>Pat Say-WHAT?

>Pat Sajak, one-time Nashvillian, current Wheel Of Fortune host, and modern conservative pundit thinks public employees shouldn’t be allowed to vote because he thinks they have a larger stake in the outcome, which is just the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.

I think someone needs to go to a Tea Party rally and learn about taxation without representation.

Moron.

10 Comments

Filed under conservatives

10 responses to “>Pat Say-WHAT?

  1. >Not being able to vote is too extreme, but I would support a ban on political contributions and lobbying by the public sector unions (although they could encourage their members to go a certain way). They already don't have a major limitation that the private sector unions have (that they can only push so far, lest they put the company out of business).

  2. >That's the second stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. So their jobs will just be privatized.Honest to Christ do you people not understand the point of an election? The entire reason people are told to VOTE? BECAUSE OF SELF-INTEREST. You vote your interests. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.Let's not have candidates vote then, since they CLEARLY have self-interest! They are trying to get a job! Jesus fucking Christ what is the deal with conservatives constantly trying to disenfranchise people?

  3. >Honest to Christ do you people not understand the point of an election? The entire reason people are told to VOTE? BECAUSE OF SELF-INTEREST. You vote your interests. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.So the organization itself wouldn't be able to make political donations? Boo fucking hoo. It's not like the members themselves can't contribute money – all it would do is limit bullshit like what has happened with the prison guards' union out in California, where they use their political pull and donations to award themselves more compensation at the taxpayers' expense. If this were, say, the local utility monopoly lobbying and contributing money so that they could jack up rates, you'd be screaming your head off. But when it's the Poor Widdle Public Sector Unions, it's all okay.

  4. >Yeah and what about anyone who owns stock or invests in the markets via a 401(k)? They shouldn't vote either because they get to vote their shares and corporations are people and get to influence our elections via anonymous multibilliondollar donations to groups like FreedomWorks. Hell let's just dispense with elections altogether and go back to the monarchy. We can start the War of the Roses all over again and have it be Bush v Clinton.

  5. > If this were, say, the local utility monopoly lobbying and contributing money so that they could jack up rates, you'd be screaming your head off. But when it's the Poor Widdle Public Sector Unions, it's all okay. October 14, 2010 1:46 PM What if it's a defense corporation lobbying to buy some overpriced pieced of military hardware?How about a finance industry demanding to be bailed out of a problem they paid themselves billions to create?Would you support banning these contributions?~

  6. >No, no, the media people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Seriously, why is News Corp allowed to give 2 mill to the repubs?In fact, they should shut up all together.

  7. >"So the organization itself wouldn't be able to make political donations? Boo fucking hoo. It's not like the members themselves can't contribute money – all it would do is limit bullshit like what has happened with the prison guards' union out in California, where they use their political pull and donations to award themselves more compensation at the taxpayers' expense."When I worked for a large telecom corporation who shall remain nameless (here's a hint; starts with "V" ends with "erizon") I was in the union. When we had a strike or any other labor action, the company and the union would have competing ads and PR campaigns. The union's ads and PR work were paid for by the dues of the members. The company's stuff was paid for by the, you guessed it, customers–as part of the cost of doing business. Hey, I'm all for outlawing ALL private money in election financing. It would shut people like Christine O'Donnel up and that's a benefit I can live with.

  8. >Not being able to vote is too extreme, but I would support a ban on political contributions and lobbying by the public sector unions (although they could encourage their members to go a certain way). That should balance well with the SCOTUS decision to allow multi-national corporations unlimited campaign contributions.Y'all need to read up on the real republicans like William Cullen Bryant and William Seward that founded the republican party. I know Michael Steele would be onboard."William Cullen Bryant was the leading voice of liberalism," wrote the authors of A History of New York State. "Bryant preached the liberal cause for over fifty years. He attacked monopolies such as the Second United States Bank, defended the right of workingmen to form unions, and spearheaded the antislavery faction of the Democratic party. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 caused him to swing over to the new radical group, the Republicans."Back in 1860, the republicans were the good guys. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

  9. >What if it's a defense corporation lobbying to buy some overpriced pieced of military hardware?How about a finance industry demanding to be bailed out of a problem they paid themselves billions to create?Would you support banning these contributions?I actually am in favor of heavily limiting and/or banning organizational donations like that, limiting donations to individual ones. Of course, that would never survive a first amendment challenge (probably the same for public sector union donations, although there is some precedent), but there you go.