Two Reasons To Vote This November

by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech on October 21, 2012

For anyone who cares about mens rights, voting can be problematic.  For a particular office the choices are often a feminist vs. a conservative female supremacist who is anti-feminist in name only.  As a result it is understandable that many MRAs would decide that voting is pointless.  However, for MRAs in the U.S. should vote this November for two reasons.

The first reason is that judges at the state level are often elected unlike federal judges who are appointed.  As was said by Dean Esmay at A Voice For Men, anti-family courts operate at the state level, and the courts that falsely imprison men for rape, abuse, or other crimes at state courts.  This means it is possible (depending on the state) to vote misandrist judges out of office.  Even if judges in a particular state aren’t elected, your vote for state offices can have a greater impact than your vote at the federal level.  In addition, in many states district attorneys and prosecutors are elected as well.  This provides the opportunity for MRAs to vote out misandrist prosecutors.  This will need to be a strategy used across multiple election cycles to make it work so the best thing is to get started in November’s election.  (A good place to start is with the information that Dean Esmay provided at A Voice For Men.)

The second reason to vote this November is to put a stop to the “war on women” myth.  As liberal politicians have become more dependent on the women’s vote, their pandering to women has reached a fever pitch with the myth of the “war on women”.  The only way to put a stop to this level of pandering to women is by voting against any and all politicians who say there is a “war on women”.  Vote for a conservative politician or a third party politician.  If there are no candidates for a particular office other than a politician invoking the mythical “war on women”, then write in “the war on women is a myth”.  It doesn’t matter which one you pick, as long as you register a vote that is not for a politician who says there is a “war on women”.  This will also need to be a strategy used across multiple election cycles so again it is best to start by voting this November.

If MRAs vote this November for these two reasons (and continue to vote with the same goals over the next several elections), then this strategy can have a real impact to roll back feminism and help men who would otherwise be in the cross hairs of feminist policies.

{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }

Jolly Rauncher October 21, 2012 at 11:31

Seems like a fair idea.

I’m throwing my 2 cents in behind Gary Johnson this election

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ben October 21, 2012 at 11:50

This election is extremely important for Men especially. Look at Obamacare for instance. A program whose goal is to “help” those who “need” it. Under this system men and women who are well off (but especially men due to they larger percentage of wealthy men) will be forced to fork over their money in order to support those who “need” help. May i point out that this will proportionality effect a greater number of women (on the receiving side) compared to men. Liberals get elected because of their large ever growing base of minorities and women and also the poor. The reason liberals are elected are because of a “victim” group of voters. they have been told that it is not their fault that they don’t have what others have and that if anything goes wrong they will be their to wipe the persons tears. They have come to expect the government to pay because they are “entitled”. They believe that we are all equal and that lie is easily the biggest they spread. Think about it i mean women have a huge vote and any politician saying that they are equal and will fix the “inequality” is just saying that to get elected. Women are only able to function in society do to the men that built and protected it (as well as those who continue to do such things). What they fail to realize is that if men fall out of the system and stop protecting them and giving them all these advantages (and yes they are getting plenty of advantages in today’s world) they would not be able to survive. hears a very real example, lets say their is a nuclear disaster or war or whatever. lets say 1/10,000 of the population in the world survives (expecting that it is spread out evenly across the world and each area of the world is effected proportionally) all of those cushy and comfy jobs would be gone. We would have to start building again and while that does require higher education (math science) it really can do without all the fine work reports and spreadsheets that most women work with. Also all the gov jobs will be gone and we will have to resort back to backbreaking work. the only women that will likely survive is the ones that can adapt. either they become useful (like being able to contribute to society through a particular skill set (other that babies) or they will die. What women don’t realize is that they have created a destructive system that has created a nurturer gov and when it collapses it will leave them with no rights. Anyway back to my main point men do need to vote and they system women have created it destructive and will collapse on itself. there are some men out their like me who will do their part to hold it together for now but eventually it will collapse on itself and women will have no rights at all under that system. it will be dog eat do world no the cushy world women live in today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster October 21, 2012 at 12:10

Dean’s article was excellent and in response to AVfM editorial opinion that “voting doesn’t matter”. For the first time in my life I researched several state judges backgrounds, records, etc. and voted accordingly to retain them or not.

My biggest fear is that Obama will issue an executive order that enacts Equal Pay for Women policy and enforcement. This means the govt will establish guidelines for what an employee is paid. If one manager is a female and the other a male and she makes less money than him, the EEOC will force the employer to “equalize” or to reach “gender parity” in pay scales; regardless of whether one is more experienced or competent than the other. Oh and BTW, men will have NO recourse if HIS pay is lower than any female doing the same job.

So not only do we already have the EEOC making sure women are “proportionaly represented” in management positions, but Obama will be adding a whole other layer of government intrusion for pay equity between genders. The EEOC won’t just be requesting male/female ratios by position anymore; they’ll have access to your PAYROLL records, and the power to order you to either pay the woman more, or pay the man less — as long as feminists get their “economic justice”.

Do we really have to wonder why businesses are sitting on so much capital, waiting for this election to be over? ObamaCare, financial and environmental regulations, equal pay for women, capital gains tax rates, etc…the economy is stagnant, because it’s waiting for a business positive leader…not an American version of French President Hollande.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Contrarian Expatriate October 21, 2012 at 12:22

Presidential elections are essentially two things for the MRA:

1) Voting against the person who would do the least damage to men’s rights

AND

2) Voting for the person who will appoint pro-male (or anti-feminist) Supreme Court Justices and federal judges.

The choice is clear that we should vote for Mitt Romney even if we don’t like him. I personally think I would like Obama more, but he appointed Sotomayer and Kagan to the Court and supports feminist legislation without a blink.

Romney is the most men’s rights choice even if he is an elitist stiff.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 October 21, 2012 at 12:29

GTHO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself October 21, 2012 at 12:31

New York state is adding a sixty-third state senate seat to that chamber. This is probably the only job created in New York state all year.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gilgamesh October 21, 2012 at 13:12

But how do you research judges? What about state senators (My district is home to that asshole who wants to redefine families as able to have 3 or more parents of any sex/orientation/other deviancy)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Norm October 21, 2012 at 13:29

Women in the west never had it better than they do now. There is no war on women. How about a war on irresponsibility. Why should taxpayers fund groups like planned parenthood. They are an abortion group that hates the family. They don’t want govt. funding to end, because of the high salaries of the so called ceo’s. Why is there subsidized health care for women? They are already getting special treatment. You are just funding whiny free loaders who refuse to grow up and act like adults.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon October 21, 2012 at 13:33

Whats in it for you Mr. “lets all vote just this one time” ?

If white women win either way, why are you so desperate now to give it electoral validity ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Rebel October 21, 2012 at 14:22

Politics = crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech October 21, 2012 at 14:30

Whats in it for you Mr. “lets all vote just this one time” ?

This needs to be a strategy that is executed over multiple elections. There is no “just this one time”.

If white women win either way, why are you so desperate now to give it electoral validity ?

If you write in “the war on women is a myth” you’re hardly giving it validity.

geographybeefinalisthimself October 21, 2012 at 14:31

Not every state allows write-in candidates, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
geographybeefinalisthimself October 21, 2012 at 15:00

Other states restrict when write-in candidacies are allowed and when they are not permitted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer October 21, 2012 at 15:16

Forget “Soccer Moms”; this season it’s Straight White Males, the forgotten demographic that may tip the election.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster October 21, 2012 at 15:53

Forget “Soccer Moms”; this season it’s Straight White Males, the forgotten demographic that may tip the election.

I agree Elm. Bold article here on that:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/10/obamas-struggles-with-white-voters-racism-has-nothing-to-do-with-it.

It’s the plethora of Democrat special interest groups against the average white guy – – who has no one to defend his interests.
This is a very motivated base…if he would only ignore the World Series, Nascar and the football season just long enough to pay attention.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer October 21, 2012 at 17:13

It’s the plethora of Democrat special interest groups against the average white guy – – who has no one to defend his interests.

————————-

I’ve been lounging at “Salon” again, perhaps because the angry blowback is similar to the “upvotes” rush I used to get here at the Spearhead. Maybe it’s time for another “Dear Salon Letters” essay :

Original Article: Romney’s shameless appeal to women
Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 08:31 AM MDT

elmer

Romney deftly allowed the Democrats to cut their own throats by driving Straight White Males out of their party, and now makes a savvy ploy for their women, who recognize an Alpha business leader like what they see (and like) on TV’s “Mad Men”. The Cool Black Shtick is passe’ as it has proven not to pay the bills or provide the promised lifetime comfort zone for women like what white guys can muster. Look for an upsurge in Straight White Male-centric dramas, music, and advertising models as the culture looks to its Caucasian roots for solace in these troubled times.

You call it “shameless” when actually it shows the savvy marketing and entrepreneurial skills this country needs to get back to work and compete in the global economy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 21, 2012 at 17:18

It has been determined that the way to get women to respect men is through the marriage strike.

I think the same logic applies to politics: I invoke a vote strike.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) October 21, 2012 at 18:54

hello everyonez!!!

i have beenz having fun and meeting new poepelsz and making friendz here:

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/10/19/name-5-reasons-a-man-should-get-married/

search for all the gbfm comenentz!!!!

join the fray! lzzolozlzl

yes chabis!!

you write, “Children benefit. Our children. That should matter to person who want to “conserve” the best of human society.

Communities benefit. Ditto.”

so why, with all these benefits, are women encouraged to destroy families, endanger children, and spearhead the decline of western civilization by forsaking and abandoning Natural Law?

GENESIS BOOK 3 KJV BIBLE
Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.

why are women rewarded culturally and financially for forsaking the teachings of the Old Testament, moses, and jesus? why are women encouraged to fornicate and buttcock?

and finally, chabis, if you are so concerned about children and the community, why do you never pass any judgement on the fiat elite who funded the deconstruction and devastation of the great books and classics and the desouling of our modern women?

lzoozozz

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila October 21, 2012 at 19:02

In this sociological climate, one has to look for novel, and impregnable solutions.

If you “come out” as a Muslim- you can LEGALLY become practically untouchable. You can spout against women’s rights in the public arena, you can claim custody of your children under Shariah law, you can also claim protection from whatever “hate speech” might pop up in social/work situations, etc. etc. etc. And most of all, the critics will be AFRAID of getting too confrontational with you. I am of the opinion that it’s one heck of a tactical solution. It’s a way of beating the Professional Victims at their own game- all based on unassailabe “equal protection under the law” and “freedom of religion” manoeuvres.
.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
will October 21, 2012 at 19:05

Gary johnson is the only man you can vote for this election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqtfyaWgW74

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
will October 21, 2012 at 19:06

Also a video on gary johnson and his positions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0zGYai3KOc&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech October 21, 2012 at 19:20

I’m throwing my 2 cents in behind Gary Johnson this election

Gary Johnson is a candidate every MRA in the U.S. should be supporting. I didn’t want to bring up specific politicians in this post, but Gov. Johnson the only presidential candidate this year who has come out in support of any aspect of mens rights. Gov. Johnson supports fathers rights, and I just posted a video to my blog where he talks about how as president he would do whatever he could at the federal level to support fathers rights.

Kevin Wayne October 21, 2012 at 21:37

Reality check time: “Obamacare” is actually “Romneycare,” but is less socialized. The Public Option part of what as supposed to be part of the PPACA was left out due to opposition by the GOP and Blue Dog Democrats. In the Romney/Massachusetts version, the Public Option is in force. Romney has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this, 1st saying he would repeal Obamacare, then retreated later & said he would “keep the good parts.”

The whole plan was actually floated by the Republicans in response to Hillarycare during the Clinton administration. It’s the brainchild of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Expanding healthcare makes good sense if you take a closer look at it. A comparison might be the following hypothetical situation: You are working a job and the little old lady next door gets an SSI check. One day she sees a burglar & calls the cops. You get a double-benefit of your tax dollars – both of you are protected.

I expect Romney will just complete what Obama started in is healthcare plan, and also continue to ramp up costly wars overseas. Nice “pro-male” candidate you got there.

Anyone who thinks I’m out to lunch on this should take a lo0k at the following: http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/10/romney-says-he-likes-parts-of-obamacare

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh October 22, 2012 at 00:19

He’s also a gun grabber that was inexplicably backed by the NRA (who also endorse NDAA)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MRA October 22, 2012 at 05:41

@Ben October 21, 2012 at 11:50

There was someone on Heartiste who commented something similar on his post about women’s tingle and Obama.

Many women believe that the privileges they enjoy are untouchable, what they do not understand is that in a social collapse and its recovery in order to bring a resurrection of that society there is not other way that abolish those privileges.

The women who whom are more accustomed to easy live style provided by men through gov are going to be the one who died in great number.

sadly women are not used to adapt to the environment but the environment adapts to them.

Women from 3rd world are more to survive because they are used to hard live style.

In a biological disaster in order to bring the population back women wont be delaying having babies after 35, and as one men can impregnated multiple women polygamy would be the only answer to keep the human race going.

Have you seen “Life after people” from history channel? well imagine women living like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtHICMmDJk

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer October 22, 2012 at 07:50

Off-topic but my son Hermann joined a “frat”. Gary Johnson’s old frat to be exact. Gary stopped by the frat a few weeks ago when he was back in town. I ast Hermann if he wanted Elmer to show up and counsel the boys but so far he has been noncommittal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer October 22, 2012 at 08:03

“Gov. Johnson the only presidential candidate this year who has come out in support of any aspect of mens rights”

Would it have killed Obama to say one thing positive about men and fathers during his tenure? Always “the women”, and it’s the same for every other candidate large and small. The media is fully complicit as it spills much ink over various permutations of the “women’s vote” but never explores men or specifically, fathers. Things might have gotten interesting during the debate if either candidate had pushed back a little on the stupid “wage-gap” meme, but they just accept it like it’s a geometric proof. Instead we get the media flogging the meaningless “binders” comment as if they won the war but instead are displaying the shallowness of the self-appointed female leadership.

When I commented on the Atlantic that “just once I would like to see Obama say something positive about men and fathers instead of groveling before every self-identified victims group”, they banned me from commenting. Or maybe it was the criticism of rap music and its anemic comparison to Fletcher Henderson.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster October 22, 2012 at 08:07

Since I reside in a “neck and neck” swing state, I have to vote for Romney, otherwise I’d vote for Gary Johnson since I’m a registered Libertarian.

If you’re still convinced Obama is no worse for men and boys than Romney despite all the actions Obama has taken, you can’t honestly refer to yourself as a Men’s Rights Activist or Advocate. You’re a Liberal/Progressive Idealogue first and foremost.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Josh the Aspie October 22, 2012 at 08:41

I’ve been looking into Johnson. The only pro-male comment I was able to find was one clip of him talking to two guys. I’ve also seen clips of him supporting the occupy crowd. He’s also explicitly come out as pro-abortion “a woman’s right to choose” to kill the unborn, including unborn boys.

With all of the horrible socialist rhetoric (which we’ve established is bad for men), he’s willing to abide at occupy, in order to try to garner some votes from the insane fringe; with all of the killing of boys he supports, I can’t really see him as pro-male, just because he supports fathers in some vague and nebulous way.

He was governor of New Mexico for… how long? And he couldn’t arrange policies, or goad the legislature into laws that would stop the misandrist treatment of fathers when he “looked into it”?

And even if he means it, and is willing to support fathers once they are fathers, how can boys that are killed before they become men ever become fathers in the first place? And if he supports the woman’s “right” to be in control of whether kids get murdured, or the father becomes legally responsible for the kid… in what way, exactly, is he supporting fathers?

He also seems to advocate for forcing people to endorse queers pretending to be married as actually being married. You know, since if one of them is “married” and comes to me as an employer for spousal benefits intended for actual spouses, the government will kick my rear end if I say no. That hardly says “liberty” to me.

It seems to me that he’s just playing these comments for votes, the same he did when he was playing the occupy crowd.

At least his “one step now, adjust” policy on legalizing weed makes a lot of sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian October 22, 2012 at 09:33

If you’re still convinced Obama is no worse for men and boys than Romney despite all the actions Obama has taken, you can’t honestly refer to yourself as a Men’s Rights Activist or Advocate. You’re a Liberal/Progressive Idealogue first and foremost.

Keyes to the Republic Vol. 1 President Obama and Mitt Romney

This is my response to your charge. Alan Keyes says it best.

Watch it from the beginning, but the most important part is after 1:15.

If polls are correct, the democrats will likely retain enough strength in the senate to block the domestic agenda of the Romney administration.

My biggest fear of a Romney administration is that failing to cut the budget or repeal Obamacare, he will attempt to base his presidency on foreign policy in order to justify his r-election in 2016.

Expect another war, this time with Iran. All the flag-waving neocons will rally to his cause, but ultimately I think it will destroy the Republican party and lead to a another further move to left when Romney looses in 2016.

Derbyshire on Margeret Thatcher and the ratchet effect

Margaret Thatcher used to talk about the “ratchet effect.” When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joeb October 22, 2012 at 09:45

This would be a good time to look to within .
We have no agenda , We are disorganized , We have no voice .
We have no leaders . We have no backdrop .
50 million men and we can’t get it togather seems a little odd .
It all starts with a leader and a convention , Star trek goons can organize that So why is it we can’t ????
why no funding ?
why no support ?
kept slaves can’t organize

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH October 22, 2012 at 09:53

Ann Romney did go out of her way to say that Father’s Day should also be ‘Husband’s Day’.

Mitt also does not appear to be groveling to single mothers to a degree that SoCons would.

So that alone is reason for Romney >> Obama in terms of voting preference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Stoltz October 22, 2012 at 10:39

A recent PolitiFact article, titled “Diana DeGette says women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man” got a “Mostly True” ranking even though the article itself states that “other comparisons indicate the gap is tighter.”

I used to like reading their articles, but it seems even they would rather go with the ‘mainstream’ on female issues rather than actually admit there IS NO gender wage gap.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/05/diana-degette/diana-degette-says-women-earn-77-cents-every-dolla/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 22, 2012 at 11:00

Judges in my state are appointed / voted using the “Missouri plan”. In practice that means any judge above the level of a local town magistrate is appointed by a “nonpartisan” commission that just happens to consist of leaders from the Bar Association. So the lawyer guild appoints district judges, and then we peasants get to vote to retain or not retain them later on.

For the last few election cycles my default is to vote against retention unless I personally know reasons to keep the judge. This default assumes that every sitting judge is crooked to some degree – given the appointment by the governor at the advice of the lawyers guild, that seems safe – and yes, it’s “guilty unless proven innocent”, but frankly that’s how some courts work nowadays anyway.

So I just vote “no” on a judge unless otherwise indicated.

As for President, Gary Johnson has no chance, but he was an interesting governor, who apparently used the line-item veto extensively. Thus annoying both parties.

I don’t know of any evidence that Johnson was a gun grabber. In fact, I vaguely recall he stated during the election he’d sign any concealed carry law the legislature passed. No idea how that turned out, but he was an improvement over the Dem he beat, for sure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ollie October 22, 2012 at 11:11
Anonxcf October 22, 2012 at 14:55

Anyone in this thread a dedicated Romney guy in a solid red or blue state but willing to trade your vote for mine? I’m voting Gary Johnson, but I’m in a contested state, and am willing to trade.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon October 22, 2012 at 22:06

I am in Utah, would happily vote for Gary Busey if it meant getting Obama out of the white house.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
brigadon October 22, 2012 at 22:21

BTW, when Romney talks about his religion, there’s a lot that goes unsaid. (But if you know mormonism you know it.)
Women do not belong in leadership roles among men.
Women cannot hold the priesthood.
Women must be protected, and thus should not be allowed in direct competition with men
Fathers are as important, and likely more important, to a child’s upbringing than women.
Marriage is important, and is a contract between a man, a woman, and a god. It is not a civil contract and should not be permitted to be repealed unless there’s a damned good reason.
‘cheating’ is an excommunicable disease.
Women and men do not have ‘rights’. They may EARN them, but just ‘being a woman’ is not enough.
Abortion is flat out evil.
God is not a woman. god is definitely NOT ‘gender neutral’. God has a wife, but doesn’t let her put herself out there like a slut out of protectiveness.
A man is supposed to LEAD a family.

I am not a mormon, although I grew up as one, and I can assure you that if he actually intends to take his mormonism seriously, The change in presidency is going to come as a very rude shock to the ugly bitch alliance. He is, of course, not going to come out and say this during his campaigning, (He still has to cater to the worthless majority to get elected, after all), but the information is there to be found.

If he can keep his word, he is going to be the best thing to happen to masculism since the pope started clamping down on radfem nuns.

We have been saying for years that people are getting sick of feminism. That doesn’t mean this is the end, but it’s a very positive sign.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
numnut October 23, 2012 at 04:56

I don’t have much good to say about mittens,but he does have a number of young sons and that alone is why he gets my vote.That and the fact Obama is just plain terrible,he bails out the banksters like a repub,wages war like a repub,and still has all the worst traits of the left.
I would prefer the lessor of two very great evils.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonxcf October 23, 2012 at 15:02

“With all of the horrible socialist rhetoric (which we’ve established is bad for men), he’s willing to abide at occupy, in order to try to garner some votes from the insane fringe”

Libertarians dislike an unfree market, and some of what occupy was complaining about was that.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gary-johnson-dont-dismiss-occupy-wall-street/

He’s certainly no socialist.

“with all of the killing of boys he supports, I can’t really see him as pro-male”

Libertarians are all over the map on abortion. I’m pro choice myself. Obviously, I don’t consider a fetus to be a person.

“He was governor of New Mexico for… how long?”

Until he was kicked out by term limits, which is two terms. He did a lot of vetos while he was in office.

Price didn’t say he was Paul Fucking Elam here man, he pointed out that he’s not echoing feminism, and has said some stuff in favor of father’s rights, something that most politicians don’t have the stones to do.

“I am in Utah, would happily vote for Gary Busey if it meant getting Obama out of the white house.”

Well, if you confirm it in this thread, then I’ll vote your vote (Mitt Romney) in a purple state, and you vote my vote (Gary Johnson) in a solid state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 24, 2012 at 19:59

So – I’m doing my due diligence in researching all these horrid names on my “cheat sheet” for elections and I’m working on the judges. The two names for our circuit court in my area have this going for them:

Option 1) Minority woman who built a career specializing in finding justice for those injured by others – including, but not limited to, sexual harrassment and discrimination. I’ll bet my lily white behind she does DV as well. All great causes, except they tend to be horribly skewed in the favor of women that they can be greatly taken advantage of.

Option 2) White male who built a career specializing in DIVORCE law! Oh yeah – his bio on his law firm’s page highlighted custody and alimony, especially in highly contested divorces.

So…I’m thinking more of you guys need to go to law school. It’s at least one step.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
empty13 November 3, 2012 at 14:53

I am a Paulian and am disappointed in the gop actions concerning ron paul. but as i live in MI and despise obama, it’s romney on election day. and while paul says get the gummint out of marriage totally, johnson said he supports gay marriage. no thanks gary. i think if ya dig into johnson more, u will see more stuff u dont like from NM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: