Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deseret News)   What part of the country holds the key to a possible GOP takeover of the Senate? That would be the South. In other news, Obama orders an extra supply of veto pens, hopes he doesn't get carpal tunnel by the end of his term   (deseretnews.com) divider line 143
    More: Interesting, GOP, souths, humans, Obama, Jack Kingston, Phil Gingrey, Karen Handel, US Senator  
•       •       •

1012 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-16 11:56:11 AM  
In other words, pretty much a 1986 correction if this happens. Even with a much higher POTUS approval rating, that didn't stop the Democratic Party from taking control of both chambers.
 
2014-03-16 12:00:59 PM  
The Republicans will figure out a way to blow it
 
2014-03-16 12:12:34 PM  
A few more primary debates with questions like "How will Jesus help you prevent Sharia Law?" "If you could give a bag of Combos to one of the Founding Fathers, which one would it be -- and which flavor -- and why?" and "Why would tripling defense spending while cutting taxes to zero make eliminating the minimum wage so awesome?" will clear out some incumbents and open things up for the semi-sane.
 
2014-03-16 12:38:54 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: A few more primary debates with questions like "How will Jesus help you prevent Sharia Law?" "If you could give a bag of Combos to one of the Founding Fathers, which one would it be -- and which flavor -- and why?" and "Why would tripling defense spending while cutting taxes to zero make eliminating the minimum wage so awesome?" will clear out some incumbents and open things up for the semi-sane.


Sorry, I thought you were talking about rational people for a moment. This is the GOP in the South. I love that the article is from their brothers in Utah.
 
2014-03-16 12:42:41 PM  
Umm...doesn't the GOP hold a good chunk of the Seante Seats in the South? They don't get to add more senators and I only believe one or two of the democrats are up for reelection
 
2014-03-16 12:42:59 PM  
well, the tea party has blocked the GOP from taking over the senate for two elections in a row. there's still a chance that they'll do that this fall.
 
2014-03-16 01:18:44 PM  

Aar1012: Umm...doesn't the GOP hold a good chunk of the Seante Seats in the South? They don't get to add more senators and I only believe one or two of the democrats are up for reelection


upload.wikimedia.org

This is a current map of all senators. The democrats up for reelection are in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia.

From the "South" South, they could pick up 4 senators -- in theory -- which would make things 49/49/2.
 
2014-03-16 01:22:01 PM  
Here in NC Americans for Prosperity have been hammering Kay Hagen with ads like this for months. You can't watch a local TV station for more than 20 minutes without seeing one. It doesn't seem like she or the Democrats are even fighting back.

This is a direct result of Citizens United. It's going to work. I don't think she has a chance. Sorry nation, we are going to send another Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Democracy is dead.
 
2014-03-16 01:23:46 PM  

Donnchadha: Aar1012: Umm...doesn't the GOP hold a good chunk of the Seante Seats in the South? They don't get to add more senators and I only believe one or two of the democrats are up for reelection

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x495]

This is a current map of all senators. The democrats up for reelection are in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia.

From the "South" South, they could pick up 4 senators -- in theory -- which would make things 49/49/2.


Damn, I see from that map that Freddy Kreuger took Maine.  I suppose it was inevitable.

i595.photobucket.com
"For a better tomorrow...if you can make it there."
 
2014-03-16 01:24:18 PM  

sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity


Shouldn't that read 'Americans who are Already Prosperous'?
 
2014-03-16 01:25:37 PM  

sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity have been hammering Kay Hagen with ads like this for months. You can't watch a local TV station for more than 20 minutes without seeing one. It doesn't seem like she or the Democrats are even fighting back.

This is a direct result of Citizens United. It's going to work. I don't think she has a chance. Sorry nation, we are going to send another Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Democracy is dead.


I wouldn't call the time yet. In spite of the Old White party, we have a black man in the Presidency. And gays are gaining rights. And cannabis is gaining ground towards legality. The fight continues. There is always hope.
 
2014-03-16 01:52:34 PM  

NewportBarGuy: sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity

Shouldn't that read 'Americans who are Already Prosperous'?



I think it should be "a few Americans who are extremely prosperous"
 
2014-03-16 02:00:23 PM  

Chummer45: NewportBarGuy: sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity

Shouldn't that read 'Americans who are Already Prosperous'?


I think it should be "a few Americans who are extremely prosperous"


Or "prosperous Americans who want more prosperity for themselves".
 
2014-03-16 02:01:03 PM  
Just what the country needs in a shaky economy. More farking gridlock.
 
2014-03-16 02:04:34 PM  

sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity have been hammering Kay Hagen with ads like this for months. You can't watch a local TV station for more than 20 minutes without seeing one. It doesn't seem like she or the Democrats are even fighting back.

This is a direct result of Citizens United. It's going to work. I don't think she has a chance. Sorry nation, we are going to send another Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Democracy is dead.


As a result of the 17th Amendment, people enjoy a vote for their Senator.  Large amounts of political spending do not change the principle of one-man one-vote.

If you're upset that money can influence how people vote, then you're ultimately upset with the voters, and implicitly with democracy itself.
 
2014-03-16 02:10:41 PM  
Well, 538 relaunches tomorrow. I think I can wait until then to verify whether or not I should be dooming and glooming.
 
2014-03-16 02:11:40 PM  
"The South is where President Barack Obama and Democrats long have struggled ..."

Since the 60s anyway when all the Southern Conservatives bailed from the party because they hated LBJ's civil rights push.
 
2014-03-16 02:12:03 PM  

Captain Dan: sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity have been hammering Kay Hagen with ads like this for months. You can't watch a local TV station for more than 20 minutes without seeing one. It doesn't seem like she or the Democrats are even fighting back.

This is a direct result of Citizens United. It's going to work. I don't think she has a chance. Sorry nation, we are going to send another Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Democracy is dead.

As a result of the 17th Amendment, people enjoy a vote for their Senator.  Large amounts of political spending do not change the principle of one-man one-vote.

If you're upset that money can influence how people vote, then you're ultimately upset with the voters, and implicitly with democracy itself.


Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.
 
2014-03-16 02:12:59 PM  

Summoner101: Well, 538 relaunches tomorrow. I think I can wait until then to verify whether or not I should be dooming and glooming.


About damn time.
 
2014-03-16 02:14:35 PM  

Captain Dan: If you're upset that money can influence how people vote, then you're ultimately upset with the voters, and implicitly with democracy itself.


A lot of folks advocate for democracy when they think they have the votes will switch their allegiance to dictatorships if they think they have the right dictator.

I guess we'll see the folks praising the intelligence of voters now calling them idiots.
 
2014-03-16 02:17:17 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.


Show me one recent law that directly disenfranchises voters.  You wrote "directly", and since you're presumably not full of crap, you should be able to back that up.
 
2014-03-16 02:17:49 PM  

edmo: "The South is where President Barack Obama and Democrats long have struggled ..."

Since the 60s anyway when all the Southern Conservatives bailed from the party because they hated LBJ's civil rights push.


Except for that being incorrect, it's a pretty good talking point. Democrats didn't start losing the South to the Republicans till the 1980s. Most challenges to Democrats from the 1960s to 1980s were from third party or split party candidates.
 
2014-03-16 02:18:43 PM  

Mrbogey: Captain Dan: If you're upset that money can influence how people vote, then you're ultimately upset with the voters, and implicitly with democracy itself.

A lot of folks advocate for democracy when they think they have the votes will switch their allegiance to dictatorships if they think they have the right dictator.

I guess we'll see the folks praising the intelligence of voters now calling them idiots.


If voters give Republicans more power in Congress, let alone the Presidency, they are idiots. Republican policies are demonstrably harmful to everyone that wasn't born at LEAST a millionaire.

The modern GOP exists purely to suck all of America's wealth into the pockets of the already-wealthy. Everything else is window-dressing.
 
2014-03-16 02:20:25 PM  

Captain Dan: sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity have been hammering Kay Hagen with ads like this for months. You can't watch a local TV station for more than 20 minutes without seeing one. It doesn't seem like she or the Democrats are even fighting back.

This is a direct result of Citizens United. It's going to work. I don't think she has a chance. Sorry nation, we are going to send another Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Democracy is dead.

As a result of the 17th Amendment, people enjoy a vote for their Senator.  Large amounts of political spending do not change the principle of one-man one-vote.

If you're upset that money can influence how people vote, then you're ultimately upset with the voters, and implicitly with democracy itself.


"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."

The trouble with democracy is that the humans involved are still human, and very busy humans who want to do things with their lives besides politics, so yes, money does have an effect on democracy, and so measures must be taken to make sure funding is done fairly to promote a fairer system of government.
 
2014-03-16 02:20:38 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.


Addendum to my last post: lobbying politicians over voting laws is a separate issue entirely from campaign spending, so on top of being inaccurate, I'm not sure how your objection is even germane.
 
2014-03-16 02:21:18 PM  

Mrbogey: edmo: "The South is where President Barack Obama and Democrats long have struggled ..."

Since the 60s anyway when all the Southern Conservatives bailed from the party because they hated LBJ's civil rights push.

Except for that being incorrect, it's a pretty good talking point. Democrats didn't start losing the South to the Republicans till the 1980s. Most challenges to Democrats from the 1960s to 1980s were from third party or split party candidates.


He may have the timeline wrong but the point still stands: Democrats starting losing elections in the South as the GOP began courting the racist vote.
 
2014-03-16 02:22:01 PM  

Captain Dan: AurizenDarkstar: Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.

Show me one recent law that directly disenfranchises voters.  You wrote "directly", and since you're presumably not full of crap, you should be able to back that up.


Recent?  The most recent is the one put forward by the WI state legislature that closed DMV's (or severely shortened their hours) in what were considered to be Democratic strongholds.  On top of that, the workers were directed to NOT let those who came looking for a necessary ID that they could get one free of charge if it was for voting purposes.  If that can't be considered direct disenfranchisement, I don't know what else would (short of standing at the polling place and deciding who can and cannot vote based on some unknown criteria).

Outside of that, there are also laws in many other states that are restricting the times that one can vote (to very narrow hours) and the places that one can vote (usually far enough away that one has to be lucky enough to own a car, or has someone that can take them to vote).
 
2014-03-16 02:24:45 PM  

LoneWolf343: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."


It depends on the type of democracy.  I think a republic is much better than direct democracy, for example.

The trouble with democracy is that the humans involved are still human, and very busy humans who want to do things with their lives besides politics, so yes, money does have an effect on democracy, and so measures must be taken to make sure funding is done fairly to promote a fairer system of government.

Money has an influence on voters.  But so does the attractiveness of each candidate.  Should we insist that very good-looking people can't enter politics?

What about very eloquent speakers?  Top-notch public speaking is an advantage (unfair advantage?) that average people don't have.
 
2014-03-16 02:24:51 PM  

Captain Dan: AurizenDarkstar: Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.

Show me one recent law that directly disenfranchises voters.  You wrote "directly", and since you're presumably not full of crap, you should be able to back that up.


Hahaha. Oh wait you're serious.
 
2014-03-16 02:25:42 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Captain Dan: AurizenDarkstar: Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.

Show me one recent law that directly disenfranchises voters.  You wrote "directly", and since you're presumably not full of crap, you should be able to back that up.

Recent?  The most recent is the one put forward by the WI state legislature that closed DMV's (or severely shortened their hours) in what were considered to be Democratic strongholds.  On top of that, the workers were directed to NOT let those who came looking for a necessary ID that they could get one free of charge if it was for voting purposes.  If that can't be considered direct disenfranchisement, I don't know what else would (short of standing at the polling place and deciding who can and cannot vote based on some unknown criteria).

Outside of that, there are also laws in many other states that are restricting the times that one can vote (to very narrow hours) and the places that one can vote (usually far enough away that one has to be lucky enough to own a car, or has someone that can take them to vote).


How about states like Florida attempting to purge voting rolls and just happen to purge certain demographics rather than dead and non-residents?
 
2014-03-16 02:25:51 PM  

LordJiro: Republican policies are demonstrably harmful to everyone that wasn't born at LEAST a millionaire.


I hear that a lot from folks who benefit from Democrat largesse. A lot of well connected liberal folks. I'm sure they mean well when they argue for their greed.

max_pooper: He may have the timeline wrong but the point still stands: Democrats starting losing elections in the South as the GOP began courting the racist vote.


Yea, his facts are all wrong but he's still right. Good answer.
 
2014-03-16 02:26:17 PM  

Summoner101: AurizenDarkstar: Captain Dan: AurizenDarkstar: Actually, it does when a lot of that money goes to state legislatures to write laws that will directly or indirectly disenfranchise voters.   But you already know that, you just felt it necessary to be disingenuous.

Show me one recent law that directly disenfranchises voters.  You wrote "directly", and since you're presumably not full of crap, you should be able to back that up.

Recent?  The most recent is the one put forward by the WI state legislature that closed DMV's (or severely shortened their hours) in what were considered to be Democratic strongholds.  On top of that, the workers were directed to NOT let those who came looking for a necessary ID that they could get one free of charge if it was for voting purposes.  If that can't be considered direct disenfranchisement, I don't know what else would (short of standing at the polling place and deciding who can and cannot vote based on some unknown criteria).

Outside of that, there are also laws in many other states that are restricting the times that one can vote (to very narrow hours) and the places that one can vote (usually far enough away that one has to be lucky enough to own a car, or has someone that can take them to vote).

How about states like Florida attempting to purge voting rolls and just happen to purge certain demographics rather than dead and non-residents?


Thanks, I forgot that one.
 
2014-03-16 02:26:26 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Recent?  The most recent is the one put forward by the WI state legislature that closed DMV's (or severely shortened their hours) in what were considered to be Democratic strongholds.  On top of that, the workers were directed to NOT let those who came looking for a necessary ID that they could get one free of charge if it was for voting purposes.  If that can't be considered direct disenfranchisement, I don't know what else would (short of standing at the polling place and deciding who can and cannot vote based on some unknown criteria).

Outside of that, there are also laws in many other states that are restricting the times that one can vote (to very narrow hours) and the places that one can vote (usually far enough away that one has to be lucky enough to own a car, or has someone that can take them to vote).


None of those actually prevent a person from voting, and are at most indirectly disenfranchising.
 
2014-03-16 02:27:41 PM  

Captain Dan: None of those actually prevent a person from voting, and are at most indirectly disenfranchising.


All I hear from this is 'blah blah blah, you're wrong I'm right'.

So, I'll stop wasting my time arguing with someone whose best reply is 'No it isn't!"
 
2014-03-16 02:29:35 PM  

Mrbogey: LordJiro: Republican policies are demonstrably harmful to everyone that wasn't born at LEAST a millionaire.

I hear that a lot from folks who benefit from Democrat largesse. A lot of well connected liberal folks. I'm sure they mean well when they argue for their greed.

max_pooper: He may have the timeline wrong but the point still stands: Democrats starting losing elections in the South as the GOP began courting the racist vote.

Yea, his facts are all wrong but he's still right. Good answer.


All wrong? Nope. Racist southerns dropped the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.
 
2014-03-16 02:29:56 PM  

Captain Dan: What about very eloquent speakers? Top-notch public speaking is an advantage (unfair advantage?) that average people don't have.


Ideally, folks should be prevented from seeing or hearing a candidate speak. They should only be allowed to have direct communication from candidates by way of postcards with the candidates message written in 12pt Arial font. I am open to allowing bolding of words but nothing more ostentatious such as italicizing.

Such a way would eliminate biasing due to sexism, ableism, racism, and classism. Everything else is just a compromise in favor of those attributes.
 
2014-03-16 02:33:19 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: All I hear from this is 'blah blah blah, you're wrong I'm right'.


That is the correct conclusion, but you should also read the rest of what I wrote.

So, I'll stop wasting my time arguing with someone whose best reply is 'No it isn't!"

If you could show me one person who was denied the vote as a result of one of these "new Jim Crow" laws - I'd be sympathetic to your claim of "direct disenfranchisement."

I'm opposed to any laws that make it harder to vote (even indirectly).  But I'm also opposed to hyperbolic, pearl-clutching rhetoric.
 
2014-03-16 02:34:13 PM  

Captain Dan: AurizenDarkstar: Recent?  The most recent is the one put forward by the WI state legislature that closed DMV's (or severely shortened their hours) in what were considered to be Democratic strongholds.  On top of that, the workers were directed to NOT let those who came looking for a necessary ID that they could get one free of charge if it was for voting purposes.  If that can't be considered direct disenfranchisement, I don't know what else would (short of standing at the polling place and deciding who can and cannot vote based on some unknown criteria).

Outside of that, there are also laws in many other states that are restricting the times that one can vote (to very narrow hours) and the places that one can vote (usually far enough away that one has to be lucky enough to own a car, or has someone that can take them to vote).

None of those actually prevent a person from voting, and are at most indirectly disenfranchising.


YEAH!  Just like all those literacy tests and Jim Crow laws didn't directly prevent blacks from voting and were at most indirectly disenfranchising!  And they weren't even racist since not one of them said "darkies can't vote"!
 
2014-03-16 02:37:04 PM  

sammyk: Here in NC Americans for Prosperity have been hammering Kay Hagen with ads like this for months. You can't watch a local TV station for more than 20 minutes without seeing one. It doesn't seem like she or the Democrats are even fighting back.

This is a direct result of Citizens United. It's going to work. I don't think she has a chance. Sorry nation, we are going to send another Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Democracy is dead.


From talking to friends and family who actually voted for Hagen I think that the issue is that she took her election as a mandate that NC wanted to move more to the Left when really they just wanted to stop drifting further Right. Had she been the middle of the road Democrat that people expected her to be then she'd have a good chance at reelection. Instead she made lots of noise about Republicans being terrible people and campaign contributions and alienated a lot of the center right voters she had gained last time.
 
2014-03-16 02:37:35 PM  

Captain Dan: None of those actually prevent a person from voting


The hell are you talking about? You're not being even the littlest bit intellectually honest if you can type something like this. Actively obstructing attempts to register or to acquire legally required identification absolutely prevent people from voting. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to support that claim, but none should be necessary. Res ipsa loquitur.
 
2014-03-16 02:37:42 PM  

Mrbogey: Ideally, folks should be prevented from seeing or hearing a candidate speak. They should only be allowed to have direct communication from candidates by way of postcards with the candidates message written in 12pt Arial font. I am open to allowing bolding of words but nothing more ostentatious such as italicizing.

Such a way would eliminate biasing due to sexism, ableism, racism, and classism. Everything else is just a compromise in favor of those attributes.


The year was 2081, and all political candidates were finally equal.
 
2014-03-16 02:37:53 PM  

Captain Dan: AurizenDarkstar: All I hear from this is 'blah blah blah, you're wrong I'm right'.

That is the correct conclusion, but you should also read the rest of what I wrote.

So, I'll stop wasting my time arguing with someone whose best reply is 'No it isn't!"

If you could show me one person who was denied the vote as a result of one of these "new Jim Crow" laws - I'd be sympathetic to your claim of "direct disenfranchisement."

I'm opposed to any laws that make it harder to vote (even indirectly).  But I'm also opposed to hyperbolic, pearl-clutching rhetoric.


Rosanell Eaton.
 
2014-03-16 02:38:02 PM  
Sorry folks but West Virginia isn't in the "south". Not when parts of it are farther north than Pittsburgh and it's only 200 miles from the Atlantic ocean at Ocean City,  MD.

Call if something else but it's NOT part of the south.

With that said it' s highly likely that Shelly Capito will replace Jay Rockefeller which is quite sad. She's not tea party insane but she's still a whole lot of things that I could never agree with. Plus I've wished death on her father many times.
 
2014-03-16 02:38:55 PM  

max_pooper: Mrbogey: LordJiro: Republican policies are demonstrably harmful to everyone that wasn't born at LEAST a millionaire.

I hear that a lot from folks who benefit from Democrat largesse. A lot of well connected liberal folks. I'm sure they mean well when they argue for their greed.

max_pooper: He may have the timeline wrong but the point still stands: Democrats starting losing elections in the South as the GOP began courting the racist vote.

Yea, his facts are all wrong but he's still right. Good answer.

All wrong? Nope. Racist southerns dropped the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.


Hell, even the GOP admits that.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial -p olitics_x.htm

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.
 
2014-03-16 02:40:09 PM  

BMulligan: Actively obstructing attempts to register or to acquire legally required identification absolutely prevent people from voting. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to support that claim, but none should be necessary. Res ipsa loquitur.


Show me one iota of actual evidence for this.  Claiming that such evidence exists, or that there may even be a veritable wealth of it, does not constitute actually presenting it.
 
2014-03-16 02:40:32 PM  
So Captain Dan is the designated thread shiatter on this one?
 
2014-03-16 02:40:52 PM  
Speaking of veto pens, should the repubs get a Senate majority I hope Obama quotes Reagan's "make my day" speech verbatim when he gets the chance. Heads would explode.
 
2014-03-16 02:41:46 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: So Captain Dan is the designated thread shiatter on this one?


Actually, I'm guessing it's more of a Captain Dan/Mrbogey tag team.
 
2014-03-16 02:46:56 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: So Captain Dan is the designated thread shiatter on this one?


Thread shiatting = Disrupting the sanctity of the left-wing echo chamber?
 
2014-03-16 02:48:35 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Actually, I'm guessing it's more of a Captain Dan/Mrbogey tag team.


The good captain usually tries to be somewhat rational, but this hair-splitting and rules-lawyering is a sight to behold. "Unless you personally introduce me to a person who was disenfranchised by one of the new voting requirements I'll just wave away any and all of your concerns."
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report