Ok, new plan.

[TimeLord]

I just think its funny that Obama wants to give free healthcare to god-knows-how-many Americans and they hate him for it :S

 

[axia777]

I think proper education would fix all the above problems. I would say that capitalism is the problem, but...well...telling America to drop capitalism is like telling a dog to stop licking its balls.

Good luck in "the land of the free."

-is laughing very, very hard-

Uh, most of Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America are capitalist as well. So who is laughing now?

While some of them are doing well, they all still have many problems that stem from capitalism.

That is besides the point. I was just pointing out that America is not the only place that likes this form of economy.

What about him? Our American system of Government survived his stupidity. What is your point? He actually did not permanently limit anyone's right. He just violated them for a time. For the record I hate GW. He is an evil asshat. But oh well. America lives on.

we had a jackass who didn't really win a "straight" election besides his second, in which both were inept at leading even lemmings.

Go ahead think, I'm joking, but look at what the aftermath of the G.W.Jr has done to us as a country, We were at least well-liked by some nations, now I'm being pointed out like I'm the fucking Representative of the United States, A 18-year old sociopath with a obsession with fire, George Carlin and M*A*S*H.

I was planning to leave the country for vacation, or maybe retirement, but If i get treated like this here by foreign exchange students, how the hell am i going to relax somewhere else?

There is no such thing as majority rules in a insane asylum, which apparently America has become anymore if you haven't been watching the news.[/quote]

That is a really pessimistic view. The damage he and his cohorts is not permanent. It can be reversed. In fact the effect that Obama has had on foreign relations is pretty amazing for such a short time.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I think proper education would fix all the above problems. I would say that capitalism is the problem, but...well...telling America to drop capitalism is like telling a dog to stop licking its balls.

Good luck in "the land of the free."

-is laughing very, very hard-

Uh, most of Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America are capitalist as well. So who is laughing now?

While some of them are doing well, they all still have many problems that stem from capitalism.

That is besides the point. I was just pointing out that America is not the only place that likes this form of economy.

That's true. My main point though was that America was founded on capitalism.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

So you're pretty much saying deny every idiotic, patriotic redneck the right to vote?

Sounds good.

 

[LockHeart]

From what I gather, it places the need of the many above rights. Kinda the "Greater Good". It does terrible things to people, but it garners speedy advancement of the whole.

Of course, it isn't stated that fascism has to sacrifice rights. It's a conservative (And most would argue correct) lack of faith in humans that makes it lead on to that.

I'll explain more into my interpretation of it if you like. It might be wrong, but I'd be happy to tell it.

Well I dislike strong state control of things so I'm diametrically opposed to fascist ideologies. I also think that any system besides one of free-market capitalism stifles innovation - by crushing individuality breakthroughs happen at a much slower pace, because the state simply cannot act in the same way that an individual mind can. But I'd be happy to hear your take on the system

 

[BlumiereBleck]

finally someone who actually thinks. THANK U

 

[Danny Ocean]

But I'd be happy to hear your take on the system

Woo! Okay, here goes. I'm only making this up as I go along, so bear with me:

Well I dislike strong state control of things so I'm diametrically opposed to fascist ideologies.

And there's the thing with me. Here quoted is a confusion between fascism and authoritarianism. To me, fascism is simply placing the needs of the group above the rights of the individual. There is no need for the government to pass litigation which directly controls and limits the population as a means to this end. That implies an inherent lack of faith in humans which I simply do not possess.

However, this is a view that most people share. If we left the populous to their own ends. Free markets, few laws, etc.. It is commonly accepted that the people will work to their own ends, whether or not they coincide with the greater good of the whole.

Now, I believe that no such punishing litigation is necessary. I think it is possible for people to retain their individual freedoms and rights, and even maintain a democracy, but it would require an entire country totally devoted to one particular goal, and all of them prepared to sacrifice some things to get there. Be it a day per week sacrificed to service of the government or some other kind of productivity entirely devoted to the whole. Simply make it voluntary, but try to put into play a massive shift in the public (And, indeed, human) tendency to work selfishly.

It'd be very, very hard. And take a very long time. It'd take a huge shift in the very human nature we base our entire society upon, but I think it's possible, because I believe in people.

In the end I hope we lead ourselves into a single, world-spanning government which follows a system similar to this. Albeit more refined.

Heh, as you can see, going far enough down the fascism train takes you back to communism.

Ooh, I like this post. I hope the quote system lets me address the poster personally:

But once you start saying certain people don't deserve the right to vote--you're on thin ice. People will take advantage of the system and start trying to limit others.

It's true that this is what happened in the past, but that was the past. It was the first time running, and even then it wasn't the intention. I'm assuming you're taking the early versions of the constitution and the bill of rights, and the resulting lack of effect they had on the rights of the non-whites there. Forgive me if I'm wrong, it's just the only example I can think of at the moment.
I do believe, however, that should we try to litigate something like that again, it would be possible to cover the holes, however, before we do that, we need to achieve the next point:

It's a nice idea, of course. Like making people take a common sense test before they have children or get married and it's a well-intended idea but, everyone has a different view on what constitutes as intelligence and not everyone has the same quality of education.
If we could ensure that all America citizens could receive the same high-quality education--that would be a far better place to start than setting out to just eliminate swathes of the population because the acting enforcer has decided they don't matter.

I agree, equality of education would need to be a certainty before any kind of system like this could or should be attempted.

Cutting out a certain sect of the population from having any voice at all will only result in turmoil. That's why we had Civil Rights movements.

And yet anyone under 18 isn't allowed to vote. I consider myself perfectly capable and knowledgeable enough to vote, but I'm only 16, so as far as my democracy is concerned, I'm a second-class citizen.

It would result in turmoil, civil unrest and eventual rebellion.

Unless a fundamental shift in attitude was achieved from valuing individual rights above the benefit of the whole. Of course, that is an idea that most find abhorrent.

Doesn't it seem weird that our entire society caters to the selfish nature of humans, and yet then complains when we take it too far? Why not try to change the humans? We've done it pretty well up to now!

Intelligence has very little do to with gullibility

This is true. However, a basic knowledge of how the government works, couple with a basic knowledge of the other side's view, will help immensely when you make your decisions.

Of course, you could just be one of those mindless lemmings who earned their grades through hard work despite lack of cognitive ability.

 

[crypt-creature]

So you want things to be like school, take a test to prove how 'smart' you are?

You know, some people have a hard time learning things from history books because they just don't care, find it hard to retain information from a book, or because the only reason they are reading things in the first place is to pass that oh so important test they know they will eventually have on the subject. That doesn't automatically make people 'smart', it turns it into a popularity contest.
Being smart does not exempt you from doing something others will deem as 'stupid'.
Retaining information does not make you smart if you can't apply it in the real world, or if you don't care to apply certain information in the real world because you have no reason to do so. That is why some people are 'book smart' and others are 'street smart', and others are both or neither and whatever other mixture one can imagine.
History is subjective, not everyone will remember every event in the history of their country. Some people remember things that are interesting to them instead of the things people say they need to learn, and if they don't then they are automatically 'stupid'. They might be bad at history but great at math.
Same with politics, and what would really help countries is having political parties that didn't think 'their' party is better than the other and that they are the only way the country will be saved. Checks and balances are there for a reason, parties with opposite views are there for a reason, and that reason is to balance the system out. Something both parties seem to be forgetting.

Oh and lets not forget, people are easily swayed by a pretty face. Especially when that pretty face can lie to them and it's hard to prove that they did just that and got away with it.

 

[Latinidiot]

YES!
that is a good plan.
but, before doing this, you must make sure everyone has a chance to pass 'em. i'm not american, but if i have to believe all stories, half of your populace drops out of high school, half thinks the earth is flat, etc. , etc. I'm smart enough to not believe this completely, but there is truth in every exaggeration, and so you must improve the educational system before pulling of something like that. and for the democracy thing? it has boundaries. kids can't vote, so why should retards be able to? times change. laws change. sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. this is a good thing.

 

[firedfns13]

While I hate stupid people, I think some of those questions are just random knowledge instead of actually testing people. Asking what number president Lincoln was is useless knowledge, but asking what important things he did is not.

 

[ShotgunShaman]

Federal Apptitude Test

It's spelled "Aptitude."

And the majority of individual people aren't stupid, but large groups are.

And even pretending that the individual people are as astoundingly stupid as you claim, there would be no significant imbalance for the votes going to either candidate. So even though all those individual votes are unjustified, it still balances out (give or take a few votes).

 

[ChaosTheory3133]

Heh a novel idea, but doubt very much anything like this will come to pass.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

You're right, the asylum is run by inmates. Your test was a good example. I passed all but two questions on it. However, I think your standard fails. Your standard equalizes stupidity, undereducation, mental disability, and possibly a host of other issues.

I prefer a service based system. You serve a period of time either in the military or doing public service (so as to avoid skewing the entire process to the military which has it's own severe drawbacks). The net effect is that if you don't care enough about your community/country to truly pitch in you don't get a say in how those who did pitch in are governed. They do get a say in how you are governed to the degree that you live in regulated territory. Voting is still a right (everyone can serve, we will find a place for you based on your capabilities) but you now take direct ownership of that right. Would also allow me to tell vets who come across with "I sacrificed for your rights you ungrateful liberal" that no, I sacrificed for my rights with my pacifist service, now go take a hike you Heinlien facist!

 

[Valthek]

seriously, if you can't pass this test, you're a moron. I got most questions right and i'm not even american.

I think it's a pretty good idea to exclude anyone who can't pass this one from voting. It would at least make sure that there's a somewhat educated voting population.

 

[Gebi10000]

how about anyone you VOTE FOR has to take the test. senators, goveners evrything. that would probably thin out the less intellegent ones.

 

[bluepilot]

Intelligence has very little do to with guillibility

Even if you are intelligent, who can you be sure that someone will keep their promises when elected.

We all see a cheap ring of glass, and swear that it sparkles like a diamond, everyone can be fooled.

People who say that they cannot be fooled because they have `intelligence` or are `well educated` are just fooling themselves

Common sense will go much further in democracy than any amount of intelligence.

 

[DanielPowell33]

If you had to take a test to vote, then we'd have even LESS voters that we already do.

 

[historybuff]

I agree, but perhaps in the interest of it working drop the pass mark to 60%
As far as I'm concerned utter cretins should not have a say on how the world works. You wouldn't let a high-school drop out work with a nuclear bomb, and you wouldn't trust them to make your city's transport system work would you?
SO why let them decide which cretin runs the country?!

But once you start saying certain people don't deserve the right to vote--you're on thin ice. People will take advantage of the system and start trying to limit others.

It's a nice idea, of course. Like making people take a common sense test before they have children or get married and it's a well-intended idea but, everyone has a different view on what constitutes as intelligence and not everyone has the same quality of education.

If we could ensure that all America citizens could receive the same high-quality education--that would be a far better place to start than setting out to just eliminate swathes of the population because the acting enforcer has decided they don't matter.

Cutting out a certain sect of the population from having any voice at all will only result in turmoil. That's why we had Civil Rights movements.

So, while your words ring true in some ways--it frustrates me that I feel like I have to apologize when I tell people from other countries that I'm American. (But that, yes, I do know where Belgium is. And I can speak more than one language, at least conversationally.) It would never be realistic to actually do. It would result in turmoil, civil unrest and eventual rebellion.

 

[axia777]

I think proper education would fix all the above problems. I would say that capitalism is the problem, but...well...telling America to drop capitalism is like telling a dog to stop licking its balls.

Good luck in "the land of the free."

-is laughing very, very hard-

Uh, most of Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America are capitalist as well. So who is laughing now?

While some of them are doing well, they all still have many problems that stem from capitalism.

That is besides the point. I was just pointing out that America is not the only place that likes this form of economy.

That's true. My main point though was that America was founded on capitalism.

Yes it was. Which is good. Because that is how America became such an awesome place to live even with all it's problems and issues.

 

[Trivun]

After seeing the massive amount of stupidity that has spewed out of America since the election of President Obama, I personally think its time to enact an addendum to the voting laws - one that states you must pass Federal Apptitude Test before you're allowed to vote.

Because over these last few months, I think America has proven what the biggest threat to itself is. Its not war with another nation, viruses, socialism, communism, facism or any other "ism". It the fucking absurdly low intelligence of the general population, and the fact that for some reason we feel fucking compelled to let these people have say in what goes, even though doing fucking basic math is a challenge for them. When I have to watch reports about how people in OTHER COUNTRIES know more about my country THEN THE PEOPLE WHO FUCKING LIVE HERE, I honestly just want to start offing people. It'd be a community freakin' service at this point me'thinks. These are people who can't tell their Gerald Fords from their Harrison Fords, but we let them help decide who the President of United States is going to be. Talk about the inmates running the asylum.

(/angry rant part)

But no, seriously, you should have to pass a test every year in order to be allowed to vote on anything on a state or federal level. This accomplishes a few things. It ensures that those who pass have decent grip on logic and thought, know a decent amount about America and World history, and are at least smart enough and civic-minded enough to care, show up, and go through the process. Instead of just letting any naturalizied or natural 18+ have a say.

This test would be an objective, fact-based test, consisting of logic, math, American and World history, and current event questions. You'd have to get a 75% or better to pass, and thats out of at least 150 questions, with no partial credit on anything. Questions would be in no particular order, and consist of something like this:

10: Is the following problem valid or invalid?

All men wear uniforms
Police officers wear uniforms
-Therefore, all police officers are men.

Invalid.

13: Without using a calculator, figure out how much money one would earn working 40 hours a week, 4 weeks a month, for 6 months, at a wage of $8.44, before taxes.

$8102.40

15. Name your state's two Senators and their party.

British, so no states for me.

16: President Lincoln was which President?

25th?

17: What were the two sides in the American Civil War?

Confederate and Union.

18: Name 3 nations, besides the United States, that were part of the Allies during World War II.

United Kingdom, France, Ireland.

24: During WWI, what side was the United States on? (Circle one.)

Allies or Entente'

Entente (trick question).

26: Name 3 current Supreme Court Justices.

British, so no idea.

28: Who wrote the Declaration of Independance?

Benjamin Franklin.

30: Construct a truth table for the following statement.

If the streets are not wet, then it is not raining.

Streets not wet means not raining, but streets wet does not mean rain.

35: Who is the governer of your state?

Again, British so no states.


None of this is too hard, even for someone fresh out of high school. For verification, the first time you take the test, if you pass you're mailed a card that you swipe when you want to go vote. For every time after that, you take your card with you to the testing center, and turn it in with your test. If you pass, its sent back to you, updated and re-certified. If not, no card for you.

And I know people are going to cry "discrimination" and "unfair", but get over yourselves people - not all discrimination is "bad" and this basic knowledge - if you can't answer these questions as an American, something is seriously wrong.





P.S. For all you test-y types, here are the answers to the above questions, just for fun.

10: Invalid
13: $8,102.40
15: (Varies by State)
16: The 16th
17: Union and Confederate
18: Britian, Soviet Union, France, Poland, Austrialia, Albania, Canada, China, Greece, Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, etc.
24: Entente'
26: Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Alito, Roberts (Chief Justice), Breyer
28: Thomas Jefferson
30: (Table I really don't want to do on my computer)
35: (Varies by State)

I just decided to do that little test for fun. Taking out the US-only questions (i.e. referring to states and so on), so anything a Brit could answer, I ended up with 6 out of 8. Would I be able to vote by your little rule then, in the US, if I was an American citizen? Considering I vote in the UK based on party and politics, and also I am capable of making a rational decision, I feel like I'm in the minority of people who are actually capable of voting sensibly, no matter who it is that I end up voting for. Thing is, I think that a test of that sort would be a great idea. If it was tried in the US, and indeed in our own country. One problem is there are so many illegal immigrants in the UK who vote for Labour because they give the immigrants all these benefits, and then Labour screw things up for everyone else. Sorry to bring UK politics into this, but I agree, a test before being allowed to vote would be a good idea. I mean, you guys even have a test on the country before you can become an American citizen if you're from another country. Here in the UK, we just wave you through the lorry checkpoints out of the Eurostar and ferries then give you a house and money for doing nothing at all...