quality of your blog.
This kind of manipulation, ignorance and stupidity will eventually sink this country if not stopped soon. The right to vote is taken way too lightly...you don't give a medical license to a Moron do you!
To be fair, I doubt that the average McCain/Palin voter was much more aware of the issues concerning the candidates. Really, the big thing to get out of this is a realization of just how ignorant the average voter of ANY party is. Brings to mind the Winston Churchill quote:The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.Of course, I'm speculating based on personal experience rather than hard data, so it would be nice to see a similar survey conducted amongst republican voters.
I completely agree Alex, you could poll a selected 12 Republican voters and probably get the same repsonse.Which only proves to me that we need to test voters for basic civics understanding before granting them the right to vote.
Right about now, Heinlein's "two years of Federal Service" requirement starts looking better and better./I always get the shakes before an election
Once upon a time there was a property requirement to vote. i.e. in order for an individual to vote they needed to own land (in a modern sense it'd be more logical to treat this as assets that they actually own, that is have equity in rather than possessing while creditors hold the deed to those assets). I could see a great deal of value in this, as usually in order to build up and continue to own assets one needs to comprehend basic economics. This would, fortunately, tend to disenfranchise clueless voters who fail to produce GDP because they're "special".
Post a Comment