A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 12:52 AM GMT
    Probably too long for the libs to read. But for those with greater maturity, you'll find this funny and sad at the same time:

    A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

    Inspired by Jeff Foxworthy:

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and ...remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    What a country!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 1:07 AM GMT
    Very good.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Oct 21, 2013 4:36 AM GMT
    Probably too long for the libs to read.

    I guess some people just like to paint with the broadest brush they can find...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 10:22 AM GMT
    Aristoshark saidOf course the idiots like it. It's reductive, it's untrue, it's misleading, it's smug, and worst of all it isn't funny.

    Just like conservatives in general.



    What is untrue??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 10:34 AM GMT
    The fact that they tried it and passed it in the first place is enough, and it may be reinstated on appeal. Or modified enough to pass again. The larger point is that a government official would concern himself with this in the first place, and then take it to the extent that he did.

    What did you think of my suggestion for your opera? Hint: it was just a joke. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 12:33 PM GMT
    I saw this on some blog. Maybe it's less offensive to Liberal sensibilities?

    How did our country get to the point where you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and ...remaining in the country illegally?

    How did our country get to the point where you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion?

    How did our country get to the point where you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government?

    How did our country get to the point where the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt?

    How did our country get to the point where, in the nation’s largest city, they tried to make a law where you could buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat?

    How did our country get to the point where an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched?

    How did our country get to the point where our government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more?

    How did our country get to the point where a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable?

    How did our country get to the point where hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones?

    How did our country get to the point where the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found?

    How did our country get to the point where you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage?

    How did our country get to the point where being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 12:51 PM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    Blakes7 saidThe fact that they tried it and passed it in the first place is enough, and it may be reinstated on appeal. Or modified enough to pass again. The larger point is that a government official would concern himself with this in the first place, and then take it to the extent that he did.

    What did you think of my suggestion for your opera? Hint: it was just a joke. icon_wink.gif

    I haven't looked at the thread yet.
    But the "humor" above suggests that the ban is in place. It is not. That's a lie.


    To clarify, this was written quite a few months ago, while the ban was still in place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 1:25 PM GMT
    This topic sure is popular - I see it has spawned an imitator topic already! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 1:45 PM GMT
    I read through this again and here's one that I particularly like:

    If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 1:46 PM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    Aristoshark said
    Blakes7 saidThe fact that they tried it and passed it in the first place is enough, and it may be reinstated on appeal. Or modified enough to pass again. The larger point is that a government official would concern himself with this in the first place, and then take it to the extent that he did.

    What did you think of my suggestion for your opera? Hint: it was just a joke. icon_wink.gif

    I haven't looked at the thread yet.
    But the "humor" above suggests that the ban is in place. It is not. That's a lie.


    To clarify, this was written quite a few months ago, while the ban was still in place.


    He doesn't care about facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 2:22 PM GMT
    This is a pretty good one too:

    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 3:15 PM GMT
    It's too straightforward for the left, they can't refute it or even label and dismiss it. Even Aristoshark had to retreat behind some foolish generalities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 5:12 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidIt's too straightforward for the left, they can't refute it or even label and dismiss it. Even Aristoshark had to retreat behind some foolish generalities.


    Yeah, they're at a complete loss for words.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 6:10 PM GMT
    This one's pretty good too:

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 8:22 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    Aristoshark saidOf course the idiots like it. It's reductive, it's untrue, it's misleading, it's smug, and worst of all it isn't funny.

    Just like conservatives in general.



    What is untrue??


    The delusions of the left here at RJ, sadly they only think their brand of hate is funny, and acceptable.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 8:43 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidThis one's pretty good too:

    If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.


    Actually, this was the method of financing the US government devised by Hamilton - albeit, adjusted for inflation. He used the Panic of 1792 to establish the use of debt to finance the government; this method established the groundwork for the US to become the powerhouse it is today. That it has gotten out of hand is the fault of both parties, but to imply that the Founders did not use debt as a national policy is not factual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 8:50 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidThis is a pretty good one too:

    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.


    While this sounds good, it ignores the history of voter disenfranchisement in the US. For over a century, voters were systematically prevented from voting in many states and localities - primarily Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Couple this with ten's of thousands of elderly voters who don't have picture ID's and can't get them because they are too ill to stand in line at a DMV for hours and the states won't come up with a method of bringing the photo machines to them and you a reason why voter ID's still don't make sense. Many elderly people alive today never even got a birth certificate. Until the laws are changed to accommodate these people both in accepting alternative forms of proof of residency, such as church records and making photo ID's available to them, requiring ID's is just another form of voter disenfranchisement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 9:13 PM GMT


    If a Party obstructs government causing a shut down even though the man they were all going to make Republican President in 2008 said it was wrong to do so and that the fallout from the shut down was the (GOP) Party's fault, and yet that Party kept denying it, even to the point of trying to discredit that same man they wanted for President, then you might live in a country that was founded by geniuses but obstructed by idiots.

    If a government adopts plans and solutions from the GOP and the GOP obstructs that gov't from implementing them simply because it's not the President and party they like, even though the ideas etc came from that same obstructing GOP, then you might be in a country founded by geniuses and obstructed by idiots.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 9:19 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    If a Party obstructs government causing a shut down even though the man they were all going to make Republican President in 2008 said it was wrong to do so and that the fallout from the shut down was the (GOP) Party's fault, and yet that Party kept denying it, even to the point of trying to discredit that same man they wanted for President, then you might live in a country that was founded by geniuses but obstructed by idiots.

    If a government adopts plans and solutions from the GOP and the GOP obstructs that gov't from implementing them simply because it's not the President and party they like, even though the ideas etc came from that same obstructing GOP, then you might be in a country founded by geniuses and obstructed by idiots.



    ^ The mixed up view from Canada.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 9:36 PM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    meninlove said

    If a Party obstructs government causing a shut down even though the man they were all going to make Republican President in 2008 said it was wrong to do so and that the fallout from the shut down was the (GOP) Party's fault, and yet that Party kept denying it, even to the point of trying to discredit that same man they wanted for President, then you might live in a country that was founded by geniuses but obstructed by idiots.

    If a government adopts plans and solutions from the GOP and the GOP obstructs that gov't from implementing them simply because it's not the President and party they like, even though the ideas etc came from that same obstructing GOP, then you might be in a country founded by geniuses and obstructed by idiots.



    ^ The mixed up view from Canada.


    Ahhh...so John McCain is wrong then. icon_lol.gif So why did you vote for him in 2008? icon_lol.gif


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2013 11:52 PM GMT
    This one is pretty good as well:


    If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 12:37 AM GMT
    neuergriff1 said


    ....requiring ID's is just another form of voter disenfranchisement.
    {edited for brevity}

    As I've researched in my own state, there are 14 very intrusive steps involved in signing up for welfare and housing & food stamp assistance, one of which is providing a picture ID.

    Guess how many steps are required to get a picture ID? (not a drivers license, just a state issued photo ID!)
    3. Three. Trois. Tres. Drei. Sa.

    (Just in case some of you cannot understand English.)

    Odd that most of those who scream "voter disenfranchisement!" are able to wade through those 14 steps, including showing BANK ACCOUNT(which require pic ID to open) statements and utility bills, alimony (if any) and any funds from jury awards/lawsuits.

    I don't buy your core argument that it's a burden on anyone!
    It's only a burden when it suits their needs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 1:52 AM GMT
    StudlyScrewRite said
    neuergriff1 said


    ....requiring ID's is just another form of voter disenfranchisement.
    {edited for brevity}

    As I've researched in my own state, there are 14 very intrusive steps involved in signing up for welfare and housing & food stamp assistance, one of which is providing a picture ID.

    Guess how many steps are required to get a picture ID? (not a drivers license, just a state issued photo ID!)
    3. Three. Trois. Tres. Drei. Sa.

    (Just in case some of you cannot understand English.)

    Odd that most of those who scream "voter disenfranchisement!" are able to wade through those 14 steps, including showing BANK ACCOUNT(which require pic ID to open) statements and utility bills, alimony (if any) and any funds from jury awards/lawsuits.

    I don't buy your core argument that it's a burden on anyone!
    It's only a burden when it suits their needs.


    Good point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 2:35 PM GMT
    Under the Patriot Act, there are provisions to open a bank account without a picture ID. These steps are as follows: contacting the customer after the account is opened; cross referencing with information from a corporate customer; comparing the identifying information provided by the customer against fraud and bad-check databases; comparing identifying information with a trusted third party source such as a consumer reporting agency; checking references with other financial institutions. Anyone establishing a brokerage account online has undergone this process without perhaps knowing it. The company you opened the account with, for example Vanguard or Schwab, has done all of this behind the scenes.

    For welfare, while I have not checked all Ca. sources since each program is different, under the Ca. food stamp program, a picture ID is not required. You can use a sworn statement from someone who knows you in place of the picture ID.

    "You will need to prove who you are. You can bring a birth
    certificate, driver’s license, school or work I.D., voter
    registration, Social Security card, a sworn statement from
    someone who knows you, or an identification form from
    General Assistance or General Relief. If you have no
    address, be prepared to tell the worker where you are
    staying..." Ca.http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/entres/forms/English/FS22QR.PDF

    Nonetheless, requiring a voter ID is legal. But as Justice John Paul Stevens noted when he upheld Crawford vs. Marion County, it does disenfranchise elderly voters.

    Judge Posner who upheld the law in the 7th Circuit, later stated his ruling was wrong and that it was an attempt to disenfranchise voters. “We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters..."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2013 2:28 PM GMT
    That was pretty well done. And mostly the truth.