Posted on 10/02/2012 7:01:33 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Indeed! I head a woman on a local call-in show. She was a mother who voted for Hopeychange and was fed up with Obama now, and taxes destroying her family budget.
She "wanted" to vote for Romney as a businessman to lower taxes....but....she didn't FEEL like he could IDENTIFY or UNDERSTAND her positions since he is a RICH MAN.
Nevermind that Baraqqa is richer now than Mitt ever was...anyhow.
Emotional decisions are fine for an artist. They have no place in policy.
Women should not be barred from voting. But there should be a weedout test question on the ballot.
"Would you kill a cute, cuddly kitten to save your neighbor's uncle from getting rabies?"
If they answer no or "not sure" then their vote is discarded.
Ok, ok. That's not good.
THIS....
1. A homeless man needs money for food.
2. You only have $20, enough money for your grocery list for your children.
3. A rich man with $100 is being held up by a mugger.
If you controlled the situation, how much should each person get?
If the answers are not $0-homeless, $20-mom and $100-rich guy, 5 years in jail-mugger, then their vote is not counted.
When considering such Constitutional [or procedural] amendments always consider how such a change could be used against you, personally.
Ok then. Fair enough. So then let's repeal the 19th Amendment.
Reason 1,230,423 why women should not vote.
A different, and likely near as effective, tactic would be the repeal of the 17th Amendment -- it would also likely be much easier to accomplish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.