I will have to admit: you're way of deciding issues (counting heads on the comments section of a famously liberal newspaper that has lost most of its conservative readership and which is having trouble staying afloat financially) does have the advantage of simplicity.
'I will have to admit: you're way of deciding issues (counting heads on the comments section of a famously liberal newspaper that has lost most of its conservative readership and which is having trouble staying afloat financially) does have the advantage of simplicity.'
As opposed to your way of settling federal constitutional issues by referencing in-state popular votes from 10 years ago?
4 comments:
Six comments at the moment (at the Leader), none of them agreeing with your nonsense.
The times, they are a' changin'...
I will have to admit: you're way of deciding issues (counting heads on the comments section of a famously liberal newspaper that has lost most of its conservative readership and which is having trouble staying afloat financially) does have the advantage of simplicity.
'I will have to admit: you're way of deciding issues (counting heads on the comments section of a famously liberal newspaper that has lost most of its conservative readership and which is having trouble staying afloat financially) does have the advantage of simplicity.'
As opposed to your way of settling federal constitutional issues by referencing in-state popular votes from 10 years ago?
I see...
The constitutional issue is whether there is a legitimate constitutional issue with the vote ten years ago.
But if we're counting heads, yeah, 1,222,125 is a little bigger than, what did you say? Six?
Post a Comment