Praise the Lord!

Ted Haggard

Ted Haggard

Verified User
Mega-dittos Ann! Politics, and the republican party in particular, need to be under the stewardship of men...as God intended.

You go girl!


Coulter suggests taking away women's right to vote

COULTER: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_If_we_took_away_womens_1003.html
Click to expand...
 
good to see ur not gay anymore, ted

i use to watch ur show all the time

gud to see your postin ann coulter. shes got a nice ass. wouldn you like to hit it? Good christ lord.

take away the womens right to vote, i should make her my sweetie. thats what i want otu of a women all along. make my stuff, fuck me, go see teh lord at church... ya know...

im sure youf eel the same way ;)
 
Why stop with women? If Ann wants to change things this much she should go all the way with her/his fantasy!
Limit voting rights to men who can prove they belong to the a certain party and only candidates who belong to that party and can prove they belong to a certain religion can run for office.

Democracy! We don't need no stinking democracy!
 
Crashk said:
Why stop with women? If Ann wants to change things this much she should go all the way with her/his fantasy!
Limit voting rights to men who can prove they belong to the a certain party and only candidates who belong to that party and can prove they belong to a certain religion can run for office.

Democracy! We don't need no stinking democracy!
Click to expand...
We can go back to the original requirements of men 21 years old or older who are property owners.
 
So no renters could vote ?
That would pretty much wipe the dems out )

Now would that be just mortgage free property owners ?

:)
 
Didn't we establish a couple of weeks ago that AC's gender was, well, in question? This proposal of "hers" seems to be a prelude to a coming-out party, no? :D
 
uscitizen said:
So no renters could vote ?
That would pretty much wipe the dems out )

Now would that be just mortgage free property owners ?

:)
Click to expand...
I think so. That was the original requirements. The property owner also had 'rights' to vote for their 'slaves'. Therefore it wasn't even one-to-one representation.
 
Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn’t want people to vote. That’s why the GOP is obsessed with voter fraud—only they want to disenfranchise voters because as Weyrich said back in the ’80’s…the more voters there are—the less of a chance the wingers have in any election.

Weyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/07/paul-weyrich-goo-goo-syndrome/

Nothing new from Coulter.
 
Crashk said:
Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn’t want people to vote. That’s why the GOP is obsessed with voter fraud—only they want to disenfranchise voters because as Weyrich said back in the ’80’s…the more voters there are—the less of a chance the wingers have in any election.

Weyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/07/paul-weyrich-goo-goo-syndrome/

Nothing new from Coulter.
Click to expand...


Ann wants this law because it would get to vote that way. :p
 
Damocles said:
I think so. That was the original requirements. The property owner also had 'rights' to vote for their 'slaves'. Therefore it wasn't even one-to-one representation.
Click to expand...

Slaves weren't considered a full person, can't remember their percentage of humanness, though, do you? 2/3rds?
 
It was 3/5ths, and it wasn't that slaveowners could cast 3/5ths of a vote, it was that congressional seats were apportioned amongst the states by the amount of people in each state. Each citizen counted as a whole person in this count, and each slave counted as 3/5ths. This is actually still in the constitution.

It was pretty silly to count them at all, actually, being as they couldn't vote. There was only one group of people this benefited, southern white people.
 
This serves to reinforce suspicions I've had for some time that Ann Coulter is, in fact, a male transexual chauvinist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top