Bless our dear, dear little heads. Perhaps we can't be educated about politics?
Oh, wait...
I've got more hardnosed political conservatism in my little dope-legalizin' libertarian finger than Barack Obama does in his whole testosterone-soaked body, so I'm pretty sure that whether one sits or stands to pee is not the issue, here.
This wasn't new to me. If I remember correctly taxes given to the government also worked that way. The federal government had no power to collect taxes (or very, very limited power) so they had to rely on states to collect taxes and give some to the fed gov. That was a very real brake on the power of the federal government. After all, it doesn't matter what you want to do if you can't pay for it.
What I still don't understand is why they did it? What arguments could they possibly have had to turn the Constitution from a contract between sovereign states to a wholly superior government overriding all states' rights?
"What I still don't understand is why they did it? What arguments could they possibly have had to turn the Constitution from a contract between sovereign states to a wholly superior government overriding all states' rights?"
Because it was done by people, not by gubmint, as the actions of a gubmint are ultimately the actions of the people who make up that gubmint. Look around you (as it were) at the idiotic and mind-numbing things that people want gubmint to do. IF you can figure out their motives, then you can answer your own question. That's one hell of a big IF, though, ain't it?
So what if you're conservative? So am I. The fact is, we're in the minority. Most women lean to the left politically, because they are woefully ignorant of civics, economics, and history. Moreover, they tend to be more concerned with their perception of things than with the reality. I experience this with women I encounter over and over and over. Heck, all you have to do is look at what passes for news and entertainment on TV -- which is geared very much towards women -- to see this.
I'm not advocating that women should not be able to vote, I'm pointing out the logic. It's established that politics took a decided turn to the left once women were permitted to vote. So unless you want to argue that progressive politics is beneficial, the logical conclusion is that the 19th amendment has had a destructive effect.
DJ:"Look around you (as it were) at the idiotic and mind-numbing things that people want gubmint to do."
True. Yet that doesn't quite get at what I'm after.
The Constitution is hard to change by design. That means that whatever arguments were used had to have been quite compelling. After all, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a significant number of people who realized that it would lead to a huge central government, which was what the Founding Fathers feared, and for good reason.
Let's not forget that the state governments also had to sign off on this change, which in this case was actually slitting their own throats by reducing their ability to have some say in the running of the Fed Gov.
"Most women lean to the left politically, because they are woefully ignorant of civics, economics, and history."
This statement, in and of itself, is woefully ignorant. And complete bullshit.
And you rip me for generalizing...sheesh. Sarah, just because some women don't agree with your ideology doesn't make them "ignorant"...a common groupthink view that conservatives have of liberals.
So what if you're conservative? So am I. The fact is, we're in the minority. Most women lean to the left politically, because they are woefully ignorant of civics, economics, and history.
So you and I are proof that women are not somehow genetically predisposed to one view over another, but rather that politically uninformed female voters in the early 20th Century viewed the .gov as a genie that would keep our chilluns safe.
The solution here is not to keep treating women like non-people (The darkies can't read! They're not human like us! Don't let them vote!) but rather to take our lumps, educate the electorate that should be composed of all adult citizens barring a narrow few, and drive on.
Historically, women have on-the-bulk leaned left because the left, in a general position of broad opposition to traditional institutions, were at first the only side willing to listen to them at all. Susan Brownmiller (one of the few seventies-era feminists) wrote a history of that iteration of the movement that contains a very complete depiction of how the Old Left hijacked a cause that was initially left/right neutral and welded it to itself.
Same reason black voters used to be overwhelmingly Republican... until certain prominent presidential and vice-presidential Democrat persons bucked the segregationists, who suddenly no longer had any further reason to remain Democrats and they and the "black vote" switched places.
Er, Brownmiller was one of the few seventies-era feminists who could actually write clearly and gracefully, which makes her prose non-painful to read. For some reason I left that bit out.
There was a movement for most of the 19th century to enact something like the 17th Amendment. It was only with the rise of the Progressives (spit!) that there was enough momentum to finally enact it to the Constitution in 1913.
Ex-Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) dropped a bill in 2004 to repeal the 17th Amendment. It got exactly one sponsor--himself--before it died at the end of session. No one has reintroduced a repeal bill since then...
"Let's not forget that the state governments also had to sign off on this change, which in this case was actually slitting their own throats by reducing their ability to have some say in the running of the Fed Gov."
Ed, see anon's comment:
"'The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money',--de Tocqueville"
And now see mine again:
"... the actions of a gubmint are ultimately the actions of the people who make up that gubmint."
The point is that all gubmint, state gubmint included, is made up of people. Each is an individual who, like individuals anywhere, can be bribed, as it were, to approve a change in gubmint that he believes to be to his individual advantage.
I am currently reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, which addresses this particular aspect of life on this planet. I hope to get some insight thereby as to why the apparently self-immolating behavior you describe is so prevalent. Then again, pigs might sprout wings and fly, but I keep grinding along.
DJ:"Each is an individual who, like individuals anywhere, can be bribed, as it were, to approve a change in gubmint that he believes to be to his individual advantage."
True. But that's why the Founding Fathers designed the Senate as they did. It's purpose was to use the self interest of the states to counterbalance the self interest of the general public. What gets me is that this change obviously undermined the self interests of the state governments. So why did they go along with it?
Does anyone know of a good book which covers this part of history and the debates?
DJ, the Selfish Gene is an excellent book. If you're more interested in things like self-immolation and evolutionary explanations for it, the same author wrote the God Delusion, which delves into that a little.
Unfortunately, that book lost my respect for Richard Dawkins, as he advances government intervention into private life because he believes religion constitutes child abuse. I'm an atheist, but that was the dumbest damn thing I'd ever read in my life. The guy honestly believes in government control and intervention to get his own perspectives into the majority. People like Dawkins are the reason I call myself an Objectivist instead of an atheist (despite that sounding strange).
Unfortunately, the discussion at hand is beyond me. I am woefully ignorant of government progression and constitutional history. :(
"True. But that's why the Founding Fathers designed the Senate as they did. It's purpose was to use the self interest of the states to counterbalance the self interest of the general public. What gets me is that this change obviously undermined the self interests of the state governments. So why did they go along with it?"
The state gubmints didn't go along with it. The people in the state gubmints who cast the votes in favor of it went along with it. Perhaps those people, as individuals, had some degree of pull with those whom they expected to be elected to the Senate as a result, thereby to gain some advantage, however short term, for themselves.
Admittedly, that is speculation as to the details, but it's easy to see how such things occur. After all, self-interest is a big motivator of politicians, isn't it?
MFHO:
"If you're more interested in things like self-immolation and evolutionary explanations for it, the same author wrote the God Delusion, which delves into that a little."
...the Old Left hijacked a cause that was initially left/right neutral and welded it to itself.
That's exactly my point. Women, as a group, are easily fooled into these things, because they're not interested in politics, economics, or history.
Is anyone here besides Mark seriously going to argue that women are as interested in politics as men? Consider the fact that women make up the majority of voters in the U.S., and yet only 20-30% of the elected government is comprised of women. Either women aren't running for office in meaningful numbers, or women voters are easily fooled into not voting for them. What percentage of women, compared to men, know the important events in U.S. or world history? When you go to a political forum or blog, how many women are joining the fray in the comments? How many of them talk about history? economics? Look at what's in women's magazines, on women-oriented programs; listen to what women talk about when they get together -- it's not politics. This is supported by the fact that poll after poll shows women have far less grasp of the issues than men. (As soon as I find my source on this, I'll post it.)
Think about it. Ever since women have been voting, there's been more and more of a push for welfare-state entitlements. This is because women, as the majority of voters, are easily convinced that social security, socialized medicine, and welfare entitlements, are sustainable. Most of you here know it's not, but women act as though it is sustainable, because they don't understand economics. They don't have an awareness of world affairs, or they would know that this welfare crap has already been tried elsewhere, and has failed miserably.
Look at who's propelling Hillary and Obama -- it's women. My dad was at the Iowa caucus, and what he saw was older women supporting the Hillary campaign. For Obama, it was all young, and therefore stupid, people. Mostly women. It's amazing that Obama has gotten this far: he has little experience and no program, but women are fooled into believing that we can hope our way into wonderful things.
I'm not arguing in any way that women are stupid or inherently incapable of understanding politics, economics, or history. Clearly that's not the case. But for some reason, en masse, women are not interested in these things. It's something sociological.
Hmmm... I'm not certain it's a matter of *awareness*, I think perhaps it's more a matter of perception, and yes there is a biological and evolutionary predisposition to it.
Men are expendable, women are not. That is fundamental to pretty much every social/cultural standard above bare survival instinct, ground into our subconscious so deeply we're hardly aware of it. "Women and children first." It's why a young man going to war is likely to get a "don't kill my baby" class of response from Mom and a struggle to hold back tears and "I'm proud of you son" class of response from Dad.
This isn't ignorance or stupidity or anything like it. It's simply a difference of perspective. Men tend to assume that they'll be called upon to sacrifice themselves in one form or another. Thus they tend toward the attitude of, "If I don't suck it up, I'll just be passing the problem on to my kids and grandkids, only the problem will have had time to grow even bigger and meaner." Women tend to look at a smaller picture in a shorter span of time. "My baby needs food NOW, I don't care if it's moral or not if that's what it takes to get the baby fed."
Neither of those points of view are wrong or invalid, but they are starkly different in their results. Men are more likely to sacrifice the present for the sake of a future they are working toward. Women are more likely to sacrifice the future for a present they see a current need for.
In theory, I'd guess that either would work equally well if it weren't for one little thing that is fundamental to the concept of the rule of law: Precedent.
If you sacrifice what is right for the sake of a quick and dirty fix NOW, you establish the precedent that doing the right thing doesn't matter if the problem is pressing. The end justifies the means and all that.
That way lies totalitarian despotism. Don't forget, Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin didn't seek power *so* they could commit mass murder. They actually hoped to provide benevolent government for as many of their people as they could.
"It's amazing that Obama has gotten this far: he has little experience and no program, but women are fooled into believing that we can hope our way into wonderful things."
After making a comment like this, I think you may have changed my mind about women and politics :)
OK, Mark. Ask the men here if they think Obama has experience and a meaningful program. Ask them if they think his popularity is based on anything other than wishful thinking. You've been here long enough to know what the answer would be. Nice try, though.
The deal with most people here and Obama is that it really doesn't matter what he says or what plans he lays out...their mind had been made up and it isn't going to change.
I think you are wrong about Obama but it won't become evident until he is elected...if he is elected. And it's been my experience that even when something is evident, many conservatives still cling to their initial opinion.
The deal with most people here and Obama is that it really doesn't matter what he says or what plans he lays out...their mind had been made up and it isn't going to change.
Not really, juris, that's just your perception. I believe I have stated on several occasions the various problems I have with liberals. Thus far, only one person has stated one problem they have with conservative ideology.
"Thus far, only one person has stated one problem they have with conservative ideology."
So... our lack of criticism with a group that, on average, agrees more with our own perspectives is somehow indicative of something? That, what, we tend to agree with them?
I've been reading this blog for awhile now, and paid particular attention to the comments section. I could go through them and draft an entire thesis over your unanswered questions. You're effectively calling these people close-minded and stubborn for defending the "points" you've made with little to no effort. I have not seen a single question you have asked go unanswered or unconsidered. When you state something, these people go to great lengths to answer you fully and to offer rebuttal. When you do bother to reply, it is usually to completely evade the question or argument. When it's not that, you're arguing semantics or making broad, generalized (not to mention ignorant) statements to the effect of their irrationality or refusal to magically bend to your sprained style of thinking.
I adapted a philosophy after I finished plowing through all the liberal bullshit I had to deal with in college, and that's basically to be wary of the phrase, "perception." Oh, sure, that argument is or is not valid, because "it's all a matter of perception."
Sorry. A is A, B is B, and if someone can logically demonstrate something it stands until fallacy is shown.
The deal with most people here and Obama is that it really doesn't matter what he says or what plans he lays out...their mind had been made up and it isn't going to change.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/tam-on-17-th-amendment.html (28 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
...and on the part of the first three, destructive...
Arguably, the 19th was destructive, as well, since politics took a decided shift to the left after women got the vote.
Bless our dear, dear little heads. Perhaps we can't be educated about politics?
Oh, wait...
I've got more hardnosed political conservatism in my little dope-legalizin' libertarian finger than Barack Obama does in his whole testosterone-soaked body, so I'm pretty sure that whether one sits or stands to pee is not the issue, here.
This wasn't new to me. If I remember correctly taxes given to the government also worked that way. The federal government had no power to collect taxes (or very, very limited power) so they had to rely on states to collect taxes and give some to the fed gov. That was a very real brake on the power of the federal government. After all, it doesn't matter what you want to do if you can't pay for it.
What I still don't understand is why they did it? What arguments could they possibly have had to turn the Constitution from a contract between sovereign states to a wholly superior government overriding all states' rights?
"What I still don't understand is why they did it? What arguments could they possibly have had to turn the Constitution from a contract between sovereign states to a wholly superior government overriding all states' rights?"
Because it was done by people, not by gubmint, as the actions of a gubmint are ultimately the actions of the people who make up that gubmint. Look around you (as it were) at the idiotic and mind-numbing things that people want gubmint to do. IF you can figure out their motives, then you can answer your own question. That's one hell of a big IF, though, ain't it?
Tam,
So what if you're conservative? So am I. The fact is, we're in the minority. Most women lean to the left politically, because they are woefully ignorant of civics, economics, and history. Moreover, they tend to be more concerned with their perception of things than with the reality. I experience this with women I encounter over and over and over. Heck, all you have to do is look at what passes for news and entertainment on TV -- which is geared very much towards women -- to see this.
I'm not advocating that women should not be able to vote, I'm pointing out the logic. It's established that politics took a decided turn to the left once women were permitted to vote. So unless you want to argue that progressive politics is beneficial, the logical conclusion is that the 19th amendment has had a destructive effect.
DJ: "Look around you (as it were) at the idiotic and mind-numbing things that people want gubmint to do."
True. Yet that doesn't quite get at what I'm after.
The Constitution is hard to change by design. That means that whatever arguments were used had to have been quite compelling. After all, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a significant number of people who realized that it would lead to a huge central government, which was what the Founding Fathers feared, and for good reason.
Let's not forget that the state governments also had to sign off on this change, which in this case was actually slitting their own throats by reducing their ability to have some say in the running of the Fed Gov.
"Most women lean to the left politically, because they are woefully ignorant of civics, economics, and history."
This statement, in and of itself, is woefully ignorant. And complete bullshit.
And you rip me for generalizing...sheesh. Sarah, just because some women don't agree with your ideology doesn't make them "ignorant"...a common groupthink view that conservatives have of liberals.
So you and I are proof that women are not somehow genetically predisposed to one view over another, but rather that politically uninformed female voters in the early 20th Century viewed the .gov as a genie that would keep our chilluns safe.
The solution here is not to keep treating women like non-people (The darkies can't read! They're not human like us! Don't let them vote!) but rather to take our lumps, educate the electorate that should be composed of all adult citizens barring a narrow few, and drive on.
Historically, women have on-the-bulk leaned left because the left, in a general position of broad opposition to traditional institutions, were at first the only side willing to listen to them at all. Susan Brownmiller (one of the few seventies-era feminists) wrote a history of that iteration of the movement that contains a very complete depiction of how the Old Left hijacked a cause that was initially left/right neutral and welded it to itself.
Same reason black voters used to be overwhelmingly Republican... until certain prominent presidential and vice-presidential Democrat persons bucked the segregationists, who suddenly no longer had any further reason to remain Democrats and they and the "black vote" switched places.
Er, Brownmiller was one of the few seventies-era feminists who could actually write clearly and gracefully, which makes her prose non-painful to read. For some reason I left that bit out.
There was a movement for most of the 19th century to enact something like the 17th Amendment. It was only with the rise of the Progressives (spit!) that there was enough momentum to finally enact it to the Constitution in 1913.
Ex-Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) dropped a bill in 2004 to repeal the 17th Amendment. It got exactly one sponsor--himself--before it died at the end of session. No one has reintroduced a repeal bill since then...
--PB, Arlington, Va.
Bah! The real mistake was giving non-property owners the vote.
Far too many people see Robin Hood as a hero instead of the thief he is.
This 'steal from the rich, give to the poor' crap has to stop.
Let the flame wars begin! :)
All kidding aside:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money,"--de Tocqueville
"Let's not forget that the state governments also had to sign off on this change, which in this case was actually slitting their own throats by reducing their ability to have some say in the running of the Fed Gov."
Ed, see anon's comment:
"'The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money',--de Tocqueville"
And now see mine again:
"... the actions of a gubmint are ultimately the actions of the people who make up that gubmint."
The point is that all gubmint, state gubmint included, is made up of people. Each is an individual who, like individuals anywhere, can be bribed, as it were, to approve a change in gubmint that he believes to be to his individual advantage.
I am currently reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, which addresses this particular aspect of life on this planet. I hope to get some insight thereby as to why the apparently self-immolating behavior you describe is so prevalent. Then again, pigs might sprout wings and fly, but I keep grinding along.
DJ: "Each is an individual who, like individuals anywhere, can be bribed, as it were, to approve a change in gubmint that he believes to be to his individual advantage."
True. But that's why the Founding Fathers designed the Senate as they did. It's purpose was to use the self interest of the states to counterbalance the self interest of the general public. What gets me is that this change obviously undermined the self interests of the state governments. So why did they go along with it?
Does anyone know of a good book which covers this part of history and the debates?
DJ, the Selfish Gene is an excellent book. If you're more interested in things like self-immolation and evolutionary explanations for it, the same author wrote the God Delusion, which delves into that a little.
Unfortunately, that book lost my respect for Richard Dawkins, as he advances government intervention into private life because he believes religion constitutes child abuse. I'm an atheist, but that was the dumbest damn thing I'd ever read in my life. The guy honestly believes in government control and intervention to get his own perspectives into the majority. People like Dawkins are the reason I call myself an Objectivist instead of an atheist (despite that sounding strange).
Unfortunately, the discussion at hand is beyond me. I am woefully ignorant of government progression and constitutional history. :(
Ed:
"True. But that's why the Founding Fathers designed the Senate as they did. It's purpose was to use the self interest of the states to counterbalance the self interest of the general public. What gets me is that this change obviously undermined the self interests of the state governments. So why did they go along with it?"
The state gubmints didn't go along with it. The people in the state gubmints who cast the votes in favor of it went along with it. Perhaps those people, as individuals, had some degree of pull with those whom they expected to be elected to the Senate as a result, thereby to gain some advantage, however short term, for themselves.
Admittedly, that is speculation as to the details, but it's easy to see how such things occur. After all, self-interest is a big motivator of politicians, isn't it?
MFHO:
"If you're more interested in things like self-immolation and evolutionary explanations for it, the same author wrote the God Delusion, which delves into that a little."
Have it and read it.
...the Old Left hijacked a cause that was initially left/right neutral and welded it to itself.
That's exactly my point. Women, as a group, are easily fooled into these things, because they're not interested in politics, economics, or history.
Is anyone here besides Mark seriously going to argue that women are as interested in politics as men? Consider the fact that women make up the majority of voters in the U.S., and yet only 20-30% of the elected government is comprised of women. Either women aren't running for office in meaningful numbers, or women voters are easily fooled into not voting for them. What percentage of women, compared to men, know the important events in U.S. or world history? When you go to a political forum or blog, how many women are joining the fray in the comments? How many of them talk about history? economics? Look at what's in women's magazines, on women-oriented programs; listen to what women talk about when they get together -- it's not politics. This is supported by the fact that poll after poll shows women have far less grasp of the issues than men. (As soon as I find my source on this, I'll post it.)
Think about it. Ever since women have been voting, there's been more and more of a push for welfare-state entitlements. This is because women, as the majority of voters, are easily convinced that social security, socialized medicine, and welfare entitlements, are sustainable. Most of you here know it's not, but women act as though it is sustainable, because they don't understand economics. They don't have an awareness of world affairs, or they would know that this welfare crap has already been tried elsewhere, and has failed miserably.
Look at who's propelling Hillary and Obama -- it's women. My dad was at the Iowa caucus, and what he saw was older women supporting the Hillary campaign. For Obama, it was all young, and therefore stupid, people. Mostly women. It's amazing that Obama has gotten this far: he has little experience and no program, but women are fooled into believing that we can hope our way into wonderful things.
I'm not arguing in any way that women are stupid or inherently incapable of understanding politics, economics, or history. Clearly that's not the case. But for some reason, en masse, women are not interested in these things. It's something sociological.
Hmmm... I'm not certain it's a matter of *awareness*, I think perhaps it's more a matter of perception, and yes there is a biological and evolutionary predisposition to it.
Men are expendable, women are not. That is fundamental to pretty much every social/cultural standard above bare survival instinct, ground into our subconscious so deeply we're hardly aware of it. "Women and children first." It's why a young man going to war is likely to get a "don't kill my baby" class of response from Mom and a struggle to hold back tears and "I'm proud of you son" class of response from Dad.
This isn't ignorance or stupidity or anything like it. It's simply a difference of perspective. Men tend to assume that they'll be called upon to sacrifice themselves in one form or another. Thus they tend toward the attitude of, "If I don't suck it up, I'll just be passing the problem on to my kids and grandkids, only the problem will have had time to grow even bigger and meaner." Women tend to look at a smaller picture in a shorter span of time. "My baby needs food NOW, I don't care if it's moral or not if that's what it takes to get the baby fed."
Neither of those points of view are wrong or invalid, but they are starkly different in their results. Men are more likely to sacrifice the present for the sake of a future they are working toward. Women are more likely to sacrifice the future for a present they see a current need for.
In theory, I'd guess that either would work equally well if it weren't for one little thing that is fundamental to the concept of the rule of law: Precedent.
If you sacrifice what is right for the sake of a quick and dirty fix NOW, you establish the precedent that doing the right thing doesn't matter if the problem is pressing. The end justifies the means and all that.
That way lies totalitarian despotism. Don't forget, Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin didn't seek power *so* they could commit mass murder. They actually hoped to provide benevolent government for as many of their people as they could.
"It's amazing that Obama has gotten this far: he has little experience and no program, but women are fooled into believing that we can hope our way into wonderful things."
After making a comment like this, I think you may have changed my mind about women and politics :)
OK, Mark. Ask the men here if they think Obama has experience and a meaningful program. Ask them if they think his popularity is based on anything other than wishful thinking. You've been here long enough to know what the answer would be. Nice try, though.
The deal with most people here and Obama is that it really doesn't matter what he says or what plans he lays out...their mind had been made up and it isn't going to change.
I think you are wrong about Obama but it won't become evident until he is elected...if he is elected. And it's been my experience that even when something is evident, many conservatives still cling to their initial opinion.
The deal with most people here and Obama is that it really doesn't matter what he says or what plans he lays out...their mind had been made up and it isn't going to change.
That sure describes you Mark! ;-)
Not really, juris, that's just your perception. I believe I have stated on several occasions the various problems I have with liberals. Thus far, only one person has stated one problem they have with conservative ideology.
"Thus far, only one person has stated one problem they have with conservative ideology."
So... our lack of criticism with a group that, on average, agrees more with our own perspectives is somehow indicative of something? That, what, we tend to agree with them?
I've been reading this blog for awhile now, and paid particular attention to the comments section. I could go through them and draft an entire thesis over your unanswered questions. You're effectively calling these people close-minded and stubborn for defending the "points" you've made with little to no effort. I have not seen a single question you have asked go unanswered or unconsidered. When you state something, these people go to great lengths to answer you fully and to offer rebuttal. When you do bother to reply, it is usually to completely evade the question or argument. When it's not that, you're arguing semantics or making broad, generalized (not to mention ignorant) statements to the effect of their irrationality or refusal to magically bend to your sprained style of thinking.
I adapted a philosophy after I finished plowing through all the liberal bullshit I had to deal with in college, and that's basically to be wary of the phrase, "perception." Oh, sure, that argument is or is not valid, because "it's all a matter of perception."
Sorry. A is A, B is B, and if someone can logically demonstrate something it stands until fallacy is shown.
The deal with most people here and Obama is that it really doesn't matter what he says or what plans he lays out...their mind had been made up and it isn't going to change.
So our mind is made up?
Or we were right in the first place?
Robin Hood was framed!!!
"Far too many people see Robin Hood as a hero instead of the thief he is.
"This 'steal from the rich, give to the poor' crap has to stop."
You've got it all wrong. Read the stories again. Robin Hood was robbing **the tax man** and giving it back to the people who had been taxed! :)
Excellent - and accurate - point, Stephen.
But, did they really need all those lupins?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>