OK, since I'm feeling a bit snarky:
Is this one reason for a fertility gap between Dems
and Reps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spencer_(politician)
...Spencer is married to Kathy Spring, his third
wife. They have three children together, two of whom
were born while Spencer was married
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
JDG
Here's a similarly interesting
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:34 AM, J.D. Giorgis wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
At 12:10 PM Friday 9/15/2006, Dave Land wrote:
On Sep 15, 2006, at 4:30 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:34 AM, J.D. Giorgis wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates
On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I Am A Thoughtful Voter, You Are A Mindless Idiot Maru
I am both, depending on the election, to be honest. I'm taking
this one a little more seriously. The primaries almost got by
me without my putting a lot of thought into them, so I was
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
JDG
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the
On 9/14/06, J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
Very interesting... somewhat counter-intuitive, too.
And would I be excused if I said, purely for humorous purposes,
F**king
Nick Arnett wrote:
Very interesting... somewhat counter-intuitive, too.
And would I be excused if I said, purely for humorous purposes,
F**king conservatives!
The problem is not with fvck, but with having children. If
conservatives were also gays, they could fvck as much as
they want and
On 14 Sep 2006, at 6:46PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/14/06, J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
Very interesting... somewhat counter-intuitive, too.
Is it? I always
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:34 AM, J.D. Giorgis wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
Yeah, but it forgets that people's politics can change
At 06:58 PM Thursday 9/14/2006, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:34 AM, J.D. Giorgis wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
On 14 Sep 2006, at 9:37PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Is it? I always thought of the Democrats as the party of the man-
hating feminist lesbian gender theorists and the Republicans as the
'illiterate, barefoot and pregnant from menarche to menopause' party.
I should probably qualify that
12 matches
Mail list logo
