considering that we haven't had an anti-masonic party since like 1830's (which dissolved after they found out that their leader was a mason). i'm under the impression that the parties dont matter, & that either one will incremently advance the agenda of those controlling them.
2007-02-09 07:52:14 · 5 answers · asked by honorablepassion 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
mr master mason is either clueless or a liar.
clinton is the top ranking in DeMolay, and bush is both a walker - and a bonesman (and i forget what else). lincoln was another president who wasn't a mason.. imagine that. and i've heard rumor that while washington was a mason, he quit after the 3rd degree.
2007-02-09 18:14:00 · update #1
Please don't vote.
I read your question several times...
Just please don't vote anymore.
2007-02-09 11:39:14 · answer #1 · answered by sdmike 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Again i don't understand why Mason were brought in to the conversion. Only 19 presidents have been Mason not all or most just some. And the fact they were Masons did not help them get elected. The last Freemason pres was Gerald ford.
Political discussions are not allowed at a lodge neither are discussion's of reilogn.
It funny how to call me a lair then tell everyone clinton was not a mason and neither was george bush. What part of what i said was wrong?
Of course goegre washington stopped after the 3rd degree because that is the highest degree in freemasonry
L.B.J took the 1st degree and wasnt allowed to pass to the 2nd degree
2007-02-09 17:44:32 · answer #2 · answered by tatimsaspas 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What in tarnation do Masons have to do with anything? It is true that JFK was the very first President that was not a Mason, but what does that have to do with whether voting matters? It is very odd that you threw that nugget in here.
Regarding whether or not parties matter and whether they advance the agenda of who is controlling them, you are basically correct. Of course they push the agenda of who is controlling them! Why wouldn't they? I, personally, am not big into the parties. We only have two that make any head-way, and how can one party really represent everything that you believe in? That seems like a weak way to base your vote.
That said, voting still matters. How far right and how far left the parties go is totally based on the vote. As people vote more and more conservatively, the more right wing the parties will move. As people vote more liberally, the more left win the parties will move. We have a direct impact on the parties, just like they have a direct impact on us. If you want the parties to REALLY get out of control, let everybody who is not in a party stop voting and see how bad it REALLY can get. We can do a lot worse.
That said, we can do a lot better. People need to start getting better acquainted with the political process, and they need to start voting appropriately. If everyone voted with their brain, and not with their party, the party's wouldn't matter. WE would.We have the power. We just need to use it.
2007-02-09 16:04:56 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you COULD vote your conscience, instead of the lesser of 2 evils.
or vote for a minor party
if they get enough votes then they will get federal matching funds,
this way, in the future, we could have more than 2 viable parties.
2007-02-09 15:57:45 · answer #4 · answered by brainiac 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
where is ross parot when we need him.
2007-02-10 02:40:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋