Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yet another Congressman who doesn't accept the theory of evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 46 of 231 (675981)
10-18-2012 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Panda
10-18-2012 2:58 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
Yeah. "Knowledge is Power." And the dogmatic must at all costs fear knowledge.
Also, "Die Gedanken sind frei!" ("thoughts are free!"). Freedom is the enemy of dogma. As knowledge is the enemy of dogma. So the dogmatic must always attack both freedom and knowledge. And these idiots want to claim that their way is the American way?
In fact, some people hate education sooo much that they will shoot a 14 year old girl in the head to stop her learning.
That sentiment is so alien that it is difficult for the mind to even begin to comprehend.
Though somehow I have a feeling that Christian fundamentalists could not even begin to understand. To them, ignorance is bliss. Pardon me while I shudder.
OK, gotta say more.
As I've stated before, I first got involved in this creation/evolution "controversy" (any controversy is purely of creationist manufacture) back around 1981. In 1990, the California Board of Education released a new Science Framework (frak! link now broken) with a new Anti-Dogmatism Statement.
This is what that Statement has to say about the purpose of education in general, science education in particular:
quote:
The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools observable facts and testable hypotheses.
Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.
From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.
Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.
Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.
Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.
That last part is very important. There is a difference between understanding ideas and subscribing to them (ie, believing in them.).
The first link I attempted has been disabled because of some PII concerns (Personally Identifiable Information; eg, in military files names were linked with social security numbers). The fundamental idea that was conveyed by that first link was that the goal of education is the understanding of the ideas being taught, not that the students should actually be required to believe in those ideas. As a practical example, in 1982 I attended the first phase of the United States Air Force Non-Commissioned Officer Academy, "Leadership School", which in 1982 for the Air Force Communications Command was held at Keesler AFB, MS. Part of our curriculum in that course was an examination of Communism and of the USSR's government structure. Obviously, we were being required to understand the concepts of Communism and of the Soviet government and how it functioned. Obviously, at no time were we being required to accept and believe in the concepts of Communism nor of the Soviet government.
When Christian fundamentalists are involved in education, it repeatedly appears to deal far more with indoctrination rather than with understanding.
What is the purpose of education? To understand a variety of ideas? Or to be indoctrinated in one particular set of ideas. That seems to be the source of conflict here.
I have been on-line trying to discuss "creation/evolution" since the mid-1980's, a bit over 20 years now (to down-play it a bit). One scenario I have encountered more than a few times was with a creationist whom I asked to think it all through and whose response was something like, "If I were to do that, then that would require me to accept evolution!"
"Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Over"????? I, a non-Zeus believer, could conceptually work through a scenario in which Father Zeus does not exist. A Christian fundamentalist cannot conceptually deal with the scenario that Jesus does not exist? Furthermore, that Christian fundamentalist maintains that he would have to actually believe that Jesus does not exist? While from the start I did not believe in Father Zeus?
In short, a Christian fundamentalist believes that he has to actually believe in something before he could ever begin to think about it. Whereas normals realize without even thinking about it that ideas are ideas and nothing more.
As a result, in science education, the ideas of science are presented and the students are required to understand those ideas.
Whenever "creation science" is taught, the students are required to choose those creationist ideas over the ideas of science.
In the former situation, where the students are required to understand the ideas, they learn to understand the ideas.
In the latter situation, where the students are required to believe the ideas they are taught, the stupid ones believe the religious nonsense that's been taught them, whereas the smart ones can see through the deception and will choose atheism, an artificial decision that had only been forced upon them by creation science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 2:58 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2012 8:13 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 47 of 231 (675982)
10-18-2012 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by foreveryoung
10-17-2012 11:58 PM


The western world has been becoming progressively more socialist since the french revolution. There is the common man who lives day to day by the sweat of his brow and then there is the "educated" man who tries to control the "intellectual and cultural world" through his trade. This includes all forms of media and universities and scientific institutions. Anything that influences what a man thinks and believes is a prime target for these "elites". Centralized control of mankind just seems to fit naturally for these "elite" type of people who are not like the common man. They certainly are not adverse to it. Those who wish the world to be controlled by an oligarchy of people who all think alike are not content to just try a few measures here and there. They are aggressive and will not cease from their efforts until their goals are accomplished. This is why you see such consternation and threats of becoming expatriated when someone not of their ilk takes the reigns of power.
Perfect description of any Abrahamic religion.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by foreveryoung, posted 10-17-2012 11:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 48 of 231 (675992)
10-18-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
10-18-2012 4:55 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
That sentiment is so alien that it is difficult for the mind to even begin to comprehend.
What, really? No, look, it's simple:
"Fucking bitches, trying to get one over on me. I'll show 'em."
It's the easiest thing in the world to understand. You just have to disable your humanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2012 4:55 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2012 10:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 49 of 231 (675996)
10-18-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by foreveryoung
10-17-2012 11:58 PM


Foreveyoung needs to educate himself
The western world has been becoming progressively more socialist since the french revolution. There is the common man who lives day to day by the sweat of his brow and then there is the "educated" man who tries to control the "intellectual and cultural world" through his trade. This includes all forms of media and universities and scientific institutions. Anything that influences what a man thinks and believes is a prime target for these "elites". Centralized control of mankind just seems to fit naturally for these "elite" type of people who are not like the common man. They certainly are not adverse to it. Those who wish the world to be controlled by an oligarchy of people who all think alike are not content to just try a few measures here and there. They are aggressive and will not cease from their efforts until their goals are accomplished. This is why you see such consternation and threats of becoming expatriated when someone not of their ilk takes the reigns of power.
Where to start, where to start.
The western world has been becoming progressively more socialist since the french revolution.
Your point? Your basic premise is correct, but not sure why it is an issue. Yes western Europe is more "socialist" now then in 1789. The whole world is more socialist now. Comes from the fact that people have either thrown off the tyranny of monarchies, or just realized there are better forms of government than those that existed in the 18th century. The result of the French revolution was not socialism, an attempt at a republic was attempted. In fact the French Revolutionary period was marked by an extreme rise of the more rightwing elements. Modern socialism wasn't even a concept for another 40 years or so. Instead of spouting assertions, I am making an argument. See how that works.
Those who wish the world to be controlled by an oligarchy of people who all think alike are not content to just try a few measures here and there. They are aggressive and will not cease from their efforts until their goals are accomplished. This is why you see such consternation and threats of becoming expatriated when someone not of their ilk takes the reigns of power.
You really need a class on Political Science as you continue to show that you do not even have a basic grasp of most of the concepts you attempt to make assertions about. You can start by some basic reading on socialism, maybe then you might understand a little bit about what socialism is. This ain't it.
Obama is not a socialist, Obamacare is not a socialist program. If you want to assert such things you need to bring some argument to the table, instead of spouting crap you read on some lameass rightwing website.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by foreveryoung, posted 10-17-2012 11:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 50 of 231 (676006)
10-18-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
10-18-2012 8:13 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
What, really? No, look, it's simple:
"Fucking bitches, trying to get one over on me. I'll show 'em."
It's the easiest thing in the world to understand. You just have to disable your humanity.
Which I am neither willing nor able to do. Conversion would require me to become a monster, which I absolutely refuse to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 10-18-2012 8:13 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 51 of 231 (676008)
10-18-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by foreveryoung
10-17-2012 10:17 PM


Yes, I know what it means in everyday political and social language. Here are three headlines to various newstories on the web that used the phrase "stalinist tactics".
So who is really using Stalinist tactics? That would actually be the congressman who is trying to get evolution pulled out of schools. You do understand that, don't you? It is because Stalin also used political power to get Darwinian evolution removed from schools. Were you aware of this? Not only do you get the science wrong, you also get history wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by foreveryoung, posted 10-17-2012 10:17 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 52 of 231 (676010)
10-18-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by foreveryoung
10-17-2012 10:17 PM


News? or Editorial?
foreveryoung writes:
Here are three headlines to various newstories on the web that used the phrase "stalinist tactics".
Do you know the difference between NEWS and EDITORIAL?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by foreveryoung, posted 10-17-2012 10:17 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 53 of 231 (676043)
10-18-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
10-17-2012 9:17 AM


Except that I'll bet that it is not reflective of his beliefs at all, but merely sucking up to his intended audience.
I disagree. There are lots of ways to weasel-word available to politicians. For example, at an evangelical event in Dallas, Texas, on 22 August 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan said (as quoted at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan):
quote:
{Evolution} has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught.
Now obviously Reagan was sucking up to a large voting block (that election and the following years marked the rise of the Radical Religious Right) and he may have even believed some of what he said, but instead of condemning "evil-ution" he just parroted the creationist party line while at the same time trying to not sound too radical. Plus, while voicing support for "balanced treatment" (the creationist deception du jour at that time), I do not recall him stating that he was himself a young-earther or the like; I read that he was a Disciplines of Christ member and then later a Presbyterian.
In contrast, Paul Broun made no attempt to temper the vitriol of his verbal attack against evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory. His statement makes it clear that he's at least an evangelical and he explicitly identifies himself as a young-earther. While Reagan left some wiggle room about how strongly he actually believed what he had said, Broun leaves no doubt at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 10-17-2012 9:17 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 10-18-2012 4:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 231 (676054)
10-18-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by dwise1
10-18-2012 3:20 PM


n contrast, Paul Broun made no attempt to temper the vitriol of his verbal attack against evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory. His statement makes it clear that he's at least an evangelical and he explicitly identifies himself as a young-earther. While Reagan left some wiggle room about how strongly he actually believed what he had said, Broun leaves no doubt at all.
In order to become president, even Reagan had to appeal to some moderate non-evangelicals. True wing-nuts like Bachmann and Santorum, who are unwilling or unable to make such an appeal have no chance to be elected by the general electorate.
However, they do quite well within their local electorate. I'm not convinced that Broun's view would not be a net positive thing in a Georgia election.
That said, Broun is running uncontested. He has no real need to say anything right now.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by dwise1, posted 10-18-2012 3:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 55 of 231 (676157)
10-20-2012 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Panda
10-18-2012 2:58 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
I put educated in quotes if you did not notice. I don't consider you people educated in the real sense of the word. When I say the "educated" man, I mean the propagandized, group thinked, and brainwashed man. You all think exactly the same way. There is not one original thought in every last one of you. That is what I am calling "educated". I am much more educated in the real sense than any of you robots are or will ever hope to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 10-18-2012 2:58 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 10-20-2012 6:11 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 57 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 8:51 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 58 by Theodoric, posted 10-20-2012 9:16 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 10-20-2012 11:19 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2012 12:10 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 69 by dwise1, posted 10-20-2012 12:47 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 10-22-2012 4:02 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(4)
Message 56 of 231 (676169)
10-20-2012 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by foreveryoung
10-20-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
Can I assume that this means that you have little if any accedemic qualification?
Often people make a virtue out of their lack of education; are you guilty of this?
Should people (potential yourself) who are very uninformed be considered qualified to have an opinion on the subject to hand? Would you support putting me in charge of a nation's fiscal policy? After all I have no education in economics so would not have been brainwashed (as you point out) and would also not be a victim of group think.
Should I have that job?
Edited by Larni, : Editing

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by foreveryoung, posted 10-20-2012 12:59 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(4)
Message 57 of 231 (676174)
10-20-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by foreveryoung
10-20-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
FEY writes:
When I say the "educated" man, I mean the propagandized, group thinked, and brainwashed man.
So... when you say "educated" you do not mean: Showing evidence of schooling, training, or experience.
Perhaps if you had some schooling, training or experience then you could use the correct words when communicating.
FEY writes:
When I say the "educated" man, I mean the propagandized, group thinked, and brainwashed man.
Here's a new word for you: Dogma [plural: dogmata, dogmas]
Dogmata are found in religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings (e.g., Galatians 1:6-9). Rejection of dogma may lead to expulsion from a religious group.
FEY writes:
I am much more educated in the real sense than any of you robots are or will ever hope to be.
*bleep* *bzzz* Does not compute!
And at least we know what words mean.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by foreveryoung, posted 10-20-2012 12:59 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 58 of 231 (676177)
10-20-2012 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by foreveryoung
10-20-2012 12:59 AM


Forever hurls insults. Again.
Ahh the Foreveryoung we know and love is back. Personal attacks are all you seem to be good at.
A little equivocation too, I see.
When I say the "educated" man, I mean the propagandized, group thinked, and brainwashed man.
I have never seen this definition of the word before. Could you please cite a source, or is it just something you made up in your head?
There is not one original thought in every last one of you. That is what I am calling "educated".
This is especially funny cause all your "arguments" are stuff you are getting from fundie websites.
I am much more educated in the real sense than any of you robots are or will ever hope to be.
Does "in the real sense" mean knowledge of the "bible"? Cause that ain't true because I have seen your ass kicked here in bible knowledge, and I am pretty sure I could more than hold my own with you on the subject of the bible. And I am an atheist.
Could "in the real sense" be what you think the "bible" says? That would be strange as no one else is going to have those same beliefs and it can easily be shown that those beliefs do not fit reality.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by foreveryoung, posted 10-20-2012 12:59 AM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nwr, posted 10-20-2012 11:48 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 59 of 231 (676194)
10-20-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by foreveryoung
10-20-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
foreveryoung writes:
You all think exactly the same way. There is not one original thought in every last one of you.
It's not so much that we all think the same way but more that we all accept the same facts, and our opinions are constrained by those facts. Those who reject facts do tend to have a wider variety of opinion.
I am much more educated in the real sense than any of you robots are or will ever hope to be.
Let the record show that when you begin complaining about abuse that it started here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by foreveryoung, posted 10-20-2012 12:59 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2012 11:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 12:10 PM Percy has replied
 Message 84 by foreveryoung, posted 10-24-2012 12:20 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 60 of 231 (676196)
10-20-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
10-20-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Mainstream Media? Really?
foreveryoung writes:
I am much more educated in the real sense than any of you robots are or will ever hope to be.
Percy writes:
Let the record show that when you begin complaining about abuse that it started here.
Not from me though. It'd be too easy. When the straight line is already funny, there's no need to follow up.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 10-20-2012 11:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024