Who Should Have The Right To Vote? Judson Phillips & Rush Limbaugh Weigh In On The Subject

Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, thinks that it makes sense that voting rights in the United States should be restricted to those who own property. He believes that property owners have more of a “vested stake” in a community than do people who do not own property. That’s what he claimed on a weekly program hosted by Tea Party Nation recently.

 


BTW, Phillips is the individual who sent an email to members of his organization in October telling them that they should vote for the Independent candidate over Rep. Keith Ellison in the November election for 5th Congressional District in Minnesota. Phillips wrote the following about Ellison in his email: “There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress.”

Meanwhile—Rushbo ranted on about poor folks recently on his radio program. In a “media tweak of the day,” Limbaugh asked listeners if they thought that people who can’t feed and clothe themselves and who receive government assistance should be allowed to vote. It was just a “think piece” Rushbo said as he asked his listeners to imagine how different the political make-up of this country would be if such people couldn’t vote.

In a Psycho Talk segment on his MSNBC program, Ed Schultz “tweaked” Limbaugh back.

Maybe Phillips and Limbaugh ought to get together to establish an organization for the purpose of taking voting rights away from certain Americans whom they deem unworthy. Why not return to the good old political days when only property-owning white men had the right to vote. Right???

Sources:

TPMMuckraker

TPMDC

Think Progress

The Maddow Blog

Middle Class Populist

– Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

300 thoughts on “Who Should Have The Right To Vote? Judson Phillips & Rush Limbaugh Weigh In On The Subject”

  1. capital is that which is used to increase ones wealth or to extend ones life.

    You grow wheat and you eat some, trade some and put some away for the next years harvest. The wheat put away for next year is your capital.

    Assuming of course men like you don’t come along and steal it to give to their followers in return for favors.

  2. English.
    Politics.
    Economics.
    Verbal combat.
    What separates normal people with empathy from sociopaths.

    You can’t properly evaluate very much, can you? (rhetorical)

  3. see above for free trade. That which occurs in a free market, unencombered by government regulation among individuals or nations.

  4. “In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.”

    this is a good and straight forward defitiniton of free market.

  5. Cleaned your clock is what we used to say as kids when we played football and hockey (you probably played some candy ass sport like soccer or shuffleboard) and someone had a good hit or check on another player.

    Yep we were violent little competitors and we liked to win. Although when we played an opposing team who wasnt as good as us we would not run up the score, kept it to around 4 points.

    So in my lexicon cleaned someones clock is used to mean a good fair hit. Therefore ekeyra cleaned your clock.

    I believe it is still used in the more manly sports to indicate a good hit.

    Just because you have a socialist lexicon does not mean that you are using the words correctly.

  6. That phrase you keep using, “cleaned your clock”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Just like your misuse of the words “free market”, “free trade” and “capital”.

  7. Ask a question, dont get an answer.

    ekeyra still cleaned your clock and he/she was home schooled. You must be really hating life.

    Heyo Buddhaman, your socialist model (I guess) England is descending into mob rule because the goodies are being taken away.

    So tell me again about Marie Antoinette? You got that story all wrong. Now what was King Louis? He was a prick who took all the money for himself and didn’t do anything but spend other peoples money (he got it by inheritance because his ancestors stole it from the working man). Now where have I heard that before?

    Now everyone in England is in a huff because the goodies are being taken back. The goodies I might add that were taken from the working man by, lets hear a big shout out to BIG GOVERNMENT.

    I’m seeing a pattern here, how about you?

    Seems to me if Louis’s great great grandfather would have let the working man keep the dough he made instead of using it on military adventures and lavish meals for the king (read big government), the working man would have had no reason to rise up.

    Same in England, if the government hadn’t stolen from the working man and paid for someone else’s education maybe those students parents wouldn’t have needed to get a handout from the government to pay for college.

    So again I ask what are the limits of the moral sentiment?

    You don’t have a clue because everything your kind touches, turns to shit. And GW Bush was exactly your kind and what happened was the logical outcome of your way of thinking.

    Buddha and GW Bush, tied at the philosophical waste (on purpose).

    Compassionate conservatism is nothing but socialism wrapped up in a pretty bow for the dupes.

  8. “I am just wondering what are the limits of the moral sentiment.”

    In your case, as with most Libertarians, the end of your nose seems to be the limit.

  9. Mespo727272:

    ““As benevolence bestows upon those actions which proceed from it, a beauty superior to all others, so the want of it, and much more the contrary inclination, communicates a peculiar deformity to whatever evidences such a disposition. Pernicious actions are often punishable for no other reason than because they shew a want of sufficient attention to the happiness of our neighbour.”

    ~Theory of Moral Sentiments, VII.II.76

    Not exactly a “laissez-faire” capitalist sentiment at all would you say? BTW Smith never used either term in his writings.”

    Am I to understand you believe the highest value we can aspire to is to help our neighbor?

    What is the limit of our benevolence toward our fellow man? To what extent must we go to help someone in need? How much do we need to do/give to be considered moral?

    Do we give 1/2 of our grain to our hungry neighbor or only 10%? Or do we expect the community to take 2% from everyone to give to the hungry neighbor? I would want to be benevolent, but I would not want to give 1/2 of my grain to my neighbor. I would want to share my morality with the community so I only had to pay 2%. But if being benevolent is such a good thing why dont I want to give 1/2 or more of my grain to the poor? I could gain moral superiority.

    Is there any limitation on benevolence, do we give to the drunk as much as we give to those who cannot provide for themselves?

    I am just wondering what are the limits of the moral sentiment.

  10. In todays weathers not climate news

    “Gore Effect” strikes again: new coldest ever December record low temperature in Cancun.

  11. Water is very useful to human beings in that without it we die.

    We’ll be right back after this commercial break.

  12. ekerya:

    “Simply because you are dying of thirst does not mean you are entitled to my water, nor would your kidnapped child entitle you to the use of my expertise in hostage rescue, or to put myself and my team at risk.”

    ***************

    According to Smith I would be so entitled:

    “As benevolence bestows upon those actions which proceed from it, a beauty superior to all others, so the want of it, and much more the contrary inclination, communicates a peculiar deformity to whatever evidences such a disposition. Pernicious actions are often punishable for no other reason than because they shew a want of sufficient attention to the happiness of our neighbour.”

    ~Theory of Moral Sentiments, VII.II.76

    Not exactly a “laissez-faire” capitalist sentiment at all would you say? BTW Smith never used either term in his writings.

  13. Meps the paradox is this, water is very useful to human beings in that without it we die. On the other hand diamonds are, with few exceptions, gaudy trinkets, yet most humans value them exponentially more than water or air. True the water is plentiful to the man with the waterfall, but simply because another man may offer him a diamond for it tells us everything about how that one man values diamonds, but nothing about how plentiful those diamonds may be.

    Also the dying man and kidnapped children are not red herrings nor duress. The man dying of thirst is a circumstance of nature not of threats of a human origin, and unless I was the kidnapper of your children, there is no duress on my part just because I have the means available to rescue them. Simply because you are dying of thirst does not mean you are entitled to my water, nor would your kidnapped child entitle you to the use of my expertise in hostage rescue, or to put myself and my team at risk. It is benevolent to offer these things without any thought of recompense, precisely because it is up to the providers of those goods and services to decide for themselves if giving up a glass of water is worth saving a man’s life, or putting the lives of your men at risk to save a child.

    Lastly your thoughts on the be-jeweled and thirsty traveller walking further to find cheap water are misguided. If he had nothing to offer in exchange for water that would be one thing, but he has diamonds which someone with access to more water than him would most likely trade for. Which means his decision to travel further for cheaper water does not say anything about how much he values water, or the “toil and trouble” of walking further. What it does tell us is that this man values his diamond, which he is not willing to give up for life saving water, holds his diamond in high enough regard to potentially risk his life by forgoing water now and exerting himself further in an already precarious state.

    An actual discussion, now your classy.

  14. I’ve never seen this water-diamond issue as a paradox. Smith quite properly says, “The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

    The man owning the waterfall little values the water since it is plentiful and his trade makes perfect sense to him since the diamond enjoys universal value. The real question is why the man with the diamond wants the water. If he, like your second example, lives in the desert, his inconvenience in acquiring the water may outweigh the value of the diamond which may be more plentiful to him under his circumstances.

    The dying man example is a red herring since one does not assume barter under duress as free trade. (Would you really consider the cost of rescuing your child when his life is threatened by a kidnapper? That is not commerce but duress and extortion as with the man dying of thirst. You would do well to read about benevolence in Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and not assume Smith encouraged avarice or exploittaion). A more telling example is the thirsty man with a diamond who may trade for a glass of water now or walk another mile for cheaper water. Are we not then squarely in Smith’s analysis of “the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

    A better explanation in the context of money is here: “The butcher has more meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the different productions of their respective trades, and the butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer, which he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case, be made between them. He cannot be their merchant, nor they his customers; and they are all of them thus mutually less serviceable to one another. In order to avoid the inconveniency of such situations, every prudent man in every period of society, after the first establishment of the division of labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their industry.”

    “In order to put industry into motion, three things are requisite; materials to work upon, tools to work with, and the wages or recompence for the sake of which the work is done. Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not the money, but in the money’s worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them.”

    (Wealth of Nations)

    Your understanding of the “invisible hand” in the overall context of Smith’s philosophy (he was after all a Professor of Moral Philosophy)is about as superficial as you can get. You clearly understand the nuances of the trunk but miss the import of the elephant.

  15. Please refute the complete dismantling of his “water diamond paradox” by marginal utility theory, which states, value is not derived from the labor neccessary to produce any given item, but the subjective usefulness it would provide to the purchaser of that item in relation to what he is willing to part with to acquire that item. Which means a man with a waterfall would easily trade a 1000 gallons of water for a diamond yet a man dying of thirt would easily give a diamond for one glass of water. Kind of blows your entire labor theory of value out of the water, so give it your best shot. I imagine it will be feeble.

    Also please note how hilarious it is that after all your incessant prattling about the dangers of the free market you are now firm believers in the invisible hand of everyone’s self interested motivations.

Comments are closed.