By Ted Rall

NEW YORK--"Kerry doesn't know what the working-class people do; he hasn't done any physical labor all his life," Sharon Alfman, a 51-year-old cook in New Lexington, Ohio, told a New York Times reporter. It's true. Kerry is a rich boy. But then she added: "Bush's values are middle-class family values."

George W. Bush earned $727,000 last year. Estimates of his net worth range between $9 and $26 million. Middle class he most assuredly is not. Working class he never has been. Like fellow Skull and Bones member John Kerry (news - web sites), man of the people he never will be. But it matters that Sharon Altman thinks he is. Unless you too are a voter living in a swing state like Ohio, her vote counts more than yours.

Demonstrating that stupefying ignorance can be bipartisan, another Ohioan interviewed for the same article said she is against the war in Iraq (news - web sites) because, like 42 percent of her fellow Americans, she thinks Iraq was behind 9/11: "We shouldn't be over there building them back up because they didn't build our towers back up." She is wrong on so many levels that it makes my brain hurt.

Both women are entitled to their unawareness. We can't pass a law to force them to read the paper. But neither of these people ought to force their fellow citizens to suffer the consequences of their being so uninformed. Voting should be a privilege earned by an intellectually engaged citizen, not a right given to any adult with a pulse...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&e=4&u=/ucru/triumphofthestultocracy


Should we use political literacy tests or other alternatives in order to make sure that mental midgets aren't allowed make decisions that could have far reaching implications for the rest of the population?.

but how would you do it in such away that it didnt become a dictatorship?

i agree with you, most people here vote the donkey (ie 1,2,3,4,5ect down the voting page) but you cant force people to take an interest and it would be a shame if our contry became like the US and people only voted if the weather was good

I agree. Ignorance pisses me off.

but how would you do it in such away that it didnt become a dictatorship?

You'd have two levels of voting: Everyone who can vote today gets to vote on the vote-test questions. Only those who pass the vote-test get to vote beyond that.

There's plenty of precedent; for example, all voters can provide input on driver-test questions. Only those who pass the driver-test get to drive.

yes but there is a difference

there is an oviouse set of questions (ie the road laws) and if people think the questions ect are wrong then they can put pressure on the goverment to change them but how do you set voting questions up?

its way to easy for someone to swing the questions so that the voters who would be alowed to vote would vote there way and there would be no recorse as the ulterment recorse for govermental descions would be what the questions would stop

The questions can be offered to the level-1 voters through the existing initiative process: do you want to add/modify/revoke this question to/from the voter-test or not? That way, anybody who can gather enough signatures can devise a voter-test question or seek to revoke or modify a question, and minority influence on the questions would be no more possible than is minority influence on initiatives today.

I've had heard of voting tests before on the Radio, supringsingly it was one C.C. stations, these SOB's pundits have their fucking noses so far up bush's ass the it intriques me of how they even breath!.

Anyhow who would control such tests?
They would be vias.
Mainly voting tests are a bad idea. however just a plain reading and comprehension test would suffice, for the majority of the population to vote, specially in Fla.

Godless.

why do people associate litracy with intellegence?

in an age with so many media there is no reason why even being able to read would indicate or disqualifie someone from being an informed voter

and anyway it wouldnt work here, most of the donkey voters can "read" the sun anyway (for those of you not from melbourne the sun is a tipical tabloid newspaper, the age is the more informed paper or rather the paper chosen by people who genrally are both more informed and more inteligent)

why do people associate litracy with intellegence?

You gotta be able to read the ballot.

In 1996, in Oregon, the people had before them two ballot measures which would have addressed child pornography. Strangely, neither law really did anything but declare officially what was already rather quite implicit, that the state reiterated extant Supreme Court standards. The measures were extraneous for not really doing anything. Nonetheless, they enjoyed broad support except for the fact that there was two of them.

One of the theories afoot after the 1996 election was that the voters somehow arrived at an either/or decision, and voted for one or the the other, but not for both. So the support for the measures appears to have been split by voters who didn't know what they were voting on.

Literacy is hardly the end-all indicator of intelligence; but if you can't read the ballot and know what you're voting on, what result can you expect from democracy?

The problem is that nobody is stupid due to the survival instinct. They cannot think of themselves as stupid and remove themselves from consideration, as to "feel strong" or "big" they have to contend that their opinion is as valid or meaningful as someone who is brighter and more emotionally mature than them.

There are too many factors in intellect however, to fairly judge who is and isn't able to do whatever. For instance the person who admits their igorance on the topic may have a sensitivity to character that the super-brain simply lacks.

The problem is: You don't know the future, so there's no way to really know if any candidate is better than the other. All you can really do is guess. Even stupid people, however annoying you find it... are entitled to a guess.

I suppose more to the direct point is this: People are smart about different things and there's no "formula" for a better choice of president. He is supposed to represent the people so it's only just to let the people choose him, no matter what kind of snobbish complex makes you think otherwise. Ultimately, we have to have faith in the people to make good choices and even if we disagree with them, once it's over, we must make the best of it.. people should "vote their hearts" and we should respect that vote. Don't have to like it, just be okay with it.

I cannot stand Kerry, but if he's elected I'll accept him, because though at this time I loath him, I will respect the election process and give him the respect his office deserves.

tiassa

i dont know how it works there but here you can get assistance in voting if you require it because you cant read or your blind or you speak a different language

Indeed, Asguard. There are many reasons, though, that legitimately require assistance; ignorance should not be on the list.

At present, literacy tests are allowed:

(2) No person acting under color of law shall—
(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;
(B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or
(C) employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless
(i) such test is administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing, and
(ii) a certified copy of the test and of the answers given by the individual is furnished to him within twenty-five days of the submission of his request made within the period of time during which records and papers are required to be retained and preserved pursuant to title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 [42 U.S.C. 1974 et seq.]: Provided, however, That the Attorney General may enter into agreements with appropriate State or local authorities that preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests in accordance with the provisions of applicable State or local law, including such special provisions as are necessary in the preparation, conduct, and maintenance of such tests for persons who are blind or otherwise physically handicapped, meet the purposes of this subparagraph and constitute compliance therewith.

USC Title 42.20.1§1971 (http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001971----000-.html)

Seems mostly a matter of logistics.

Whether, in the end, it's a good idea ... that's more of a question. I'm of the opinion that stupid people have rights, too, but they ought not be a protected classification.

Of course the questions should be apolitical in the sense they should be basic Gr.8 questions like:

Mark on map where Iraq is located?
What is the UN?
What is Stem cell research?
etc.

Then they simply fill out the appropriate dot, and then its scan (alas scantron), and it is determined if they are allowed to vote or not.

undecided thats exactly how they could rig an election

they just make the questions so that they surport the voters of one side or the other

I assume you are talking about the Scantron?

no im talking about the questions
have you never had a servy ring you up and all the questions were riged to get a certain result?

politions ALREADY employ these people to get the stats on the elections, pollicys ect, how hard would it be for them to do a list of questions that would eliminate the voters of one party or the other?

I don't see how this What is the UN? can rig an election?

In any case. If there were questions they would have to be decided on beforehand. So what is stopping from someone leaking all the answers to these stupid and uninformed people you don't want to vote?

I don't really see at the moment how this would work at all...not to mention Asguard's voter control theory.

Should we use political literacy tests or other alternatives in order to make sure that mental midgets aren't allowed make decisions that could have far reaching implications for the rest of the population?.
Why not just kill them all? Start with the politically deviant. Then the intellectually deviant. Then move on to the personally insulting just because they exist.

Yeah, lets have a conversation. Normallacy in action.

You folks are more f'd that you know.

Now, that's scary.

So, what should the rest of us skeptics do about y'all?

how do we keep the Mr Gs of the world OUT of the electrol system?

Some much for multiculturalism, multilateralism, internationalism, universal peace and love.

Kill those who are different and purify the race.

Jolly good show, old man.

i think its working fine so far. :m:

Yeah, a test is a bad idea. If the poor and uneducated lost their right to vote then social programs would quickly start to disappear.

I just hope that ignorant voters vote based on how their peers are voting. It dillutes the vote, but doesn't really change the result.

*If the poor and uneducated lost their right to vote then social programs would quickly start to disappear.

I doubt that, social programs keep this government in control over the mindless people, they don't want to loose support of these minless people either.

Godless.

They don't really care... and have no financial reason too. These people need to work, and will do so cheaply. Even more so if welfare is difficult to obtain.

The only real power this group has is their vote. The rest of us can at least speak with our dollar.

persol i think they might surprise you. If we DID do voter testing i think you would find that it would be the ritch middle class who would lose out rather than the poor because its when things are tough that people become more politically awear

think of the depression for a large scale example. Alot more people were politcally active then than ordenarrly

If we DID do voter testing i think you would find that it would be the ritch middle class who would lose out rather than the poor because its when things are tough that people become more politically awearThe poor are aready politically aware. There are MASSIVE drives to get them to vote.

The issue is that they are generally less able to read and less educated.... therefore less likely to pass the test. It becomes a matter of education, not of political willingness.

you know i find your system really strange

here the damage is done by donkey voters because its LAW that everyone MUST walk into the booth (whatever they do once they are in there is up to them) we dont need drives to make cirtan people vote, the main ads about voting are about if you have moved or to get 18 year olds to enrole

* They don't really care... and have no financial reason too

Oh!! hell they they do care, they care so they take more taxes from the middle class and give it to social programs, welfare state has made this country what it is today, they sue the rich, create subjective laws, and collect all they can to create more, and more social programs then they go and collect yet more and more!!. They care, they make a living out of it!!.

Godless.

when have you ever heard of a politician say; will reform the welfare system untill the day we can finally abolish it!.

we will stop collecting taxes "by intimidation" and have a "voluntary tax code"

All social programs will be reformed to the point of complete abolishment of them.

Social Security will be dismantled and all citizens of this great nation of ours will get what is due to them.

No polician will utter this words cause they MAKE A LIVING WITH THESE!!.
Godless.

...you know i find your system really strange...
As if yours is more rational?

If there's to be a voting test,why not a breathing test?

Are you up to taking such a test? Or are you only up to administering such a test?

how do we keep the Mr Gs of the world OUT of the electrol system?
Why would you want to? Because the Mr. G's of the world would vote against what you believe in? So much for all people having a say or a chance to have a say. :rolleyes:

you know i find your system really strange
At least they have the right not to vote. We are forced to do so, even if we do a donkey vote. There's democracy for you.

Yeah, a test is a bad idea. If the poor and uneducated lost their right to vote then social programs would quickly start to disappear.
I agree. A test would only ensure that a large group of people would lose their right to vote and therefore lose their say.

Not an intelligence test, merely a literacy test:

1.) Color the penultimate letter for answer 1 on your answer sheet:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
2.) The legislative branch of the U.S. government includes:
(A) The President
(B) The House of Representatives
(C) The Army
(D) None of the above
3.) The Supreme Court is part of which branch of government:
(A) Executive
(B) Legislative
(C) Judicial
(D) None of the above
4.) The President is the nation's ___________:
(A) Commandant
(B) Majesty
(C) Executive
(D) Director
5.) Are you registered to vote at your current address?
(A) Yes
(B) No

1.) Done
2.) B
3.) C
4.) C
5.) Having previously registered to vote, and whereas I normally vote at my designated precinct location, I can vote from my current address by submitting an absentee ballot by mail.

We are forced to do so, even if we do a donkey vote. There's democracy for you.

Perhaps the reason you are forced to vote is to cause donkey voting, so that whoever puts together the ballots can influence the outcome.

A test would only ensure that a large group of people would lose their right to vote and therefore lose their say.

It is obviously better for the uninformed to lose their say. Besides, why would people care if they can't vote for whatshisname?

tiassa how does understanding what penulterment means help you vote?

i dont belive i have ever seen that word on a voting form

bell i was mearly being vindictive as that is exactly what both the right and the left would try to do why cant i?

tiassa how does understanding what penulterment means help you vote?

It indicates that the voter is capable of understanding four-syllable words, which isn't too much to ask.

In 1992, in Oregon, anti-gay activists published in the voter's guide a list of practices alleged to be participated in by homosexuals. Twelve years later, I'm still stunned when I come across someone who doesn't realize heterosexual people can give rimjobs, have anal sex, perform fellatio, and take part in all manner of, uh, specialized pseudosexual recreation.

Now, much akin to A. Whitney Brown's chilling reminder some years ago, these people, who can't tell common sense from a hole in their head ... some of them vote.

The thing is that yes, it would be better if the people who voted all had a clue as to what they were voting for, but then again, I lived in King County, Washington, when the people voted that they did not want emergency medical services; in the aftermath, the general explanation was, "I, uh, didn't realize what I was voting against."

But I'm one who believes a pulse and the impetus to vote is all that should be required; I bow to age limits only on a traditional basis and for lack of a better option. Part of the idea of the "penultimate" question was to show how basic a literacy test would have to be. The other four questions actually have no bearing on anything. But having to admit to an election official--even that one person in the world--that you can't answer the branches of government, well, that's just downright embarrassing, so maybe people will make the effort to learn at least that. Sort of the same principle about guilt-tripping them into updating their voter registrations.

I think what is most important to test, when it comes to testing voters, is not literacy or even intelligence.
I think what is most important is that the voters are informed.
They know what the issues are, where each candidate stands on these issues, what are the possible results/impacts of different platforms, how the different branches of the government work, etc.
Along with testing, there would have to be a major initiative to educate people on the subject of the questions.
We shouldn't be weeding people out simply for lack of education or intelligence, rather lack of drive/interest/desire to learn what they are actually voting for.

I don't think voting should be a "right", rather an earned privelage.

i agree with one raven, it doesnt matter if you are literate so long as you understand the issues

but by the same token one raven you cant do this for EVERY canditate in the senate and nor should you

i dont CARE what the gun lobies policys are i wont vote for them higher than even the Liberal party because i dont agree with there party at all, same for Pauline Hanson

As long as you DO KNOW what the party ideals and goals really are.
I'd be willing to be that less than 25% of the eligible american voters have any clue what the different parties really stand for and are aiming to acheive.
These are the things they need to know.
My father taught us, "The Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for everyone else."
It's not quite as simple as that, and I'm afraid that most people think it IS as simple as that.
People really need to be informed.

this idea is pretty good, it is an average of a good dictatorship (creating a good country, but few liberties) and a democracy (a shit country, but at least you choose HOW it's going to be shit)

i agree with one raven, it doesnt matter if you are literate so long as you understand the issues

But where and how, then, does that illiterate voter come to understand the issues? The only way to watch the watchdogs is to eliminate the need for them: a voter has every right to construe their own perverse view of the issues. But think, for a moment, of dittoheads: don't you wish that these folks could, for just a moment, think for themselves? Yet they let Rush, one of the most perverse political minds on the scene today, set the boundaries of reality.

If my perspective was set by others at a time when I was incapable of understanding the issues for myself, I would believe in cutthroat capitalism. Interestingly, one favor we can write up to monotheism is that the Christian deception I was exposed to at an early age was the milder of proposed visions. There were, of course, more than simply those two competing paradigms, but capitalism and Christianity were forced to a face-off by the definitions put before me; thank heaven for Marx and Engels, who kept resolution of such issues blessedly out of reach at a time when I wouldn't have known what to do with it. In other words, were it not for communism, I would probably be a textbook Democrat. Regardless of that specific outcome, though, I do sometimes wonder if life would seem easier and more palatable were I a voter of the dead-eyed variety.

Or, I might ask you to consider what's wrong with Mr. G's answer. I didn't think I wrote the question deceptively, but his answer to question #5 is so strikingly wrong that I'm wondering if maybe I have a point even I didn't realize I had. Of course, I could simply be expecting too much of people.

Interesting to watch self-professed defenders of the "little guy" openingly admit that they consider little guys to be just so much disposable trash.

Your sense of subtlety is questionable at least, G.

t-whatever,
I didn't think I wrote the question deceptively, but his answer to question #5 is so strikingly wrong that I'm wondering if maybe I have a point even I didn't realize I had.
So, your failure is my fault?

Thanks for the freebie.

Your sense of subtlety is questionable at least, G.
Must be why it's also known as parady, satire and/or reasoned contempt.

Must be why it's also known as parady, satire and/or reasoned contempt.

And?

your right tiassa:p

isnt it funny, dont know about your country but here he would be comiting an offence because he would be lying to a legally binding question "is this your curent address"

HA HA HA

See, the answer makes sense to a certain degree, but I must extend my sympathies to an extremely-unorthodox interpretation of the words. It might reflect G's eternal quest for individualism, and would by that means explain much about why he has such a hard time communicating with people. But it seems to me you have to try to mangle the question so badly as to arrive at that answer being appropriate.

Then again, I see the question in terms of college students and the landless working class. Perhaps G has every reason to think of the question solely in terms of his own experience and no compelling reason to think beyond himself.

It certainly is an issue of reading comprehension; whether it's illiteracy, though, is still an open question.

There are only the vaguest laws pertaining to dicking around with election officials to such an infantile degree; I think G's answer would raise eyebrows, but it wouldn't warrant action. Except, in the case of a literacy test, where it would disqualify him from voting until he could get the answer right.

I think making voting optional, and a bit of a choir, would be a pretty good test.
Uninformed people wouldn't bother. And neither would I.
I don't anyway, but you know, it would be nice to not feel like a criminal for not bothering to do something.

I almost forgot that voting is mandatory in Austrailia, that's another debate altogether.
You know it's not mandatory in the US, right Dr Lou?

I almost forgot that voting is mandatory in Austrailia, that's another debate altogether.
You know it's not mandatory in the US, right Dr Lou?

Thats why we have less then 50% of the people voting here.

See, the answer makes sense to a certain degree, but I must extend my sympathies to an extremely-unorthodox interpretation of the words.
Matters of unsatisfied orthodoxy are little different than inbreds complaining about genetic diversity.

Must be the natural expression of your kind's parochial diversity genes.

Matters of unsatisfied orthodoxy are little different than inbreds complaining about genetic diversity

Which speaks nothing of communication. :rolleyes:

I hadn't realized that the recognition that humans are social creatures was a genetic gift. Tell me, Mr. G, what do we owe your handicap?

Sorry.

Babelfish doesn't do English to English translations.

I hate sh't cut with bull crap.

/self-edited for probably moderatable content

Babelfish doesn't do English to English translations.

It's a pity. Most of your posts could do with being run though such a translator before being posted.

Asguard


Babelfish doesn't do English to English translations.

See? Eventually the truth comes out. He doesn't even understand the language he claims to speak.

All your bases are belong to us. :D

haters hating haters - hypocrites r us.

where's the love boys?

Haters hating hating haters.

Has a certain intoxicating ring to it.

Litmus test: You have to want to change.

Nothing to see here. Everyone just move along.

I think the first step is: admitting your hate.

Naw. The first step is introducing yourself.

Hi, I'm wes.

Goddamnit man I hate those frickin haters. No I mean I love the hate.. wait.

Nevermind.

*second try*

Hi I'm Wes.

Goddamnit man, sometimes I'm such a fucking hater. I try not to be but people just piss me off. Sometimes I read what they say, get annoyed and get from somewhat to quite vengeful to prove my point. I'm trying over time to get to control that shit better. I think I'm improving at it over time, but maybe I'm just blowing smoke up my own ass. I'm not even double-jointed. (I suppose it only takes 'the hollow cylinder of denial' to get it there). I always get over it and just hope for the most part people try to be understanding. I'll try the same. Mostly it's about 'can you relate'? But often, we can't eh? Boy it's hard being individuals. :rolleyes: Hehe.

I want to love you guys, but sometimes you're just annoying. I suppose that's my problem. I can live with that.

I would like to disqualify from voting the ninety percent of Americans who score lowest on IQ tests.

I would like to disqualify the ninety percent of Americans who have the knowledge of economics.

I would like to disqualify every American who can not give a basic explanation of the relationship between trade deficits and exchange rates.

I would like to disqualify the ninety percent of Americans who have the least knowledge of history.

I would like to disqualify from voting every American who does not know who Mossadegh was.

I would like to disqualify the ninety percent of Americans who are least objective. Being overly proud or loyal to anything couds objectivity. Only objective free thinkers should be allowed to vote. Letting those "patriotic" people who accuse anyone who says anything bad about America of hating America, vote is a danger to national security.

I would like to disqualify the ninety percent of Americans who are least capable of having unconventional thoughts, standing alone, ignoring the pack or otherwise being individuals.

I would like to disqualify the ninety percent of americans who least have a clue what it would be like to be working poor and how a person might become working poor.

I would like to disqualify the ninety percent of Americans with the least empathy.




That might leave us a few hundred voters and a damn fine government.





We can't just disqualify the unintelligent because they tend to be poorer than the intelligent and the intelligent are not intelligent enough to know when their beliefs are self-serving rather than objective. IMO Self-delusion is the foundation of culture. The poor may not know enough to represent themself well; but the poor will still be much more capable of representing themselves well than the wealthy would be capable of representing the poor well.

I also want to disqualify anybody who can spell better than I can because, "it's just not fair".

You people are missing the point. The stupid and uninformed most generally do not vote. I, for one, am always pissed off when I see some moron celebrity trying to convince couch potatoes that it's their civic duty to vote. The lower the voter turnout, the more important each vote is. By all means, make voting a bit of a chore. Require proof of citizenship. But no test is needed. The stupid and lazy will eliminate themselves. It's a self regulating system. Unfortunately, we're moving in the opposite direction with motor voter and the growth of absentee ballots. The easier it is to vote, the more stupid and lazy people we'll have voting.

humans are constrained by a) limited information, and b) bounded rationality. only the most informed and most objective people would be able to make a correct decision on anything

they're called "supreme court judges"... and they too make mistakes sometimes

like Churchill said - the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with a typical voter

tiassa:

sometimes i dont know why you even bother, after all you KNOW what the responce will be before hand. Is it just to see what actually comes out or optimism or what mate?

He's inadvertently serving my point.

Originally posted by: madanthonywayne
You people are missing the point. The stupid and uninformed most generally do not vote.

That is not entirely true. Yes, there are many lazy people that do not vote, but there are many that do. If you count those that are informed and those that are not at the ballots I can guarantee you will find uninformed people outnumber the other 10 to 1 simply because there are so many of the damned people.

Hmmm, I guess I am disqualified, I have no empathy, darnit :)

There once was a man who hated. His name was John. One October day, John could no longer tolerate the object of his hatred, so he picked up a rifle and set to do something about it. John would eventually be executed for his crimes; in the modern day he would be called a terrorist.

Admittedly, John could have found a better way to go about it.

Two years after his death, however, his wishes would begin to come true. Hoping to spawn an uprising, John would not live to see the institutions that formed the object of his hatred deliver his first wish in the form of an uprising, albeit from the other side of the coin. Two years after that uprising, the United States government coincidentally granted John's wish and, amid a war, declared an end to slavery.

What happens when one's hatred is fulfilled?

i have an idea that doesnt discriminate against dumb people, merely agaisnt those who have no knowledge of politics

q1 who do you want to vote for?
q2 why (name 5 policies that they have that you like)
q3 nobody's perfect (name a policy of theirs you DONT like)

if they get question 2 or 3 wrong, then their answer to q1 is ignored

I second that motion. Just ask them why they voted that way and watch them squrim :eek:

You know it's not mandatory in the US, right Dr Lou?
No I didn't. I assumed it would be.
It's a funny kind of mandatory here, election day just comes and goes and I don't vote and nothing happens, but apparently I can be fined.
I suppose thats why bush is in office, evangelists are alot more enthusiastic and organised than stoner liberals.
Which kind of nullifies the point I was trying to make. Ok, IF there were no crazy massive cults, and stoners weren't so lazy, THEN making voting optional would be an adequate enough test to get the person most people who are informed want in office.

For the record, I don't vote because no single candidate in history has come any closer to representing my views than any other. They're all equally as out of touch with reality as eachother from my perspective. Like 2 dogs arguing over which tree provides the most luxurious toilet. To me thats not important and it would be silly for me to be involved in choosing which tree be placed in the dog park.

We could try lowering the bar: No state ballot measure, nor any candidate name shall contain any words longer than three syllables.

Think of how well that would go. George Popadopolous becomes "George Papadope".

Rather than a measure about the exploitation of adolescents, you can have a measure about kiddie-porn.

Taxation without what?

where's the love boys?

Wes,
If you want to meet some "love boys" there are a few clubs in dowtown Manhattan I can bring you to.

Wes,
If you want to meet some "love boys" there are a few clubs in dowtown Manhattan I can bring you to.

hmm.

dude, it's too far.

thanks though. ;)

Part of this topic raises an interesting question. I don't even know what psychiatric conditions can legally prevent one from voting. Should people given certain diagnoses be allowed to vote? I mean, if they're legally established as not recognizing reality, should they be voting? (This speaks nothing of actually holding office, of course.)