Yes, I would now like to reclaim credit for my OP, which was not a rant at all.
ETA: and don’t forget about the Founding Fathers debate.
Just to clarify, there are certainly batshit crazy liberals, with batshit crazy views. The difference is, they are considered batshit crazy by mainstream liberals, and are largely ignored. They do not lead Republican Presidential polls by double digits, or see their collected ramblings soar to the top of the best-seller lists.
We might just squeak by, as 66% is just barely less than 2/3.
(Amusing in cases where the number of people voting is not divisible by three… Do you wanna count just everything below my hips?)
But can’t Vice President Palin vote if she wants to?
ETA: assuming, of course, the vote occurs during the first two years of her term?
ETAA: my bad, she only gets to vote if it’s a tie.
I’ve already made my assertion: you don’t get to say something is part of Islam just because a Muslim somewhere does it. Just as you don’t get to say that anything a Christian does is part of Christianity.
That doesn’t address the issue of whether anyone whose father was a Muslim is also automatically considered a Muslim.
I whole-heartedly agree. If pressed, the right-wing blowhards will find some libtard who’s ignorant about some factoid involving the Keystone pipeline. If you answer “But … but that’s not the same as swallowing utter lies about Obama”, they’ll answer “Oh yeah? Well that’s just your libtard opinion. You’re proving my point.”
What the flying fuck? No, fair is by definition best. It’s culmination of what every single human being wants. They want what’s best for them. If we limit that best to what doesn’t impact the best for others, we wind up at an equilibrium that we instinctively call fair. To be fair means that everyone’s interests are represented and balanced against each other.
That’s why we’re denying that what you want is a democracy. You’re violating the basic precepts. Even though we did have limited democracy in the past, it was still assumed that the limited democracy represented what was best for the people involved. It was assumed to be fair.
Your system is a system that lets the rich people control. Not because of the property requirement, which is pretty much irrelevant. But because you limit it to college graduates. A poorer person pretty much has to be bright enough to get and maintain a scholarship in order to get that. Richer people can just go college hopping until they find one that will barely pass them. You’re ensuring that we have more rich, stupid people.
Furthermore, this isn’t a system that hasn’t been tried. The Founding Fathers were wrong. What happens is that the franchised vote for what is best for them, and screw over the disenfranchised. That’s we had to fight for our civil rights to vote. Now you want to take us backwards, making the main problem in politics far worse. Let’s make sure that only monied interests are seen to–not even the thread of being voted out.
We had fucking revolutions to get rid of this anti-democratic bullshit. Clearly it wasn’t the government that made people the most happy. But you want to take us back to when government was far worse.
What’s even stupider is that you then said your favorite system is one that would completely contradict this one, and let those poor, stupid people in to vote. While I’d quibble with the details, it’s not a bad start.
One based on your classist bigotry is.
And remember, algebra’s as we know it owes a lot to Islamic scholarship (the name itself is islamic), so it fits in the argument (and maybe Drunksmurf and other don’t understand it because it’s a “Muslim thing.” 
Well, Arabic.
Picky…picky…picky…y’all know all them there A-rabs are murderous Islamists, don’t ya?
And yes, my tongue is firmly buried in my cheek…
Correction: Drunky Smurf didn’t even *take *algebra.
I did. As a mathtard, took me two tries to get a threadbare “D”. And I had to cheat. Reason enough to loathe and despise them.
As long as it’s your *own *cheek. 
BEAVIS: I’m mad at numbers.
BUTTHEAD: There’s, like, too many of 'em and stuff.
If you look a bit closer you’ll see that those are carefully worded, with references to a particular person’s statement not being “completely accurate” in one case, and focusing on “true Islam” in the other. That type of careful phrasing supports my position, not yours.
There’s no need to trust me on anything because I’ve just posted links to how actual Muslims and Muslim countries see things.
But of course, what you really mean is that in general you would be far more likely to trust someone who says something that you like than someone who says something you don’t like, regardless of validity of sources.
Practical realities get in the way.
But FWIW, here’s a guy in Malaysia accusing the authorities there of being hypocrites and phonies based on their failure to arrest Obama on his trip to Malaysia: Obama Escapes Malaysia’s Islamic Authorities. (There’s an element of fasceciousness to his post, and he’s not a fundamentalist who wanted Obama to have been arrested - he’s a liberal (of sorts) attacking the authorities for not following through on their own supposed principles.)
Of course you’ve made your assertion. But it turns out to have been based on nothing at all.
I, by contrast, have done more than that, and you’re misrepresenting the evidence in implying that I’ve said “something is part of Islam just because a Muslim somewhere does it”. I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve introduced unchallenged evidence that 4 major Muslim countries which practice Sharia law have adopted that viewpoint as part of their legal system, which is something else entirely.
I’m still not quite sure how serious you are here, but… you seem to be saying that people should be allowed to vote if they will, in some sense, do a good job of it.
So there’s a guy, Bob. He’s a soldier. He goes to Iraq. He gets injured. He recuperates from his injury for two years. Then he gets a different productive job.
Under your scheme, he would “do a good job” of voting for all of that time EXCEPT while recuperating from the injury.
How does that make sense? Where’s the connection?
There’s “…an element of facetiousness…”? What in the name of Bleeding Og do you mean? You say he’s not a “fundamentalist”. Well, good, yes? And that he is “…a liberal (of sorts)…”? Huh? Do you mean to warn us of the dreadful danger of rabid armadillo by showing us a picture of a cuddlesome kangaroo? So, its not only the extreme fundamentalist Muslim we need to fear, but his secular and ironic cousin? Like we gotta watch out for crazy ass Pentecostal Christians, but keep a sharp eye on the Unitarians and the Amish?
Sorry you got called out for an example to support a vagrant opinion. That would probably be a real drag. Don’t actually know. Of course, if you meant a deliberate sabotage to disable a malign position, you chose well…
But somebody has to be kidding with this shit. Is it you?
It occurs to me to be more angry about the Democrats who are allowed to vote and don’t bother. If they’d get off their fat asses and do it, we wouldn’t need to worry about the fact that Republicans are allowed to.
Or are not allowed to.
Jobless gimps just want to suckle at the taxpayer’s teat, sponging off of Job Creators. If you let worthless gimps vote they’ll just vote for whatever socialist promises them free chocolate. To ensure that elections uphold American values rather than Marxist lies, there should be a minimum income before someone gets the right to vote. Perhaps $75,000 per year (or a little less if much of the income comes from rents or dividends instead of wages).
Anyway, smart Americans like soldiers who don’t get injured.