Of zou ik toch gaan stemmen?

1. ik wacht wel tot ze die blender aanbieden als je gaat stemmen
   
   ( zit een ook nog een diepere gedachte achter: je kan er alles zo fijn mee malen en mengen….)

2. Oproep aan alle libertariers om het forum van de site http://www.verstandopnul.nl te vullen met libertarisch commentaar en discussie over het stemrecht!

3. Ik ga pas naar de stembus als ik die Black & Decker Workmate krijg

4. Jaja, jullie hebben gemakkelijk spreken. In dit ontwikkelingsland zijn de mensen blij als ze 10 euro krijgen om te gaan stemmen. Dan kunnen ze wat eten, of misschien een nieuwe broek of nieuwe schoenen kopen.
   
   Ja natuurlijk, als er geen politiek (EN DUS CORRUPTIE) was, was er hier welvaart, maar ondertussen moet je toch (iets of wat menselijk) overleven.

5. en dus GEEN corruptie

   Ronald Reagan, come back, they’re crazy!

6. New Message on Tibor’s Place on the Web

   From: Tibor Machan
   
   Message 1 in Discussion

   Ronald Reagan, RIP

   Tibor R. Machan

   Those who love liberty have lost one of their premier leaders when
   
   Ronald
   
   Reagan died this weekend. One need not consider all of Reagan’s
   
   policies
   
   excellent to realize that he was the only president in the twentieth
   
   century who understood what America meant to all the world, why it was
   
   dubbed “the leader of the free world,” despite many of its
   
   contradictions
   
   and problems.

   Ronald Reagan was always dismissed by the academic Left and its legion
   
   of
   
   pundits and public mouthpieces because they deemed him simple,
   
   ideological, not sufficiently in tune with the complexities of
   
   contemporary politics.

   As usual, the academic Left had it wrong: Reagan was never simple, nor
   
   an
   
   ideologue in the sense in which the Left uses that term—meaning by it
   
   someone who invents and simplifies ideas to serve ulterior motives. He
   
   was, instead, a skilled communicator of complicated ideas in terms that
   
   nearly everyone who paid attention could understand. Every great
   
   teacher
   
   must possess this skill and Reagan was one of the few politicians who
   
   took
   
   the role of teacher-leader in the uniquely American sense very
   
   seriously.

   Such a teacher-leader is not supposed to grab people by the throat and
   
   shove them in the direction he wants them to go. Such a teacher-leader
   
   is
   
   supposed to inspire and explain why a goal is worthy pursuing, so other
   
   will choose to go the right way.

   Reagan used to be ridiculed by the media—Sam Donaldson of ABC-TV’s
   
   “This
   
   Week With David Brinkley” was embarrassingly obsessed with trying tear
   
   down the man whenever he got the chance. But in time several books
   
   containing his writings and reflections were published that showed
   
   beyond
   
   any reasonable doubt that contrary to what his adversaries wanted
   
   everyone
   
   to think—mainly so as to discredit his good ideas and noble ideals—the
   
   man
   
   was sophisticated about most of the crucial issues of the times,
   
   especially the founding ideas of the United States. (See, for example,
   
   the
   
   books Reagan: A Life in Letters [New York: Free Press, 2003], edited by
   
   Hoover Senior Fellow, Martin Anderson, and by Kiron K. Skinner, and
   
   Stories in his own hand: The Everyday Wisdom of Ronald Reagan, edited,
   
   with an introduction and commentary by Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise
   
   Anderson, and Martin Anderson [Free Press, 2001].)

   To appreciate why the sophisticated class got Reagan so wrong one
   
   needs
   
   to know a bit about the intellectual framework within which most of
   
   these
   
   folks operate. It is a position, most basically, hostile to human
   
   understanding of the human world! Any claim to know something about
   
   ethics, political principles, or comparative government is deemed by
   
   these
   
   folks too judgmental, Eurocentric, and otherwise fraught with hubris
   
   (the
   
   only exception being all of their own pronouncements which are, of
   
   course,
   
   gems of human wisdom as they see it). To think that one’s society has
   
   it
   
   over another in, say, its legal constitution, its public priorities,
   
   and
   
   its institutions is to be nothing but blindly boastful, never correct
   
   based on evidence and argument. So, someone who unabashedly proclaims
   
   the
   
   opposite isn’t merely in disagreement with others but must be a
   
   simpleton,
   
   intellectually defective. That way no one needs to argue with such a
   
   person and those who dismiss him can proclaim victory by sheer default.

   Ronald Reagan was never fooled by such sophistry and knew his purpose
   
   well enough to basically pay very little attention to these essentially
   
   ad
   
   hominem attacks. He was all the wiser for this and his detractors
   
   found
   
   that nearly intolerable, retaining a disdain for and opposition to him
   
   to
   
   this day.

   Luckily for millions and millions across the globe, Reagan had the
   
   upper
   
   hand all along, and his academic detractors had to contend with that.
   
   It
   
   was also quite awkward when it turned out that by all reasonable
   
   standards
   
   Ronald Reagan proved to be a better president and diplomat than any of
   
   those the Left championed, especially because he actually made a
   
   monumental contribution to the defeat of the Soviet Union by way not
   
   primarily of arms but of ideas and policies. And the Soviet Union,
   
   especially in its Gorbachovian rendition, was of course the Left’s last
   
   best hope. To see it collapse for reasons Ronald Reagan could lay out
   
   clearly and unambiguously was a very painful experience indeed for all
   
   those Reagan bashers.

   It is sad that we probably will not see a principled guy in—or even
   
   near—the White House like Ronald Reagan. Whatever his imperfections, he
   
   was the greatest political friend of liberty of our time.

   Tibor R. Machan
   
   http://www.tibormachan.com

7. Met niet stemmen geef je meer macht aan degenen die wel stemmen. En indirect steun je de grootste partij. Die zou je zelf vast nooit hebben gekozen ! Niet stemmen is dus geen optie.

   Met blanco stemmen legitimeer je juist de zittende partijen, inclusief hun declaratiegedrag en ongecontroleerd verstrekken van subsidies. Je laat immers niet duidelijk weten wat je wel wil: Bevalt het verkiezingsprogramma van geen van de partijen je misschien of kan de hele EU je gestolen worden ? Niemand zal het ooit weten !

   En ongeldig stemmen is belachelijk. Je wil eigenlijk blanco stemmen, maar het stembiljet biedt die mogelijkheid niet en daarom doe je net alsof je een vergissing hebt gemaakt. Ben je soms een idioot ? Waar is je zelfrespect ?

   De enige juiste actie is normaal te stemmen. En wel op een partij die hetzelfde wil als jij: Europa teruggeven aan de burgers !

   Door de baantjesjagers en zakkenvullers er onder druk van de publiciteit uit te werken wordt de EU democratischer en goedkoper.

   Paul van Buitenen heeft bewezen dat hij dat kan. Steun die man !

   Veel succes op 10 juni, Paul !

   http://www.europatransparan…

   🙂

8. de PvdA gaat gratis taxi ritjes voor gehandicapten aanbieden, om ze naar het stemburo te slepen, nog even en je krijgt er een rood boekje en een lunch of workmate bij.

Comments are closed.