AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Should uninformed voters vote?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Maggie AAR



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 2506

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:49 am    Post subject: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

Here is a link to a clip from 20/20 entitled "Should everyone vote?"

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10100061&ch=4226716&src=news

Basically, the link asks a group of young newly registered voters how many Senators we have in office, how many per state, what the bill of rights is, how many freaking states we have(Really, I don't know how anyone can get this wrong. Seriously.) etc. In the end many couldn't answer the questions and the news anchor asked, "Should we let the uninformed vote?"

Thoughts??

maggie b.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4225
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a quick gut response to this question, maggie; then I have one that isn't quite so rash.

Quick gut response-- Hell, no, they shouldn't vote.

More rational one-- Yes, because everyone of age has the right to vote in our country. And just because they may not be able to answer certain questions whose answers automatically should pop off their tongues, doesn't mean they can't make good decisions about who they feel would be best to lead the country (or cities/states, etc).

The thing is, probably a good majority of those who can't answer the very basic questions may not bother voting anyway. And how many people do we all know who would respond correctly to most government operating questions don't bother to vote always either?

As I think about it, many of our parents/grandparents came to the US many years ago, became citizens, were minimally educated in the workings of the government, but never failed to vote. I'm not sure my grandparents would have been able to answer all those questions without some effort, but they cared enough to vote always for whom they thought would lead the best.

We either exercise our right to vote or someday we may lose it. Not only is it a right, I believe it is a duty.


Last edited by Tee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xina



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 6635
Location: minneapolis

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

maggie b. wrote:
Here is a link to a clip from 20/20 entitled "Should everyone vote?"

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10100061&ch=4226716&src=news
"Should we let the uninformed vote?"

Thoughts??

maggie b.




Yes, I think they should. Also, there are different levels of being misinformed. I know many young people who have followed this election with quite a bit of interest and may not know the Senators questions...although the number of states seems a bit far-fetched, but even then...yes, they have a right to vote. Now, if you are voting for Sarah Palin's glasses or hairstyle...no. I would say that is not a good reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:43 am    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

xina wrote:

Yes, I think they should. Also, there are different levels of being misinformed. I know many young people who have followed this election with quite a bit of interest and may not know the Senators questions...although the number of states seems a bit far-fetched, but even then...yes, they have a right to vote. Now, if you are voting for Sarah Palin's glasses or hairstyle...no. I would say that is not a good reason.


Well, those voting for the McCain/Palin ticket probably aren't doing so because of Palin's glasses. However, too many of those voting for Obama are doing so because they like the idea of what he says, without any real knowledge of how he's going to accomplish it ... or what it will mean to this country if he does. All those without any real idea about what the candidates are talking about think "Yeah! I think the Government should pay for that!" never thinking the only money the Government has to pay for anything is what they take out of the pockets of the people. I see no reason for my pocket being picked to help pay for AIG execs getting a spa restreat. I see no reason for my pocket getting picked so some woman can have multiple children, stay at home with them, breeding more, teaching her children this "family business" and watching the cycle continue when her 15 year old daughter shows up preggers. A hand up? You betcha. A hand out? Never.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gail K.



Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 1292

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is a dangerous, slippery slope.

reminds me of "literacy" tests for African-Americans and Immigrant-Americans from this country's storied past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kass



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 722
Location: under a cockatiel

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
However, too many of those voting for Obama are doing so because they like the idea of what he says, without any real knowledge of how he's going to accomplish it ... or what it will mean to this country if he does.

And this opinion of yours is based on what, exactly? Your partisan support for the man who put our economy in the toilet, Senator McCain? That's what it seems like to me.
_________________
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

My blog: http://www.thoughts.com/allergywoman/blog
http://www.shelfari.com/o1517440994
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
xina



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 6635
Location: minneapolis

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:53 am    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

Well, those voting for the McCain/Palin ticket probably aren't doing so because of Palin's glasses. However, too many of those voting for Obama are doing so because they like the idea of what he says, without any real knowledge of how he's going to accomplish it ... or what it will mean to this country if he does. All those without any real idea about what the candidates are talking about think "Yeah! I think the Government should pay for that!" never thinking the only money the Government has to pay for anything is what they take out of the pockets of the people. I see no reason for my pocket being picked to help pay for AIG execs getting a spa restreat. I see no reason for my pocket getting picked so some woman can have multiple children, stay at home with them, breeding more, teaching her children this "family business" and watching the cycle continue when her 15 year old daughter shows up preggers. A hand up? You betcha. A hand out? Never.[/quote]



I was just using the glasses as an example as to how a voter might be influenced...an uninformed one at least. I wasn't stating an opinion on any candidate, one way or the other. So, you may have saved your opinion, at least on me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 871
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You'd be surprised the number of voters of all ages who are unable to answer those questions. It's not just the young that's unknowledgeable but all spectrum of ages. Now this is a sad commentary on the electorate who are not as informed as they should be. Then they vote for someone for the strangest of reasons without really knowing what they stand for and what they might do to affect their lives. Many vote against their self-interests due to a certain idealogue. Politicians don't have to tell the truth. It's up to the voting public to decide if the politician is being truthful. Politicians can spout all kinds of untruths all day long and say anything to get elected. It's up to us to be smart enough to know when we're being lied to and manipulated.

These elections matter when you have two diverse parties with two differing viewpoints on the direction our country should take. Each of us has to decide which candidate shares our vision for the country. Do we maintain the status quo or do we progress forward? Do you want to live in the 20th century or the 21st century?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jane G



Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Posts: 277
Location: Washington, DC

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
However, too many of those voting for Obama are doing so because they like the idea of what he says, without any real knowledge of how he's going to accomplish it ... or what it will mean to this country if he does.


Or they'll go the other way. They'll go on facebook and see all the racist and bigoted groups or looking at the bumper stickers (for hours, as many students do) that call Barack Obama a terrorist, best friends with bin Laden, anti-American, racist, a Muslim radical, or a communist. Agree or disagree with his policies-- but NONE of those things are true, and it's entirely possible some young people will base their entire perception of him on facebook bumper stickers like these:

http://apps.new.facebook.com/bumpersticker/stickers/show/57930176
http://apps.new.facebook.com/bumpersticker/stickers/show/57923882

(there are certainly anti-McCain ones, but the worst they call him is old--and there are far fewer of those than there are "Obama-is-a-terrorist" ones)
_________________
Jane AAR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 871
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
However, too many of those voting for Obama are doing so because they like the idea of what he says, without any real knowledge of how he's going to accomplish it ... or what it will mean to this country if he does. All those without any real idea about what the candidates are talking about think "Yeah!



What about the older voter who is willing to vote for McCain who wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare? Do you think voting for him is in their best interest? The Republican Party would eliminate these two wonderful entitlement programs if they could. Sure they need to be tweaked somewhat but linking them to the Stock market would be disastrous for most elderly citizens. Either we take care of our citizens(young and old) or we discard them. Our country is only as good as its care and commitment to its citizens.


LisaW wrote:
have multiple children, stay at home with them, breeding more, teaching her children this "family business" and watching the cycle continue when her 15 year old daughter shows up preggers. A hand up? You betcha. A hand out? Never.


Well it certainly helps if we encourage sex education to be taught in schools as well as making contraceptives and abortion available. Personally, I think we should make people pay a baby tax for children or withdraw tax credits for children. We should also pay people to be sterilized electively. I think there are some people who have no business whatsoever procreating. We would be doing the world a favor if they were not allowed to do so. Don't want this to fall into that shady side of eugenics but people should know if they are fit and ready to be parents. If they don't want to have children because there is a history of addictive personality, mental depression, or severe health conditions impairing raising healthy children, then they should be encouraged not to reproduce. You are speaking of welfare Moms who make a living off the system. Welfare reform passed when Clinton was president has curbed a lot of that abuse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:55 am    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
LisaW wrote:
However, too many of those voting for Obama are doing so because they like the idea of what he says, without any real knowledge of how he's going to accomplish it ... or what it will mean to this country if he does. All those without any real idea about what the candidates are talking about think "Yeah!



What about the older voter who is willing to vote for McCain who wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare? Do you think voting for him is in their best interest? The Republican Party would eliminate these two wonderful entitlement programs if they could. Sure they need to be tweaked somewhat but linking them to the Stock market would be disastrous for most elderly citizens. Either we take care of our citizens(young and old) or we discard them. Our country is only as good as its care and commitment to its citizens.


Well, first off, those "two wonderful entitlement programs" have been so raped and pillaged, the programs are not what they were set up to be. First off, you do know there is no "lock box" where those funds sit protected? A greedy congress (Democrat, during Carter, IIRC) saw that money sitting there and went "Ooh Ooh ... more money for us to spend!" and moved the Social Security funding into the General fund. So, the money you are paying in now, you will never see. Secondly, OLD PEOPLE were not going to be included in the privatization. There is a planned cut off. What, you and your husband don't have a 401k as your retirement plan? That's stock market, even those mutual funds -- and, probably some of that comes from those rotten Oil Companies.


KarenS wrote:
LisaW wrote:
have multiple children, stay at home with them, breeding more, teaching her children this "family business" and watching the cycle continue when her 15 year old daughter shows up preggers. A hand up? You betcha. A hand out? Never.


Well it certainly helps if we encourage sex education to be taught in schools as well as making contraceptives and abortion available. Personally, I think we should make people pay a baby tax for children or withdraw tax credits for children. We should also pay people to be sterilized electively. I think there are some people who have no business whatsoever procreating. We would be doing the world a favor if they were not allowed to do so. Don't want this to fall into that shady side of eugenics but people should know if they are fit and ready to be parents. If they don't want to have children because there is a history of addictive personality, mental depression, or severe health conditions impairing raising healthy children, then they should be encouraged not to reproduce. You are speaking of welfare Moms who make a living off the system. Welfare reform passed when Clinton was president has curbed a lot of that abuse.


Oh, lovely ... abortion as a birth control method. That's one of the things Conservatives object to birth control about. And, just who gets to decide which are the "undesireables" who get neutered? Whether you mean to or not, your moving really close to eugenics.

And, yes, Clinton did get forced into that Welfare Reform (IIRC, it was the Republican majority Congress that got that through). But, there are still people who just assume the Government will be paying for things. That's how it's always been for them and they just assume it's their right (well, no, it's not).
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maggie AAR



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 2506

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:01 am    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:

What about the older voter who is willing to vote for McCain who wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare? Do you think voting for him is in their best interest?


I wasn't sure where you were going with this. Certainly if an older voter holds something more dear than Social Security or Medicare I think they should vote for whoever provides them with that. One of the many problems I have with our foreign policy (and that of most Western nations for that matter) is that we always assume (making an ass of everyone in the process) that we know what is BEST for others and if they just pay attention to us they will see how right we are. We shouldn't assume this, not for individuals or for nations. Whether an older voter is voting in what you consider their best interest or not they should most assuredly vote for whom they consider the best candidate, not who you consider the best candidate for them is.

LisaW wrote:
have multiple children, stay at home with them, breeding more, teaching her children this "family business" and watching the cycle continue when her 15 year old daughter shows up preggers. A hand up? You betcha. A hand out? Never.


Karen S wrote:
Well it certainly helps if we encourage sex education to be taught in schools as well as making contraceptives and abortion available.


I am not really following you here either. Are you saying you want tax dollars to provide b/c and abortion? Because that I would object to. We are a melting pot nation, a place where people can come and believe basically what they want. It is not fair to tell every Christian/Catholic/Muslim that regardless of what their religion teaches they must pay for what you believe in.

I am also not sure where you are going with the sex education issue. Will the same fine institution that had people saying we have 52 states in our nation (or that a poll once showed graduates of called Canada and Mexico our two most recent states) tell our kids to wear condoms? Where exactly? Given the example above people will be wondering how they got pregnant when they put a condom on their finger just like they were shown in school or something. Our nations schools have failed time and again to prove themselves worthy of the responsibilities they do have. I don't think continuing to burden them with what should be parental responsibilities is exactly fair to the students. Make them meet standards that enable these kids to read the label on condom boxes and make them teach these kids all the basic skills needed (research skills such as how to find information on a label, in a book, on the internet, from the library) and then trust the kids to make a decent decision on his/her own.

KarenS wrote:
Personally, I think we should make people pay a baby tax for children or withdraw tax credits for children.


Why? So that we ensure that only the rich have kids? Since you seem to think the republicans are so evil, do you really want to give them the power to decide these things when they hold both the presidency and congress? How long did they hold both of those anyway? At least four years? And didn't the democrats win back the congress by the narrowest of margins? I think before we go making laws we should ask ourselves if we truly trust our politicians to use them in our best interest. Personally, I see smiling politicos using an opportunity like a baby tax to ensure that the majority of children born are born into middle class white families. Maybe I have misunderstood but Michelle and Obama did not sound like they came from people who could afford a high baby tax. Would that be your point -- to eliminate people like them from even being born? To me this sounds like a way to finally stop those pesky unmarried moms from having babies. It is not a way my conscience would be comfortable with.

KarenS wrote:
We should also pay people to be sterilized electively. I think there are some people who have no business whatsoever procreating. We would be doing the world a favor if they were not allowed to do so.
Did the democratic party merge with the neo-nazis without my knowledge? Really, this is one scary statement whether you meant it to be or not.

KarenS wrote:
Don't want this to fall into that shady side of eugenics but people should know if they are fit and ready to be parents.


Who would decide what fit is? I know a family earning $75,000 a year with five kids they are homeschooling in the inner city who is far more fit than another mom I know in the suburbs with $400,000 a year and a "social" drinking problem. The woman was so dang "buzzed" she allowed her daughter to be molested in her own home during a pool party and didn't understand what the daughter was saying till the next morning. She watches the kids in that pool while she is buzzed -- will she have the reaction time needed to save them from that drowning if she needs to?

I am not a republican but I will be honest, your post scared me more than anything I have heard from them in a while. Maybe I need to take a second look at McCain if this is what the blue ticket is actually standing for.

maggie b.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2511

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fascinating, the way these threads open with one issue and soon veer away into another. Was it the comment about voting for Palin's glasses that brought the shift? Or was it that someone misread the intention of that comment? Still fascinating, regardless.

About the opening issue: Regardless whether a voter is uninformed he may vote if he meets the requirements of registration, etc. I'm still hung up on the quandary of an informed voter who has no choice but to vote for one of the candidates even though he doesn't particularly want either of them.

About the issues the thread segued into: In my thinking, Obama's vague about a lot of issues and promised programs and has had very little experience; McCain espouses attitudes and programs that I disagree with. I'm sitting between Scylla and Charybdis and all that I can do is hope.

About who should have children: Mother Nature more or less took the answer out of our hands. Humans propagate whether prepared or not.

About sex education: I taught a considerable number of young people who became teachers. I wouldn't want a great number of them teaching the subject they were supposedly prepared for, let alone allow them to inculcate sexual morality--if there is such a thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 871
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Should uninformed voters vote? Reply with quote

maggie b. wrote:
KarenS wrote:

What about the older voter who is willing to vote for McCain who wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare? Do you think voting for him is in their best interest?


I wasn't sure where you were going with this. Certainly if an older voter holds something more dear than Social Security or Medicare I think they should vote for whoever provides them with that. One of the many problems I have with our foreign policy (and that of most Western nations for that matter) is that we always assume (making an ass of everyone in the process) that we know what is BEST for others and if they just pay attention to us they will see how right we are. We shouldn't assume this, not for individuals or for nations. Whether an older voter is voting in what you consider their best interest or not they should most assuredly vote for whom they consider the best candidate, not who you consider the best candidate for them is.


The elderly voter can certainly vote for whomever they choose to. That is their right. However, they should know what each candidate might do with Social Security and Medicare. They may not care what he does to them and that is their right. McCain's proposals are harmful to all future elderly folks in this country. Myself included provided Medicare and Social Security is still around when I am eligible to receive them. I used the elderly voter as an example from LisaW's comments that Obama's voters don't know what he stands for. I raised the question of whether the elderly know McCain's stand on these two issues as an example of a group who needs to know the candidate's stand on issues.

LisaW wrote:
have multiple children, stay at home with them, breeding more, teaching her children this "family business" and watching the cycle continue when her 15 year old daughter shows up preggers. A hand up? You betcha. A hand out? Never.


Karen S wrote:
Well it certainly helps if we encourage sex education to be taught in schools as well as making contraceptives and abortion available.


Maggie b. wrote:
I am not really following you here either. Are you saying you want tax dollars to provide b/c and abortion? Because that I would object to. We are a melting pot nation, a place where people can come and believe basically what they want. It is not fair to tell every Christian/Catholic/Muslim that regardless of what their religion teaches they must pay for what you believe in.


I certainly do not want Roe v. Wade overturned. If Viagra is covered why isn't birth control? Is it more important for an old guy to get a hard on than to provide birth control to a woman on welfare? Children should be the last thing this woman should even be concerned about. How many women end up having abortions or getting pregnant due to lack of birth control? To curb abortions birth control should be provided. It's the least we can do to help a woman get off welfare.

Maggie b. wrote:
I am also not sure where you are going with the sex education issue. Will the same fine institution that had people saying we have 52 states in our nation (or that a poll once showed graduates of called Canada and Mexico our two most recent states) tell our kids to wear condoms? Where exactly? Given the example above people will be wondering how they got pregnant when they put a condom on their finger just like they were shown in school or something. Our nations schools have failed time and again to prove themselves worthy of the responsibilities they do have. I don't think continuing to burden them with what should be parental responsibilities is exactly fair to the students. Make them meet standards that enable these kids to read the label on condom boxes and make them teach these kids all the basic skills needed (research skills such as how to find information on a label, in a book, on the internet, from the library) and then trust the kids to make a decent decision on his/her own.


Well if the parents aren't going to take the responsibility of teaching sex education to their children, the schools have no choice but to assume the responsibility. it may not be the best but it's better than nothing. Teaching basic life courses to kids has become the responsibility of the schools since they aren't getting it anywhere else. Mom and Dad, where are you?

KarenS wrote:
Personally, I think we should make people pay a baby tax for children or withdraw tax credits for children.


Maggie b. wrote:
Why? So that we ensure that only the rich have kids? Since you seem to think the republicans are so evil, do you really want to give them the power to decide these things when they hold both the presidency and congress? How long did they hold both of those anyway? At least four years? And didn't the democrats win back the congress by the narrowest of margins? I think before we go making laws we should ask ourselves if we truly trust our politicians to use them in our best interest. Personally, I see smiling politicos using an opportunity like a baby tax to ensure that the majority of children born are born into middle class white families. Maybe I have misunderstood but Michelle and Obama did not sound like they came from people who could afford a high baby tax. Would that be your point -- to eliminate people like them from even being born? To me this sounds like a way to finally stop those pesky unmarried moms from having babies. It is not a way my conscience would be comfortable with.


Children in a lot of ways are luxuries. If you can't afford to have them, don't have them and don't expect the government to raise them for you. Instead of having three to four kids, maybe the family would limit their children to one to two as a result. When I was growing up, zpg(zero population growth) was gaining traction which I thought was a responsible view to limiting the world's population. Then in the 80s, zpg flew out the window as the pro-life movement intensified.

KarenS wrote:
We should also pay people to be sterilized electively. I think there are some people who have no business whatsoever procreating. We would be doing the world a favor if they were not allowed to do so.


Maggie b. wrote:
Did the democratic party merge with the neo-nazis without my knowledge? Really, this is one scary statement whether you meant it to be or not.


Elective is the key word here. I am not advocating any government sanctioned sterilization of any race, religion or ethnic group. However, I am saying and sorry if it bothers you, that some people are probably off not having children. As an incentive, pay them money to be sterilized only if they choose this route. Anyone growing up in a family with genetic issues may not want to take the chance of having children so this would be an option. Women are able to get their tubes tied now once they reach 30, but I think exceptions could be made for younger women.

KarenS wrote:
Don't want this to fall into that shady side of eugenics but people should know if they are fit and ready to be parents.


Maggie b. wrote:
Who would decide what fit is? I know a family earning $75,000 a year with five kids they are homeschooling in the inner city who is far more fit than another mom I know in the suburbs with $400,000 a year and a "social" drinking problem. The woman was so dang "buzzed" she allowed her daughter to be molested in her own home during a pool party and didn't understand what the daughter was saying till the next morning. She watches the kids in that pool while she is buzzed -- will she have the reaction time needed to save them from that drowning if she needs to?


Again, elective is key word. Choice. Do I want to be a parent, will I ever want to be a parent? If the answer is no, this might be an option for her. I know some homeschool parents who I think are nuts. Sheltering, protecting their kids from the world is like holding them hostage. Making certain they only hear one point of view is a form of brainwashing. Not wanting their kids to mix with other kids is strange indeed. We all learn from others regardless of their station in life so what do they fear? That maybe the kids might reject what Mom and Dad and the church tell them?

Maggie b. wrote:
I am not a republican but I will be honest, your post scared me more than anything I have heard from them in a while. Maybe I need to take a second look at McCain if this is what the blue ticket is actually standing for.



Are you saying that I am so influential that little 'ole me could dissuade you from voting Democrat? Personally, you don't fit the profile and I don't see you voting Democrat. And when I say profile, that comes from a psychologist who studied people and their political leanings. There are traits people possess who vote the way they do. You just strike me more as a Republican that is all. Some of your comments are judgmental as well which is something a poster can not avoid by the very nature of the internet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2511

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

to lisa w: Two questions: What are the elements of the psychological profile which can indicate whether a person is most likely to be a Democrat or a Republican?

Why should posting on the internet lead one to be judgmental? Seems to me that's a choice the poster makes, isn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group