About This Blog
Wheel of Fortune's Pat Sajak had some stupid stuff to say this past week.
In nearly all private and public endeavors, there are occasions in which it’s only fair and correct that a person or group be barred from participating because that party could directly and unevenly benefit from decisions made and policies adopted. So should state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections.
In today's TeaTard-strewn landscape, bashing working people has become a cottage industry. Bashing union workers, bashing all government workers, bashing workers currently unemployed, etc.
Sometimes, during these bashing sessions, Tea drinkers imbibe too much Tea and become disoriented. Then these inebriated TeaTards (not a pretty sight) say crazy stuff like Pat Sajak did in the opening paragraph above.
Just for the hell-of-it, let's waste our time thinking about the brilliance of a heavily intoxicated TeaTard.
"matters that would benefit them directly".....That's Sajak's people-shouldn't-be-allowed-to-vote litmus test.
The Reverend has questions.
Should wealthy Americans be prevented from voting because Republicans are on the ballot? Republicans, if elected, automatically reduce rich Americans' taxes, which, call me crazy, sounds like a "direct benefit" to those rich Americans. Rich Americans being allowed to vote for Republicans who will lower rich Americans tax responsibility?.....the very definition of conflict of interest.
How about handicapped Americans? Should handicapped Americans be prevented from casting a ballot for Democratic representatives, who, campaign on increasing federal monies for handicapped Americans?
Cancer patients? Would cancer patients be too conflicted to vote for candidates or intitiatives which would increase cancer research?
Church goers? The religious would automatically disqualify themselves from the right to vote, by simply being religious. If Republicans are on the ballot, Republicans who will take down the barrier between church and state if elected, then, wouldn't church goers voting for Republicans be a conflict of interest? I mean, criminy, church goers would "directly benefit" from Republicans getting elected, right?
Okay. Sajak has eliminated state and federal workers from voting because they are way too conflicted to do so. I have eliminated the wealthy, the handicapped, cancer patients, and church goers......all suspiciously conflicted in most every election.
Farmers? Too conflicted by those farm subsidies to vote? Women of child-bearing age? If Democrats are on the ballot, then those women would be faced with a conflict of interest, perhaps faced with a choice to vote to continue their control over their own reproduction system. Can't have that....so child-bearing age women are out.
Blacks? Are you kidding me? Talk about a conflict of interest. Black Americans vote for Democrats by an 80%+ margin......and if you listen to very smart conservative guys, like Sajak.....they will tell you that blacks vote for Democrats because Democrats provide welfare handouts to blacks. So blacks must be prevented from voting because they are oh-so-conflicted.
Anyone left to vote?
Oh, yeah.....white, middle aged, affluent, conservative males who support the TeaTard movement. You know, like Pat Sajak. They are the only potential voters who can be trusted to not have a conflict of interest when they vote. Why? Because they are white, middle aged, middle class, conservative, male patriots.....the only "real Americans."
- 2013 (113)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)