PDA

View Full Version : I am re-evaluating my political opinions


Saul Good
11-19-2012, 09:40 AM
I have come to the conclusion that it's time for me to reconsider all of my political positions. Most of my opinions have been held for so long that they are more habit than anything, so now I am going to attempt to start from scratch and see where the endeavor takes me.

Obviously, the best way to form political opinions is by consulting bitter football fans on an internet message board, so let's do this. Somebody start me off. Pick an issue and tell me why I should be on your side.

La literatura
11-19-2012, 09:53 AM
You should support the removal of faces from our paper and coin currency. Current practices support distorted heroism, cultism, and idolatry. In the waning Roman empire, symbols of Rome's greatness were eventually replaced with personal greatness. Please support my position of placing symbols of America on our currency, such as the eagle, lady liberty, natural landmarks, etc. These symbols enhance pride in the meaning of what America stands for: independence, freedom, and beauty.

Brainiac
11-19-2012, 09:57 AM
I think it's smart to consider, reconsider, and consider again your political opinions your entire life. The issues that are important to me change over time, and I would think that would be true for most (obviously not all) people.

The left-wing and right-wing zealots will say that's wishy-washy. I prefer the terms reasonable and pragmatic.

A Salt Weapon
11-19-2012, 09:59 AM
You should support domestic violence.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
11-19-2012, 10:05 AM
I think it's smart to consider, reconsider, and consider again your political opinions your entire life. The issues that are important to me change over time, and I would think that would be true for most (obviously not all) people.

The left-wing and right-wing zealots will say that's wishy-washy. I prefer the terms reasonable and pragmatic.

For me, freedom is reasonable and pragmatic—because it works. Therefore, I say restore the Constitution.

La literatura
11-19-2012, 10:18 AM
For me, freedom is reasonable and pragmatic—because it works. Therefore, I say restore the Constitution.

How many premises were left out in this post? At least 10?

dirk digler
11-19-2012, 10:19 AM
I think it's smart to consider, reconsider, and consider again your political opinions your entire life. The issues that are important to me change over time, and I would think that would be true for most (obviously not all) people.

The left-wing and right-wing zealots will say that's wishy-washy. I prefer the terms reasonable and pragmatic.

I agree.

Taco John
11-19-2012, 10:22 AM
I have come to the conclusion that it's time for me to reconsider all of my political positions. Most of my opinions have been held for so long that they are more habit than anything, so now I am going to attempt to start from scratch and see where the endeavor takes me.

Obviously, the best way to form political opinions is by consulting bitter football fans on an internet message board, so let's do this. Somebody start me off. Pick an issue and tell me why I should be on your side.

Start here:
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527

And here:
http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/B004IEA4DM/

patteeu
11-19-2012, 10:35 AM
I liked you just the way you were.

Saul Good
11-19-2012, 10:41 AM
You should support the removal of faces from our paper and coin currency. Current practices support distorted heroism, cultism, and idolatry. In the waning Roman empire, symbols of Rome's greatness were eventually replaced with personal greatness. Please support my position of placing symbols of America on our currency, such as the eagle, lady liberty, natural landmarks, etc. These symbols enhance pride in the meaning of what America stands for: independence, freedom, and beauty.

America stands for beauty?

La literatura
11-19-2012, 10:43 AM
America stands for beauty?

Natural beauty? Hell yes. Our country has some beautiful geography, and we protect that.

Saul Good
11-19-2012, 10:44 AM
I liked you just the way you were.

I'm still going to be an all round swell guy.

La literatura
11-19-2012, 10:44 AM
You should become an environmentalist with me. Love for resources > exploitation.

Saul Good
11-19-2012, 10:47 AM
Natural beauty? Hell yes. Our country has some beautiful geography, and we protect that.

Oh, okay. I've considered your position carefully, and I've decided "meh". I don't really care either way. I won't do anything to support your cause in word nor deed, but neither will I work against it.

La literatura
11-19-2012, 10:48 AM
Oh, okay. I've considered your position carefully, and I've decided "meh". I don't really care either way. I won't do anything to support your cause in word nor deed, but neither will I work against it.

YOU ARE EITHER WITH THE SYMBOLIC-CURRENCY-ONLY-MOVEMENT OR AGAINST US.

patteeu
11-19-2012, 10:50 AM
I'm still going to be an all round swell guy.

I can't be friendly with a crazy liberal. You'll be dirk to me. :p

Saul Good
11-19-2012, 10:50 AM
You should become an environmentalist with me. Love for resources > exploitation.

Can I be in favor of both utilizing our natural resources to improve the lives of our citizenry while doing do in as environmentally sensitive way as is practical? I feel like that's a good place to be.

Saul Good
11-19-2012, 10:51 AM
YOU ARE EITHER WITH THE SYMBOLIC-CURRENCY-ONLY-MOVEMENT OR AGAINST US.

I will fight to the death for my right to apathy.

La literatura
11-19-2012, 10:54 AM
Can I be in favor of both utilizing our natural resources to improve the lives of our citizenry while doing do in as environmentally sensitive way as is practical? I feel like that's a good place to be.

Yes, absolutely. You just have to keep this principle in mind: I will do my part to make the world cleaner when I leave than when I was brought into this world.

Recycle, reuse, promote renewable energy, plant a garden, plant trees, pick up trash, etc.

vailpass
11-19-2012, 11:41 AM
You should support the removal of faces from our paper and coin currency. Current practices support distorted heroism, cultism, and idolatry. In the waning Roman empire, symbols of Rome's greatness were eventually replaced with personal greatness. Please support my position of placing symbols of America on our currency, such as the eagle, lady liberty, natural landmarks, etc. These symbols enhance pride in the meaning of what America stands for: independence, freedom, and beauty.

LMAO

Pitt Gorilla
11-19-2012, 11:44 AM
I have come to the conclusion that it's time for me to reconsider all of my political positions. Most of my opinions have been held for so long that they are more habit than anything, so now I am going to attempt to start from scratch and see where the endeavor takes me.

Obviously, the best way to form political opinions is by consulting bitter football fans on an internet message board, so let's do this. Somebody start me off. Pick an issue and tell me why I should be on your side.LMAO Awesome. If talking to others that have little justification for holding their positions doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

I do, however, think this will be fascinating.

Pitt Gorilla
11-19-2012, 11:45 AM
I think it's smart to consider, reconsider, and consider again your political opinions your entire life. The issues that are important to me change over time, and I would think that would be true for most (obviously not all) people.

The left-wing and right-wing zealots will say that's wishy-washy. I prefer the terms reasonable and pragmatic.Great take.

HonestChieffan
11-19-2012, 11:58 AM
Just go talk to a liberal. You will be back and recommitted.

JonesCrusher
11-19-2012, 12:34 PM
Jon Stewart. That's where all the cool kids are going for their daily dose of perspective.

mnchiefsguy
11-19-2012, 12:59 PM
I think it's smart to consider, reconsider, and consider again your political opinions your entire life. The issues that are important to me change over time, and I would think that would be true for most (obviously not all) people.

The left-wing and right-wing zealots will say that's wishy-washy. I prefer the terms reasonable and pragmatic.

I know my politics are not the same as they were twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Some on this forum consider a change of political stance to by lying (Direckshun), but people's views do change as they progress through life.

Rain Man
11-19-2012, 01:03 PM
I volunteered in a local election in a place that has been mired in scandal for a decade, all of which came from the more predominant local party. It's been one-party rule for a decade.

I helped the minority party, and they had two great candidates for county commissioner who were committed to reform. The dominant party had a bunch of brain-dead mouth-breather voters who showed up at the polls and made their X for the dominant party without any thought at all. As a result, one of the new county commissioners has made it clear that the scandals are "a marketing issue" despite the fact that massive documentation of the scandals exists. He's going to just cover stuff up like his predecessors did.

So my position is that we should all vote third party and break up the two-party system. Also, we should somehow do a basic intelligence/awareness test of voters before they are allowed to vote. I'm talking really basic, but enough to keep people from voting in crooks because they have a particular letter behind their name.

Donger
11-19-2012, 01:09 PM
Also, we should somehow do a basic intelligence/awareness test of voters before they are allowed to vote. I'm talking really basic, but enough to keep people from voting in crooks because they have a particular letter behind their name.

Vote suppressionator.

Rain Man
11-19-2012, 01:50 PM
Vote suppressionator.

And proud of it.

I saw firsthand what happens when stupid people vote. A candidate got elected who had been caught lying on television by an investigative reporter two weeks before the election. This candidate states that people going to prison on corruption charges is "a marketing problem" and refuses to acknowledge that corruption exists, when it has been proven many times beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have seen stupid, and it is thriving. It's time to stop stupid people from electing our government.

Saulbadguy
11-19-2012, 01:52 PM
And proud of it.

I saw firsthand what happens when stupid people vote. A candidate got elected who had been caught lying on television by an investigative reporter two weeks before the election. This candidate states that people going to prison on corruption charges is "a marketing problem" and refuses to acknowledge that corruption exists, when it has been proven many times beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I have seen stupid, and it is thriving. It's time to stop stupid people from electing our government.

28,000+ people voted for a member of the Westboro Baptist Church in our election.

No joke.

SNR
11-19-2012, 02:05 PM
I'm getting a few of my friends together at the local beer hall tonight to talk about some important issues facing the country today. Why don't you feel free to come along? We'd love to influence you in any way we can.

Bring your racially pure family, too. I love kids

FD
11-19-2012, 03:24 PM
If possible you should drop your political opinions altogether and do your best not to follow any political ideology. You can still form opinions on various issues if you feel the evidence is very strong one way or another, so long as you've given consideration to both sides, but if you believe in an ideology which offers easy, pre-fab opinions based on some overarching "philosophy of government" you will be hopelessly biased when approaching something new. Ultimately this bias will infiltrate how you perceive every issue, including cultural and personal ones (see how nasty and personal presidential politics always gets.) Basically, politics destroys the mind.

This is admittedly an almost unreachable ideal, but if you want to avoid bias it has to be the conscious goal. A nice side effect is that, since nobody has time to study and consider every issue, you get to be comfortably neutral on most of the things people tie themselves up arguing about.

RedNeckRaider
11-19-2012, 03:43 PM
I have come to the conclusion that it's time for me to reconsider all of my political positions. Most of my opinions have been held for so long that they are more habit than anything, so now I am going to attempt to start from scratch and see where the endeavor takes me.

Obviously, the best way to form political opinions is by consulting bitter football fans on an internet message board, so let's do this. Somebody start me off. Pick an issue and tell me why I should be on your side.

Or you could just let FOX, MSNBC or chain emails form your opinion for you~

BigRedChief
11-19-2012, 06:52 PM
I know my politics are not the same as they were twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Some on this forum consider a change of political stance to by lying (Direckshun), but people's views do change as they progress through life.Voted for Ronald Reagan twice and George H once before voting for Clinton and not going back to Republicans. The extreme part of the Republican party that wants to go all big government and tell people who they can marry and control their bodies for 9 months was just a bridge too far. It goes against every thing they stand for, I don't get it.

I'm not so happy with the Dem's either. You will find a thread on here when I call out Obama for things I consider BS.

You really need to decide how you want to live your life, where you want your life to go, where do you want to end up. Then decide which party will help you and others like you get to that place.

RedNeckRaider
11-19-2012, 06:58 PM
Voted for Ronald Reagan twice and George H once before voting for Clinton and not going back to Republicans. The extreme part of the Republican party that wants to go all big government and tell people who they can marry and control their bodies for 9 months was just a bridge too far. It goes against every thing they stand for, I don't get it.

I'm not so happy with the Dem's either. You will find a thread on here when I call out Obama for things I consider BS.

You really need to decide how you want to live your life, where you want your life to go, where do you want to end up. Then decide which party will help you and others like you get to that place.

I agree with part of your post, but to pretend the left does not want big government is silly and most likely disingenuous, I say disingenuous because I think you are smarter than being that silly so the latter fits~

BucEyedPea
11-19-2012, 07:40 PM
Voted for Ronald Reagan twice and George H once before voting for Clinton and not going back to Republicans. The extreme part of the Republican party that wants to go all big government and tell people who they can marry and control their bodies for 9 months was just a bridge too far. It goes against every thing they stand for, I don't get it.

I'm not so happy with the Dem's either. You will find a thread on here when I call out Obama for things I consider BS.

You really need to decide how you want to live your life, where you want your life to go, where do you want to end up. Then decide which party will help you and others like you get to that place.

You realize of course that Republicans, at least conservatives anyways, know most of those issues belong with the states. Since they support state's rights and federalism. However, they know it's the left that tries to get those issues centralized by pushing them up to the SC using incorporation. So leaves them between a rock and a hard place. They never denied supporting traditional values and feel the family unit is important. Still, these are supposed to be determined by family values in each area. THAT is not big govt....since it does not centralize power even if an area governs conservatively.

Now then, since 7/8ths of life is economic, the Democrats want to control that area of life a helluva lot more.

BucEyedPea
11-19-2012, 07:43 PM
If possible you should drop your political opinions altogether and do your best not to follow any political ideology. You can still form opinions on various issues if you feel the evidence is very strong one way or another, so long as you've given consideration to both sides, but if you believe in an ideology which offers easy, pre-fab opinions based on some overarching "philosophy of government" you will be hopelessly biased when approaching something new. Ultimately this bias will infiltrate how you perceive every issue, including cultural and personal ones (see how nasty and personal presidential politics always gets.) Basically, politics destroys the mind.

This is admittedly an almost unreachable ideal, but if you want to avoid bias it has to be the conscious goal. A nice side effect is that, since nobody has time to study and consider every issue, you get to be comfortably neutral on most of the things people tie themselves up arguing about.

Having no ideology is bunch of bunk. It just depends on the ideology. Under the no ideology rule, you actually have an ideology. I prefer to follow the Constitution because my ideology is that de-centralized govt (what I mean by limited or small govt) is what governs best. I didn't switch over to that just to be an ideologue though. It's because I found that it also works best in preserving liberty. Liberty isn't perfect but I'll take it over any control ideology. That includes Keynesian economic ideology.

Don't forget it was the moderates that didn't stop Hitler too.

J Diddy
11-19-2012, 08:32 PM
28,000+ people voted for a member of the Westboro Baptist Church in our election.

No joke.

:spock:


You've got to be fucking kidding me.

ClevelandBronco
11-19-2012, 08:41 PM
Oh, okay. I've considered your position carefully, and I've decided "meh". I don't really care either way. I won't do anything to support your cause in word nor deed, but neither will I work against it.

This is an approach I can believe in.

Saul Good
11-19-2012, 08:43 PM
This is an approach I can believe in.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G69nsT_WaIo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Direckshun
11-19-2012, 08:50 PM
Good on ya, Saul. I try to do this regularly myself. It makes life a little more complicated but it's totally worth it for the intellectual honesty alone.

I've posted various parts of this in this forum before, but feel free to examine this for your own entertainment:

I'm a supporter of capitalism and private-owned enterprise over government-owned industry. I believe a free market is the engine of a progressive society, and the invisible hand can not only drive forward the quality of life for everybody in that market, it can also empower a nation to the extraordinary extent that it can serve as a powerful guide for other nations attempting to do the same.

At the same time, I believe that there are in-built defects of capitalism -- it is a competition, after all. And you're going to have people who win, and people who don't win. People who thrive, people who get by, and people who struggle. It's impossible to have a capitalist system where you don't also have poverty, homelessness, unemployment, starvation... So I do believe in a safety net provided by those who are getting by to help out those who aren't. This does necessitate more collective action through the government, but that's why I also believe in separation of powers, checks and balances, and absolute government accountability and hate any organizations (including the White House itself) that resist any of these.

Capitalism in general is an inequality creator, which isn't inherently bad but inequality can have some poisonous defects, some of which I highlighted in the above paragraph. Inequality can, for instance, put people in extreme positions of power over others, and allow some entities to openly abuse others. In these instances I favor strong, reasonable, accountable regulation of these entities to protect the least of our brothers and sisters.

I considered myself conservative when I was much, much younger. I supported a few Republicans, but again this wasn't for a very long time since I was so young and my support was typically tepid of somebody my age then. I never really affiliated myself with the GOP, though, because I was always very pro-gay and I disliked that the GOP wasn't that way.

Around the turn of the century, my views became more liberal and I evolved into the person you know, more or less, now.

I'm not really sure why I started out so conservative. Part of it is because I was running with a lot of religious fundamentalists at the time and that's the way all the fish were swimming, but also I was in college and everybody seemed to be liberal, and if you hadn't noticed, there's obviously a streak in me that wants to stand up for the minority view, which is probably why I was a religious fundamentalist for a while, too.

I sure did change, though. I'm so much more comfortable with my liberalism. It's a much better match for me, psychologically, and better describes what I would consider to be my more mature view of the world.

BigRedChief
11-19-2012, 09:20 PM
You realize of course that Republicans, at least conservatives anyways, know most of those issues belong with the states. Since they support state's rights and federalism.I don't want them decided at the state level. We had a frigging civil war over this issue of state vs. the big bad national government.

States don't get to decide the big issues on their own. They don't get to dictate what freedoms to allow. Thats decided by the SCOTUS and the big bad bogey government.

patteeu
11-19-2012, 09:25 PM
wantI don't want them decided at the state level. We had a frigging civil was over this issue of state vs. the big bad national government.

States don't get to decide the big issues on their own. They don't get to dictate what freedoms to allow. Thats decided by the SCOTUS and the big bad bogey government.

That's just you wanting to impose your morality as widely as possible. Pretty extreme.

DementedLogic
11-19-2012, 09:29 PM
I propose you consider the philosophy of liberty when deciding your political views.

muHg86Mys7I

BigRedChief
11-19-2012, 09:43 PM
That's just you wanting to impose your morality as widely as possible. Pretty extreme.It's called the constitution. The Bill of Rights, not BRC's morality.

patteeu
11-19-2012, 09:53 PM
It's called the constitution. The Bill of Rights, not BRC's morality.

No, that's not true. It's definitely just your morality. Even if you think Roe v Wade makes good legal sense, and very few people really do, you can't possibly believe that the people who drafted and ratified the constitution intended to protect abortion as a right. Likewise with gay marriage and even sodomy and contraception.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 12:48 AM
No, that's not true. It's definitely just your morality. Even if you think Roe v Wade makes good legal sense, and very few people really do, you can't possibly believe that the people who drafted and ratified the constitution intended to protect abortion as a right. Likewise with gay marriage and even sodomy and contraception.

My first thought was, how do you know that? But then I considered that there were a lot of rights that women didn't have then. And some people in general didn't have a lot of rights that taken for granted today--such as that some people weren't even really considered people. So, you're probably correct that they didn't intend to protect abortion as a right, but their intentions as to specific issues like abortion isn't all that relevant.

A Salt Weapon
11-20-2012, 01:02 AM
The founders did not want women to vote because they knew that women(much like liberals) act on emotion instead of logic, a society creating legislation through emotion is predetermined to fail, much as we are seeing happening to our country.

They also didn't want non-landowners to vote, as we see what happens when sheniqua and her 7 kids living in a tax payer funded apartment, eating tax payer funded food, and enjoying the benefits of tax payer funded healthcare is allowed to vote. Of course she is going to vote for the candidate promising more free stuff (gas money and car payments). Since she has no "skin in the game"(aka property) to lose due to the failures of elected politicians destroying the economy.
Posted via Mobile Device

Taco John
11-20-2012, 04:22 AM
If possible you should drop your political opinions altogether and do your best not to follow any political ideology. You can still form opinions on various issues if you feel the evidence is very strong one way or another, so long as you've given consideration to both sides, but if you believe in an ideology which offers easy, pre-fab opinions based on some overarching "philosophy of government" you will be hopelessly biased when approaching something new. Ultimately this bias will infiltrate how you perceive every issue, including cultural and personal ones (see how nasty and personal presidential politics always gets.) Basically, politics destroys the mind.

This is admittedly an almost unreachable ideal, but if you want to avoid bias it has to be the conscious goal. A nice side effect is that, since nobody has time to study and consider every issue, you get to be comfortably neutral on most of the things people tie themselves up arguing about.

why would anyone want to go through life so aimlessly? This is like the recipe to end up like Kotter.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 08:12 AM
The founders did not want women to vote because they knew that women(much like liberals) act on emotion instead of logic, a society creating legislation through emotion is predetermined to fail, much as we are seeing happening to our country.



LMAO :doh!: STFU

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 08:19 AM
I don't want them decided at the state level.
Then you piss on our Constitution and support tyranny. Because who will check the feds when they go too far? No one. And there will be no where else to go when that happens.

We had a frigging civil war over this issue of state vs. the big bad national government.

So what. There was still no need for a civil war and THAT was a consequence of president who violated the Constitution and governed like a tyrant.

States don't get to decide the big issues on their own. They don't get to dictate what freedoms to allow. That's decided by the SCOTUS and the big bad bogey government.

Those are not BIG issues. Those are supposed to be LOCAL issues because they reflect the values of the people. And the Federal Bill of Rights actually comes from the states. Furthermore, the congress has the power to remove whole categories of cases from the SC ever hearing.

You don't understand American history, the Constitution, why the Framers decided what they did (power) or what a "right" actually is. That's okay most Americans learn politically correct history in our govt schools. Ignorance can be handled with education.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 08:37 AM
BigRedChief,
Secession was a peaceful act by the South. You're not free if you can't secede from an oppressive govt. In fact, that's what the original Revolution was about—secession. It's as American as apple pie.

patteeu
11-20-2012, 09:53 AM
My first thought was, how do you know that? But then I considered that there were a lot of rights that women didn't have then. And some people in general didn't have a lot of rights that taken for granted today--such as that some people weren't even really considered people. So, you're probably correct that they didn't intend to protect abortion as a right, but their intentions as to specific issues like abortion isn't all that relevant.

It is if you're trying to wrap yourself in the constitution like BRC. You're right that the original constitution didn't treat women like we do today. That's why it had to be *amended* to grant women the vote. I remain skeptical of that change.

J Diddy
11-20-2012, 09:58 AM
The founders did not want women to vote because they knew that women(much like liberals) act on emotion instead of logic, a society creating legislation through emotion is predetermined to fail, much as we are seeing happening to our country.

They also didn't want non-landowners to vote, as we see what happens when sheniqua and her 7 kids living in a tax payer funded apartment, eating tax payer funded food, and enjoying the benefits of tax payer funded healthcare is allowed to vote. Of course she is going to vote for the candidate promising more free stuff (gas money and car payments). Since she has no "skin in the game"(aka property) to lose due to the failures of elected politicians destroying the economy.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah that's some pretty sexist and ignorant bullshit. Women were regarded as property and felt that they didn't have the capacity to reason. In short they were better slaves.

Regarding why they didn't want non property owners to vote it was protecting their self interests combined with the belief that they just weren't smart enough to govern themselves.

Saulbadguy
11-20-2012, 12:16 PM
:spock:


You've got to be fucking kidding me.

He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education

What specific issues are most important to you when it comes to education?

There is a severe lack of truth in the public education system in Kansas. Satanic notions like evolution need to be swept away along with the idiots that promote it. Sex eduction also needs to be swept away and children should be taught to abstain from fornication. Literature that promotes adultery, sodomy, fornication, abortion, and other gross sins against God should be cautioned against. Reading works of non-fiction should be emphasized above questionable fairy tales and fantasy novels.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 12:22 PM
My first thought was, how do you know that? But then I considered that there were a lot of rights that women didn't have then. And some people in general didn't have a lot of rights that taken for granted today--such as that some people weren't even really considered people. So, you're probably correct that they didn't intend to protect abortion as a right, but their intentions as to specific issues like abortion isn't all that relevant.

Who gives this zero positive rep? I turned he/she/it red since the day it got here and lately someone has been giving it green?
Who would do that and why?

FishingRod
11-20-2012, 12:54 PM
He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education

First of all what a POS.

2nd I am shocked he only got 29% of the Vote. Most people vote Rep or Dem every single time no matter who the idiot on their team is. It shows at least a few people were paying attention.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 07:08 PM
It is if you're trying to wrap yourself in the constitution like BRC. You're right that the original constitution didn't treat women like we do today. That's why it had to be *amended* to grant women the vote. I remain skeptical of that change.

LMAO

Unless they agree with you right pat?

Pablo
11-20-2012, 07:18 PM
He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of EducationLOLOLOL.

patteeu
11-20-2012, 08:09 PM
LMAO

Unless they agree with you right pat?

I'd say it a different way, like "unless they use their vote sensibly", but you've got it basically right. :D

BigRedChief
11-20-2012, 08:20 PM
He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education
The Republicans keep going down this path of irrelevancy. Let's see where this path has taken them so far.

Lost 5 out of the last 6 popular vote elections. the Democratic nominee has averaged 327 electoral votes while the Republican nominee has averaged just 210.

In this economy, Barack Obama has won more popular votes than any Democratic candidate for president in history—except Barack Obama in 2008.

BigRedChief
11-20-2012, 08:22 PM
Who gives this zero positive rep? I turned he/she/it red since the day it got here and lately someone has been giving it green?
Who would do that and why?I have no idea? Maybe someone you insulted for no reason?;)

Inspector
11-21-2012, 01:34 PM
I saw firsthand what happens when stupid people vote.

Uh, yeah, we all saw that.

patteeu
11-21-2012, 01:45 PM
Uh, yeah, we all saw that.

LMAO