I'm voting an emphatic and enthusiastic "YES" on Oregon Constitutional Measure 428-36-09.5, and I want to tell you why.
Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5 would change our state Constitution to prevent any candidate running for public office from utilizing campaign dirty tricks under penalty of a mandatory lobotomy.
Why should Oregon voters vote YES on Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5?
I'm glad you asked.
Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5 might seem overly simplistic, but it goes far beyond a mandatory lobotomy. It also requires that lying and/or fear-mongering political candidates be strung a minimum of fifty feet high by a cable attached only to their feet in order to give supervised children armed with paint-ball guns a suitable target. Yes, the children will be supervised, and such supervision can include helping them aim.
Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5 earmarks funds for after-school educational programs for the purpose of teaching our youth about truth and dignity.
Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5 also ensures funding to transport our youth to the site where lying, fear-mongering politicians will be strung by their feet from a height of no less than fifty feet. Transported youth would then be armed with high powered paint-ball guns (under adult supervision) and given free reign to try to shoot those bastard politicians down. It would, of course, be nearly impossible to dislodge a lying, fear-mongering politician from his or her shackles (ok, it'll almost always be a 'his').
Studies show that paint-ball shots would most likely be aimed at:
Maybe you're wondering... "Isn't Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5 cruel and unusual?"
Damn straight! That's why I hope you will join me in supporting it.
Unfortunately, Oregon Constitutional Amendment 428-36-09.5 only covers Oregon politicians. Sadly, the best we can do regarding lying, fear mongering sons-of-bitches at the national level is vote them out of office.
I'll do my part if you'll do yours.
What happens if the candidate has already had a lobotomy?::::: | November 1, 2004 4:24 PM
Well, there's still the part about the children with the paintball guns and oh so many groin shots. Won't that be fun?::::: | November 1, 2004 6:15 PM
Well, I've always been a supporter of paintballs to the groin, so you've got my vote!::::: | November 2, 2004 10:24 AM
Oh hell yes I'd vote for that. Hey Rob, how come I can't find it on my ballot? Is it a Multnomah County thing? Damn these suburbs.
Long time lurker, first time commenter, you know the drill.::::: | November 6, 2006 8:12 PM
I've been doing the math and 50 feet is pretty high. The genitalia will not be sufficiently attainable for future voters to target and hit.
Can we lower the candidate or use a more powerful weapon?::::: | November 19, 2007 10:16 AM
Adding on to what Alice said--what about ADA? What if people who are vision impaired can't see the assh... I mean the "candidates?" Should they be denied the pleasure of retribution? If the candidates were hung a bit lower the disabled could at least reach out and give somebody a well deserved swat (ala the last James Bond movie). Equal access and all that.::::: | November 19, 2007 7:12 PM