Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   America was founded in opposition to government based on hereditary inheritance of power**. (** Does not apply in Michigan.)   (thehill.com) divider line 10
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1236 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2014 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-02-25 09:48:25 AM  
2 votes:
You can't really inherit votes.
2014-02-25 10:22:57 AM  
1 votes:
Dynasties totally exist in America. All it takes is to share a last name with someone famous and you're a shoo-in, regardless of policies. That's why Hillary was elected in 2008 instead of some unknown dude with a weird name.
2014-02-25 10:14:16 AM  
1 votes:

phalamir: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.

Are you advocating that certain people be denied the right to run for office simply because of one drop of blood?

Because that is the practical effect of your comment; punishing one person for the perfectly legal actions of another.  We let felons run for office. So, you are creating a form of super-felon, barred from a facet of public political life without conviction, trial, or even charge, simply because they share blood with another person who did something not only legal, but necessary for government to run.

Don't like someone related to someone else holding political office trying to hold political office?  Then vote against them.   Dynasties exist because they have a mechanism to insure the passing power along.  "Hoping a bunch of farkers vote for my son" is a plan, not a mechanism.


I think his comment was more geared to the ** Does not apply in Michigan part of the headline.

As far as the highlighted portion of your comments, do you really think that being born as part of a political family doesn't help a person gain office by letting them establish the networks necessary for support?  If you think that then you must be the type that thinks that Junior and RMoney are millionaires completely because of the sweat of their brow and not because Daddy introduced them to the right people early on in life.
2014-02-25 10:09:46 AM  
1 votes:
I didn't realize that spouses had a "hereditary" relationship.
2014-02-25 10:04:42 AM  
1 votes:

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.


Are you advocating that certain people be denied the right to run for office simply because of one drop of blood?

Because that is the practical effect of your comment; punishing one person for the perfectly legal actions of another.  We let felons run for office. So, you are creating a form of super-felon, barred from a facet of public political life without conviction, trial, or even charge, simply because they share blood with another person who did something not only legal, but necessary for government to run.

Don't like someone related to someone else holding political office trying to hold political office?  Then vote against them.  Dynasties exist because they have a mechanism to insure the passing power along.  "Hoping a bunch of farkers vote for my son" is a plan, not a mechanism.
2014-02-25 10:01:49 AM  
1 votes:

markfara: No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.



This.  Does anyone seriously think that our government actually reflects the policy preferences and will of the majority of the people, as opposed to the wealthy elite that effectively run the show?

Hell, a fine example is that the government is seriously considering allowing the time warner/comcast merger, despite the fact that those companies are universally hated by their captive customers.  Whose interest is the government trying to protect here?
2014-02-25 09:57:59 AM  
1 votes:
If that's the case, then why does our government constantly try to protect and increase the wealth of a few extremely wealthy and influential families?
2014-02-25 09:51:13 AM  
1 votes:
Subby I think you missed the part where voting takes place
2014-02-25 09:50:40 AM  
1 votes:
No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.
2014-02-25 09:49:56 AM  
1 votes:
If you like her, vote for her. If you don't, don't. Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. They have to earn their votes like anyone else, no one holds office by birthright.
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report