| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:We The People can't be trusted to vote correctly
Category:News & Politics, Cartoons & Animation
Tags:Gohmert, delicious salty tears of the entitled, 17th Amendment, democracy is bad
Submitted:Influence Device TIMR
Date:03/23/10
Views:1274
Rating:
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video
Favorited 1 Time

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
KENNEDY KENNEDY KENNEDY KENNEDY KENNEDY KENNEDY KENNEDY FOR ME
INDIAN HULK
Autotune Martin Luther King, Jr.
(InvisibleCrane) Rise Of The Robots Review
Steven Seagal's Ending Speech from 'On Deadly Ground'
Hardboiled Cops in the Locker Room
Dr. Demikhov's Two-Headed Dog
Baa Baa Black Sheep
fox news - Rove: Flynn's request for immunity is 'troubling'
Keith Olbermann - Supreme Court Sanctioned Murder Of Democracy
Comment count is 32
Tuan Jim - 2010-03-23
Ho-lee shit.


SolRo - 2010-03-23
Hey, he said balance a bunch of times, it must be reasonable!

memedumpster - 2010-03-23
The Constitution : a six year old with godlike powers that must be stopped at all cost.
Louis Armstrong - 2010-03-23
I am suprised that they haven't just flat out tried a "Democrats to be thrown in hot fryer oil" ammendment yet. They after all have 39 "red" states.
Riskbreaker - 2010-03-23
He's like a lousy villain from an rpg.
Daughters of Uzbek - 2010-03-23
You people realize what he's saying is what the framers actually put in the Constitution in the first place, and that it has actually been the governing rule for the majority of nation's history, right?
Influence Device TIMR - 2010-03-23
you realise you're dumb as a plank, right?

The Great Hippo - 2010-03-23
Yes. That's what 'amendments' are. Decisions made by government to change structures of power or patterns of behavior. Like amendments allowing women to vote, or preventing legal discrimination.

Not that this amendment is on that level of civic justice, but the fact that it's old is irrelevant to everything, and I find it rather off-putting that there's someone here who would think otherwise.

Daughters of Uzbek - 2010-03-23
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Wacky Constitution!

The Great Hippo - 2010-03-23
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Ha ha! Yeah, you're right--that Constitution sure is wacky!

The Great Hippo - 2010-03-23
What the man is proposing is absurd: "People feel betrayed by their government, so the correct response is to deny them the ability to vote those who betrayed them out of office."

Either he's an idiot or he thinks that people will just vote more senators into office who will pass legislation he doesn't like (see: Health bill). Either way, the man's not worth the calories I'm burning to type these words describing him. Fuck him, I want those french fries back.

EskimoSpy - 2010-03-23
My favorite part is how he's one of the same tards who was harping about how the 'will of the people' should be followed in order to oppose health care reform... and now wants to remove the ability of the 'will of the people' to be expressed in their representation.

Daughters of Uzbek - 2010-03-23
State legislature election of US Senators does not deny the ability of the electorate to vote them out, though. Arguably, it renders them more accountable because local politicians (usually districted state legislators) are on the hook for the choice. More importantly from a federalism perspective, it gave state government a stronger footing in its relation to Congress. It's not unusual in federalist systems. So there's no good reason to be shocked by the idea.

Influence Device TIMR - 2010-03-24
I am regrading you to 'dumb as a whole bunch of planks'.

The Great Hippo - 2010-03-24
The idea's not necessarily bad; there's a long and understandable trend of removing certain figures from political monkey-works (Supreme Court Justices, for instance). It rarely turns out the way we want it to, but there's a feasible conversation to be had over the issue.

The 'shocking' part here is where this idea is coming from and the circumstances surrounding it. Maybe we *would* benefit from senators appointed by state legislators rather than public vote. But to have this man expressing that sentiment in response to the vote of the Health Bill--to express it as 'the people's will gone haywire', or a response to senators being too 'sensitive' to the people's current politics--is a sentiment steeped both in hypocrisy and stupidity. He doesn't get to say that shit after spending so long campaigning on the notion that the people were 100% against this. That's what's shocking, and that's what people are going 'Bullshit' over.

StanleyPain - 2010-03-24
You do realize all that shit was CHANGED by our own fucking government when it became obvious it DIDN'T WORK PROPERLY? Jesus, learn some U.S. fucking history.

zatojones - 2010-03-24
Don't you realize that the framers of the Constitution were infallible man-gods whose 18th world view should be considered 100% applicable to all points in American history from then until eternity?

TeenerTot - 2010-03-24
What do you mean "you people"?

Daughters of Uzbek - 2010-03-23
BTW not expressing an opinion on the relative merits of the 17th amendment, just think it's dumb that so many are shocked by the idea.
Influence Device TIMR - 2010-03-23
do you think we are unaware that something called an "amendment" was added AFTERWARDS?

Daughters of Uzbek - 2010-03-23
I think you might be.

Influence Device TIMR - 2010-03-24
why? I'm easily ten times as smart as anybody else here - everyone knows that!

you're a bit of a soggy old potato, aren't you.

Son of Slam - 2010-03-24
Here's an idea: perhaps people are shocked at the idea of an elected representative trying to remove the "one man one vote" idea that we've had for almost a hundred years in the constitution because of some whiney petulant sore loserism. The fact that this amendment was incorporated in the first place because of populist turmoil like we're seeing now is merely silver icing on the irony cake.

Explodotron - 2010-03-24
I thought the electoral college wasn't a "one man, one vote system" Or is that only used in presidential elections?

William Burns - 2010-03-24
I don't think that anyone here is actually dumb or ignorant, except for Explodotron, who seems to be both.

fermun - 2010-03-24
William Burns is entirely correct.

Influence Device TIMR - 2010-03-24
No he's not, I'm ignorant as hell.

TeenerTot - 2010-03-24
Explododtron might be one of them foreigners that shows up here once in awhile, stealing our post space.

Camonk - 2010-03-24
He's right that people from Tyler and Longview aren't smart enough to vote for anything basically.
TeenerTot - 2010-03-24
At first i was all "what the hell is this?"
Then I saw the "(R), TEXAS."
Rev. Blackson Pollock - 2010-03-25
I can't take anything said with that accent seriously anymore.

Daughters of Uzbek - 2010-04-09
Watched the video again, still don't see any of what you people (YOU PEOPLE!) are talking about re: "'the people's will gone haywire', or a response to senators being too 'sensitive' to the people's current politics." He's quite explicitly talking about federal-state interplay.

I apparently really care about this.
Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement