Bill Whittle

Posted on April 4, 2015 by KG

on 16-year-olds and voting:
‘Teen voters, the younger the better, are exactly what the left is looking for. They know no history; they base all of their decisions on emotion; they have no real world experience in terms of what works and what does not. They haven’t the slightest idea of discipline or delayed gratification. They live in a world of fantasy and wish fulfilment; they make demands that cannot be met but they’re willing to settle for an ice-cream cone. They are utterly dependent on others; they’re desperate to conform to the cultural norm, and in general they are the perfect, pliable, ignorant, utterly emotional, reason-free, easily-manipulated vote farm that the progressives need for their power grab.’
Related: Lord help us!          
Any time a politician calls for lowering the voting age, you know what you’re looking at is an A-grade scumbag seeking increased power regardless of the consequences. As if the universal franchise hasn’t been destructive enough…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Bill Whittle

  1. Ronbo says:
    April 4, 2015 at 07:18

    How about the dog vote for conservatives :?: http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

    Seriously :!: :shock:

    We need to get the dogs made voters :!:

    My dog – a typical mutt – hates Obama, Reed and Pelosi :!:

    I know this because when those Leftists are on television, he runs howling and dives under my bed until they stop speaking :!: :shock:

    HE HATES OBAMA WORSE THAN A BATH :!: :mrgreen:

  2. GW says:
    April 4, 2015 at 09:40

    At the Founding, the U.S. government was crafted specifically to filter out the evils of unrestrained democracy that were inevitable given the ignorance of the average voter.
    http://www.wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2015/03/democracy-our-republic-obama.html
    We need to go back to the system where you only get to vote if you pay sufficient amount in taxes. Or I could be inclined to got the Starship Trooper route and limit the vote to vets.

    • KG says:
      April 4, 2015 at 10:35

      http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif Too right, GW.

    • Warren Tooley says:
      April 4, 2015 at 11:27

      GW, actually it used to be that only those who owned land could vote. And only the men could vote. No, not quite they created the 3/5 compromise, where a slave had 60% of a vote, and I’m pretty sure you had to be 21 to vote.

      • Warren Tooley says:
        April 4, 2015 at 12:39

        My bad, It was the drinking age that they changed from 21 to 18.

        • Darin says:
          April 4, 2015 at 14:36

          I believe the system I favor most would be one where anyone over 18 can vote,but registering to vote,also registers them for the draft.

          • KG says:
            April 4, 2015 at 15:55

            The system I favour most is hemp rope and lamp posts, thus turning politicians into an extinct species.

  3. Cadwallader says:
    April 4, 2015 at 11:02

    I believe the vote ought be restricted to those who are nett taxpayers. This means any form of state beneficiary is disqualified, as are students who rely on advances from the state and all public servants. I can’t demand to vote within a corporation without first buying shares, why can’t the same apply in government elections? :?:

    • Wombat says:
      April 4, 2015 at 11:24

      I’ve considered “net taxpayer” but it’s too difficult to measure these days, what, with GST and all that. In Australia every family earning less than 150k a year is getting some level of family tax benefit a/b.

      Consider that before every election in Australia you’d have to juggle the numbers for some 15-18 million people. Quite impossible.

      The most reasonable way to go is to require personal identification and all non-government salary group certificates that fall within the voting cycle. Your name and income goes on the roll and you get one voting slip per 10k earned to distribute among your family as you see fit.

      It’s not foolproof, but voter fraud on any significant scale would be damn near impossible.

      • Warren Tooley says:
        April 4, 2015 at 11:50

        Wombat, the IRD could keep a track of how much you’ve paid overall. Although giving the IRD more power, would only create more problemshttp://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif. Your idea is much easier and simpler to implement.

        • KG says:
          April 4, 2015 at 12:47

          Warren, please remember, these are threaded comments, so place your comment under the last reply. Otherwise comments previous to yours are rendered nonsensical. Thanks.

      • The Gantt Guy says:
        April 5, 2015 at 07:27

        Much harder in Oz than in NZ to figure out who is a nett taxpayer and who isn’t. The Oz tax code is ridiculously complicated – deliberately so. It’s pretty easy in NZ.

        • Cadwallader says:
          April 5, 2015 at 09:44

          Agree. The OZ tax code is easy to game if you remain NZ domiciled. I have had numerous tax accountants in OZ observe that by international standards NZ is a “tax haven.” Doesn’t say a lot for “international standards” perhaps? :?:

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      April 4, 2015 at 11:37

      http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_good.gif

  4. Pascal says:
    April 4, 2015 at 12:15

    KG, re: related “Any time a politician calls for….”

    When we are in a fantasy-land somewhat more sardonic than those Onteoran wish-we-coulds that Mr. Porretto provides us, wouldn’t that make a nice crawl to put across the screen of our news network as we are interviewing said grade-A scumbag?

  5. Warren Tooley says:
    April 4, 2015 at 21:12

    If I had my way, I’d make it that you need to pass a taxation and spending test and cultural history test :twisted: . This way only those who understand these issues could vote. And no I wouldn’t make it too complicated either :lol: . I would make it that anybody who understands responsibility could vote. One question’s answer would be, that government can only borrow, because income tax is imposed by the citizens :shock: . Another question’s answer would be that the ETS is growing trees :mrgreen: overseas and is not circulating to the worker. Another question’s answer would be that when America only had a tax on property, tax on domestic made goods and imports their were surpluses in just about every year :lol: . Anybody who knows their American history well, and their constitution would be able to pass.

    Ultimately, any debt the government owes needs to be paid by the taxpayer, this is spelt out in the first and fourth sections of the 14th amendment. It welcomes people to become under the jurisdiction of the US. Then says the national debt won’t even be questioned. Just after passing that, they imposed a civil war emergency income tax temporarily. Then decades later made it permanent. Somehow I don’t think the left will like this idea.http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cry.gif The point to this would be that what the government spends must be paid for.

  6. Warren Tooley says:
    April 4, 2015 at 21:26

    I can remember in the days when my dad worked as a missionary in the states, and I had to leave because I couln’t get a green card in time. And just before I left I was talking to my American friends about the presidential candidates. Someone got so upset, you know more about politics than us, and you can’t even vote.

  7. Grog says:
    April 4, 2015 at 21:39

    Warren, if I’m understanding your point, you’re saying that the gov’t shouldn’t take more money in taxes than is needed to balance the books.

    Ronbo, here’s two anti-obozo dogs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCFNpqqEsUg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxAidztBcPc

  8. Warren Tooley says:
    April 4, 2015 at 21:59

    Grog, over a lifetime yes. Governments do borrow, and they borrow for a reason. Sometimes its legit, like a war they are in need to finance. But, the simple reality is that a lot of nations are borrowing recklessly, and the taxpayers need to pay the interest, every year for their lifetime, unless the government is being responsible.

    For instance the USA had only a tax on goods and property and had surpluses every year in which that was the case, but they also had a rule, only wars to defend yourself. The US doesn’t do wars only to defend herself no more.

    So what I’m saying is we want voters who are going to ask, how will this be paid for. How will this affect my future. Is the money worth it. If voters act as if it is their money, we will have responsible government. But if they think someone else is paying they won’t care. So that’s the point I’m trying to make. It will cost people, whether they like it or not, and voters ought to be taking this attitude. Its when they think other people will pay, that we’re in trouble.

  9. Grog says:
    April 4, 2015 at 22:59

    Warren, got it.

    In a practical world of informed voters, that would work. The difficulty with your premise is that over 85% of people who vote(my estimate based on analysis of the last 30 years of voting history)either vote for their party, vote for skin color, or vote because of emotion, as detailed in the header of this post, because some people in their 30’s or 40’s act like teenagers in this “modern world”. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif So the “vote” has been irrelevant for some years now.

    As for the parallel point regarding money and votes, that will never be removed from the system unless the people seeking votes to hold a “public office”, and those supporting said candidate, change their thinking and actions. A cup of coffee could be considered an election bribe. Anyway, none of what you described will matter when the financial crunch happens. The economy will be a barter system at best. For how long? I have no idea. So good luck with your endeavor, you’ll need it.

    I don’t type these words to insult you, and this isn’t a rant, this is the reality of society as we have it right now. Did you vote for any of the FCC wonks that approved the “internet neutrality” last month? didn’t think so. Tyranny has many forms and goals, to counter all of them would require more effort than could be gathered at this point in time. So the future will be what it is. Hope you have tribe.

    CR, thanks for giving me “space” to type. :smile:

  10. Warren Tooley says:
    April 5, 2015 at 17:35

    Grog, no offense taken. Unfortunately most voters are not voters who think, as you pointed out. So in that case I don’t know what getting votes counts for anyhow. Now about the bribes. Buying someone a coffee and talking about a political party is illegal here in New Zealand. Its called treating. Anytime you do something for somebody with the intent of swaying their opinion with a vote it is treating. But that is if it is done for them individually and privately. If an election bride is to a group of people out in the open it is legal.

    And as for the collapse, oh if only you were right. Its going to be far worse, then what you think. If your not part of the underground non-cashless society, everything you do will be completely monitored. Whenever someone gives you a gift by electronic money, the government will take its chunk right their and then. And if your on the bartering system, you won’t be living in a house, as that would require electronic payments, even just property taxes. We’re already heading down that way. Cyprus couldn’t pay its debt, so as a part of settlement, they took out a portion of people’s savings. Argentina, they transferred people’s retirement savings to treasury bonds. And they plan on doing it in the USA. And here in New Zealand we have ‘overnight bank resolution’, which is the same thing in a subtle form.

    So, its only a question of how much more time we do have, with any freedom whatsoever. Basically when it does happen their will be no turning back. But they’re only going to do this when they have enough people on their side. Too many rebels will put a stop to them. So they will pick their time, and it will be when they have the clear majority, and the minority is not enough to stop them.

    • Wombat says:
      April 5, 2015 at 18:11

      This is it.

      I believe a collapse is the lesser of two evils, the other being Orwell’s 1984, but there’s a lot of money in those super-schemes and the boomers aren’t going to choose Mad Max over crippling poverty.

      • Warren Tooley says:
        April 5, 2015 at 21:28

        Ah but Wombat, have you heard of ‘guaranteed retirement account’, Obama plans to buy up all American’s IRA and transfer the money into treasury bonds. They just have to get enough democrats to approve of this. And already here in NZ we have something a little like that. Kiwisaver money goes partly to loans to the government. I’m not saying the whole lot. But the amount that does helps. But yes I agree that a collapse is better then Orwell’s total control. Ah, but when the collapse happens, these people will say, “we’re from the government we only want to help”. They will use the collapse to gain power.

  11. KG says:
    April 5, 2015 at 17:48

    Grog, you’re most welcome. :grin:

  12. Grog says:
    April 5, 2015 at 21:33

    CR, seems that Warren didn’t “read between the lines” for my previous comment, ;-) that’s ok, we agree on the main points of everything “going down the loo”, as it were. :evil:

    An off topic comment, since I don’t have your e-mail, here’s a good car story. :cool:

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/04/05/colorado-barn-find-nets-five-mercedes-benz-63s-in-outstanding-preserved/