http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexrees/27-peop...aev-is-hot
This has to be record timing for these girls to come out of the woodwork.
This has to be record timing for these girls to come out of the woodwork.
Quote: (04-20-2013 01:28 AM)ryanf Wrote:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexrees/27-peop...aev-is-hot
This has to be record timing for these girls to come out of the woodwork.
Quote: (04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:
Why are women allowed to vote again?
Quote: (04-20-2013 02:35 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:
Quote: (04-20-2013 02:34 AM)Lemmo Wrote:
Quote: (04-20-2013 02:06 AM)A War You Cannot Win Wrote:
Why are women allowed to vote again?
Anthropomorphizing by betas
Does that mean Betas erroneously think women are human?
Quote: (04-20-2013 02:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:
27 women think he's attractive? What exactly am I supposed to glean from this given that there are 310 million people in the country? You can find 27 adults that believe if you send a letter to Santa he'll get it.
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:
The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.
I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.
The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:07 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:
I dunno. He's a young, athletic dude. Chicks should like him. Don't hate the player; hate the game.
He's gonna make a very good wife in prison.
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:
The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.
I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.
The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:48 AM)j r Wrote:
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:
The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.
I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.
The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.
Right, cause rich people never abuse the system.
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:
The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.
I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.
The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.
Quote: (04-20-2013 02:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:
27 women think he's attractive? What exactly am I supposed to glean from this given that there are 310 million people in the country? You can find 27 adults that believe if you send a letter to Santa he'll get it.
Quote: (04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:
The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.
I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.
The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.