american thinker?

not quite!  the early comments on vadum's inane ejaculation read like the political threads on the serotta forum.  it's almost pathetic to see that these people are out there, taking up space and wasting oxygen.

at first it's shit like this getting puked up:

If a citizen doesn't have a stake in a society, an economy, i.e. own property or a business, they don't have an interest in seeing that the government has a pro-business outlook.  If there is a pro-business outlook, things should be getting better for all.  People will have jobs.  They will spend their money at the businesses of others spreading the wealth around in a healty way that creates more jobs, and eventually more property and business owners.  Having said that, I believe that the vote should be limited to people that own property or a business.  Of course, if a citizen owns several tracts of land or several businesses, he/she is still limited to one vote.  Ownership is obtainable for all here in the U.S., it just requires work and savings. 

later this vibrant intellect chimes in:

I've said all along we need LESS people voting.  The conservatives should push for poll taxes (if you're not willing or able to pay, then you probably are not willing or able to be informed enough to vote), increase the voting age to 21, no voting for anyone who has received government assistance in the past year, and no sufferage for anyone who cannot read.  One person one vote is a recipe for political suicide and the Communist's dream. 

then a willing koch brothers sucker chimes in:

I agree completely with this article and have a simple solution to fix it. Every person's vote is weighted according to how much they paid in taxes.   Everyone gets a default value of one.   So of that evil CEO paid $750,000 in taxes, his vote would be the equivalent of 750,000 voters who paid nothing.   No skin in the game, no say is how the real world works, but we would give them a small say.   (Non-shareholders get NO votes in the dealings of a business).   This would be "fair" and serve "justice" as those footing the bill would have the biggest say in what is done with THEIR money. 

the article had only been up for a little while, so these are the leading lights of teabagging america on display.

this, though, from joethepatrioticamerican, is pretty clearly snark:

Excellent article, but I don't think it goes far enough. We should not only purge welfare slackers and other un-Americans from the voter rolls -- including anyone who is unemployed and therefore not a producer, but voting should be proportional depending on net worth or taxes paid. No one could argue that someone making, say, $50,000 per year contributes to the well-being of the country as much as someone making millions and creating jobs. It's not even close. To argue that there is any sort of equality between workers and a job creators is pure socialism. Why not have votes apportioned based on  income, wealth, or taxes paid, to make it more proportional to one's actual contribution to the country?  For example, if you don't pay any taxes, you have no vote, as everyone here heartily endorses. If you pay $10,000 in taxes, you get one vote. If you pay $1,000,000 in taxes you get 100 votes. It's only fair. (I admit these numbers are arbitrary at this point, but it could be worked out.)