Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polls Show Voters Split Along Gender Lines
PBS ^ | October 2, 2012 | Christina Bellantoni and Terence Burlij

Posted on 10/02/2012 7:01:33 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: ShovelThemOut; ConservativeStatement; ETL; txrefugee; LibLieSlayer; NKP_Vet; OneWingedShark; ...
wingshark: I believe women's suffrage is much to blame for our current state of affairs

Indeed! I head a woman on a local call-in show. She was a mother who voted for Hopeychange and was fed up with Obama now, and taxes destroying her family budget.

She "wanted" to vote for Romney as a businessman to lower taxes....but....she didn't FEEL like he could IDENTIFY or UNDERSTAND her positions since he is a RICH MAN.

Nevermind that Baraqqa is richer now than Mitt ever was...anyhow.

Emotional decisions are fine for an artist. They have no place in policy.

Women should not be barred from voting. But there should be a weedout test question on the ballot.

"Would you kill a cute, cuddly kitten to save your neighbor's uncle from getting rabies?"

If they answer no or "not sure" then their vote is discarded.

Ok, ok. That's not good.

THIS....

1. A homeless man needs money for food.

2. You only have $20, enough money for your grocery list for your children.

3. A rich man with $100 is being held up by a mugger.

If you controlled the situation, how much should each person get?

If the answers are not $0-homeless, $20-mom and $100-rich guy, 5 years in jail-mugger, then their vote is not counted.

21 posted on 10/03/2012 6:27:36 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
I'm going to have to disagree with you; a test requirement for voting would be far, far too easily subverted. (Besides, it would be in [Big] Government's interest to put in questions which would weed out those who would desire to cut down government size.)

When considering such Constitutional [or procedural] amendments always consider how such a change could be used against you, personally.

22 posted on 10/03/2012 8:44:40 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
When considering such Constitutional [or procedural] amendments always consider how such a change could be used against you, personally.

Ok then. Fair enough. So then let's repeal the 19th Amendment.

23 posted on 10/03/2012 8:47:37 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStatement

Reason 1,230,423 why women should not vote.


24 posted on 10/03/2012 8:50:26 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Ok then. Fair enough. So then let's repeal the 19th Amendment.

A different, and likely near as effective, tactic would be the repeal of the 17th Amendment -- it would also likely be much easier to accomplish.

25 posted on 10/03/2012 9:20:33 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson