Skip to comments.
What If Women Ran the World?
BusinessWeek ^
| Tue Apr 15, 2003
| Thane Peterson
Posted on 04/15/2003 12:23:32 PM PDT by WaveThatFlag
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-310 last
To: Lorianne
Actually, her Senate "win" was more a push by Patrick Moynihan, payback to Hisidic Jews and Puerto Ricans in shaky districts, and now more than one powerful black precinct committe men who counted the votes.
I belive Al Sharpton was one.
This type of systematic fraud was evident in South Dakota just this past election, but now that Florida and such hit the big time media, I don't believe it will be able to occur again.
To: lilylangtree
I said "elected"
I means "successful" using the terms "one how makes decisions that benefit ALL, and not only some"
Please try again.
To: WaveThatFlag
I said a divorced woman, not a divorced man.
To: mabelkitty
I am a women
All your genders are belong to us!
304
posted on
04/16/2003 8:15:36 AM PDT
by
BSunday
To: BSunday
LOL!!!
I guess I was being series.
To: mabelkitty
You have your answer earlier. Now please answer mine or do you not have the guts. Coward!
To: mabelkitty
I said a divorced woman But you were talking about Hillary.
To: wardaddy; wimpycat
But, I will not fork over 200K for 4-5 years at some fancy school like Smith where they can get some BS BA and learn to hate me and then get out and work a few years and then get married and have children and stay home thoroughly "educated" and indoctrinated. I'd rather give them their first home. Sounds like a better use of money. In the meantime, they can go to a public college and find themselves et al. Amen!
308
posted on
04/16/2003 8:19:50 AM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Paleocons - like radical Islamists, long on heartfelt belief, short on facts or common sense)
To: mabelkitty
For the record, I didn't even see your statements.
309
posted on
04/16/2003 2:37:30 PM PDT
by
wimpycat
('Nemo me impune lacessit')
To: mabelkitty
Your logic is skewed. We don't determine WHO should vote by HOW they might vote. What's the point of that? Why not just have a dictatorship then if there is a litmus test on how you're going to vote before you're allowed to vote.
We have secret ballots. No one knows how people vote. You'd actually endorse GUESSING how someone would vote before allowing them to vote?
Why not just say Democrats aren't allowed to vote becauset they may vote differently than you? The whole point of a multi-party system is checks and balances. Without that, you have basically Iraq under Saddam. He got 100% of the "vote" using your tactics.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-310 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson