Play by the rules dettman on Apr 21, 2008 at 09:27 AM:

"A government elected by questionable means will never have legitimacy; nor will a party that is elected as the only one listed on a ballot. That is not democracy; that is, in fact, one of the core definitions of what constitutes a dictatorship."

Well, it's called you lost, and it happens in the real world too. Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted because your party couldn't abide by the rules doesn't mean this is a dictatorship.

You lost, get over it. What are you going to do when you run into an outcome you don't want in life? You can't always just change the rules because you didn't get what you wanted.

"The SA election bylaws were put in place to ensure a fair and clean elections process. This election year has been anything but fair and hardly clean. It is time to reevaluate the elections process at UWM."

Exactly. ASAP and Scott Dettman ran a disgusting campaign that had no respect for the rules whatsoever, and they got tossed from the ballot, and then continued to behave like children on the two days of the election.

Nothing unfair happened here... if anything SUFC had to bear the brunt when the disqualified ASAP was still allowed to campaign all day on Thursday.

Complete disregard for the rules. I'm so glad ASAP did not get elected. They can't even follow simple election rules. Why Should I trust them with my budget? Yes, you may find the rules inappropriate, but they're the ones that are in place.

Play by them or get out. bottom line.

Here's to the last poster! on Apr 21, 2008 at 09:38 AM:

Right on! Well said!

Percplayer on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM:

There is some truth to the phrase "rules are meant to be broken"...especially ridiculous ones.

For example, in the state of Wisconsin, it is illegal to kiss on a train. Also, in New York, it is against the law to greet one another by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.

I could go on with these ridiculous laws that are found in various law books around the country. The point is that executives who enforce the rules (State and Local Police, FBI, ...Independent Election commissioners...) need to enforce laws with a little bit of common sense in mind. Is the point system for elections ridiculous? Yes of course. Who has heard of any other election on any other level of government in any other place in the world using a point system to remove parties from a ballot? The whole idea is undemocratic. Look at our recent State Supreme Court election. Both candidates ran very dirty campaigns. In theory they should have both been removed from the ballot.

The voters are the one to decide who if dirty campaigns are inappropriate or not. Even Dan Bahr, the Elections Commissioner was reported saying that the whole point system is ridiculous. This is where his common sense should have kicked in. He was also reported saying that he has to abide by the rules. Who says so? Do we see police on trains arresting citizens who are kissing? I don't think so.

So, the question lies in whether Dan Bahr loyalty lies in SA and the democratic approach to elections, or to the party he founded only a year ago, SUFC.

And again, I have said before in another post, I would like to thank Dan Bahr for running a ridiculous election and leaders of SA for creating ridiculous elections laws. You have truly made UWM the laughingstock of the state.

Goodnight and Good luck.

Chris Walker on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:36 AM:

"Well, it's called you lost, and it happens in the real world too. Just because you didn't get the outcome you wanted because your party couldn't abide by the rules doesn't mean this is a dictatorship."

You can’t lose an election that you weren’t given the chance to be a part of. Granted, some violations done by ASAP were legitimate violations, and points were assessed accordingly (the same was done towards SUFC, who had accrued violation points themselves). But some of the penalties against ASAP were questionable at best. Op-eds written by unaffiliated people who mention problems with the SUFC-run SA are now considered "early campaigning." This means that no student, for fear of damaging the challenging party’s (or parties’) chances of unseating the incumbent, can bring up problems or illegalities of the SA before a certain date. Aside from THAT problem, a "preponderance of the evidence" was the justification for assessing demerit points towards ASAP when very limited evidence of their wrong-doing existed to begin with.

I’d be content to have an election lost if it were a legitimate loss. This election was not won legitimately.

"You lost, get over it. What are you going to do when you run into an outcome you don't want in life? You can't always just change the rules because you didn't get what you wanted."

I get over it in real-life. Lena Taylor was a candidate I strongly supported; she lost, and I’m over it. She lost FAIRLY: the democratic choice in Milwaukee County was Scott Walker, and I’ve accepted that. The democratic choice at UWM, however, is unknown; democracy wasn’t given a chance here.

"Complete disregard for the rules. I'm so glad ASAP did not get elected. They can't even follow simple election rules. Why Should I trust them with my budget? Yes, you may find the rules inappropriate, but they're the ones that are in place."

ASAP followed the rules; they didn’t campaign early, they didn’t put up signs denouncing SUFC. Those actions were performed by outside players. The party was punished for these actions despite insufficient evidence implicating them. Despite their adherence to the rules, they were tossed off the ballot.

The "campaigning" you've mentioned on election day was to inform voters that they were now write-in candidates. ASAP was handing out write-in sheets for students who still wanted to vote for them. Any student who didn't want to vote ASAP didn't have to accept the sheets, or upon receiving them didn't have to use them once they started voting (it's called a secret ballot for a reason). That is not unfair; students who, on their own volition, choose to take these write-in sheets should be allowed to do so (I know I'm not able to memorize 10 names, let alone 20-some names I was allowed to vote for as a student within L&S).

you can't compare these rules on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM:

"For example, in the state of Wisconsin, it is illegal to kiss on a train. Also, in New York, it is against the law to greet one another by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”."

You can't compare those rules. I've ridden amtrak before and have never been advised of that policy. There's a difference between breaking rules out of ignorance to their existence, and blatantly violating the by-laws that are in place.

Both parties were advised that those rules were in place, and not only that they were in place but that they would be enforced.

If you can't play by the rules that are in place, obvious, and going to be enforced, you shouldn't be in the game in the first place, and if you're going to stay in the game then be prepared to lose or suffer the consequences of not playing by the rules.

Re: you can't compare these rules on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM:

I think the point of my post went over your head a little bit.

The point wasn't the Wisconsin and New York laws being obscure. Those laws are stupid, ridiculous, and do not apply to the real world.

This is similar to the election laws. They do not make sense. No one has laws like this. They are unconstintutional in regards to the first amendment. Any canidate has the right to campaign at any time. They also have the right to voice their opinions, even if they are negative, about the other canidates.

Let the student body decide the outcome of elections. Not the election commissioner.

Re: can't compare on Apr 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM:

No, clearly you don't understand.

Candidates are given simple rules to follow before taking on the enormous responsibility of student government. it has nothing to do with the rules being obscure or students deciding elections or not.

it has everything to do with following the rules and attention to details that alleviate campaign violations.

candidates who can't follow these simple, simple rules are tossed from the ballot to protect students from candidates who would be at risk not to follow even more important rules.

These really are simple rules. All you have to do is follow them and play the game. ASAP couldn't even do that.

No self control and no ability to follow simple directions. it's really indicative when you think about the system in place itself.

Chris Walker on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM:

I think the point that Percplayer was trying to make regarding "stupid rules" was that the discretion to follow these rules was left entirely up to Dan Bahr. Whether or not he chose to enforce these "stupid rules" was up to him; that much is true. Should we find fault with him for following the rules? That's the question being posed by Percplayer.

As for whether or not ASAP followed the rules, I've already pointed out that some of the rules they "violated" weren't violated by their members; they were "violated" by outside parties. Their punishment, therefore, is questionable.

Re: Chris Walker on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04 AM:

Well Chris, I seem to remember voters being walked into the polling places with sheets telling them who to write in, in their hand (not as though they weren't already sitting at the polling place), while SUFC sat along the sidelines, because it is against the by-laws to campaign on the day of the election. SUFC ran a clean campaign to the end. ASAP was given more than its fair share of chances at winning this thing, and I highly doubt they would be making such a stink had they come out 100 votes ahead...

Chris Walker on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM:

And I seem to remember being ASKED if I needed a write-in sheet. There was no pressure in this situation whatsoever. I also remember that the "clean" campaign SUFC ran included defacing the chalkings of specific candidates to imply sexually perverse connotations. They also wrote below most "Vote ASAP" chalkings "for SUFC," which is hardly a clean form of campaigning, bordering on defamation of campaign literature.

"Fair chances" given to ASAP includes penalizing them for things they did not do or for which evidence doesn't exist that they had performed illegal actions. How is that fair?

stupid name on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM:

well it's not SUFC's fault that they chose a stupid acronym.

set yourself up? be taken advantage of. morons.

Lessons from the SA Elections, Revisited on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:42 AM:

Don’t chalk over other people’s chalk. Don’t bother chalking a platform. Don’t eat bean burritos before chalking night. Don’t do anything daring or provocative. Don’t endorse the other party’s platform. Don’t run with any party other than the incumbents. Lesson over!

ACLU = SHAM on Apr 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM:

haha I liked the e-mail dan bahr sent out from Brad Bloch yesterday stomping what the ACLU said.

go back to fighting to keep god out of the classrooms and get out of our student affairs Chris Ahmuty.

Bloch letter on Apr 21, 2008 at 12:00 PM:

Can someone post the Bloch letter on this forum?

Re: Bloch letter on Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM:

i think the post should publish it next week. Isral was cc'd in.

that would be a good story

I heart Brad Bloch on Apr 21, 2008 at 01:36 PM:

Best professor every - Bradleyb

Attorney on Apr 21, 2008 at 02:11 PM:

Russ Rueden loves his attorney. I'm glad Dan Bahr received his consultation.

Re: Attorney on Apr 21, 2008 at 03:31 PM:

Bahr, please don't use student funds to pay for your attorney. You too, AJ.

Amaithi Lennox on Apr 21, 2008 at 03:54 PM:

This election was a sham, plain and simple. The SUFC is really enjoying its little pedastal, spitting on the people below who disagree with their policies. I have heard the words 'you lost, get over it' many times, and here is my problem with them: the SUFC has a long history of screwing over the student body, and in a fair election they never would have had a chance, especially after the crap they have tried to pull with regards to the LGBT and Women's Resource Centers (I believe that it was an SA member who told me that if a woman is raped, she can simply open the yellow pages for help), and the Sedition Act was horrendously unconstitutional, and should have never have even been allowed to go to vote. I have stated this before, but when I went to vote Friday, and looked for the LGBT Center on the student funding ballot, it was nowhere to be seen. Three girls were seated at the table, and none of them knew the code for it. I went to the SA office, four people there did not know the code for it. Add to that the little trip to New York at the expense of those of us who don't have trust funds' tuition money, and you have a student government which is clearly not looking out for the people it is supposed to. I really am disgusted at the idiots in power, who to me are everything that is wrong with politics. And, thankfully since the Sedition Act didn't make it through, I can say very plainly that the SUFC is corrupt, disgusting and I pray to god that not one of the people who has allowed this corruption to continue should ever be allowed so much as a chance to have a job in a position of power. I am attempting to organize a protest against these people, and we need all the support that we can get, so look me up on Facebook.com and send me a message so that I can send you information needed. Stick that in your hashpipe and smoke it SUFC.

Daniel V. Bahr on Apr 21, 2008 at 04:32 PM:

Hi Chris,

I agree there should be some reforms. I am not going to get into the back and forth here. However, if you want to meet up to discuss ideas for improvement, I am all ears.

Dan

suckahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh on Apr 21, 2008 at 07:32 PM:

all ears and no brains

Re: Amaithi Lennox on Apr 22, 2008 at 06:57 AM:

You're pretty much an idiot. Do you not know anything about funding on this university? The LGBT Resource Center CANNOT get check-off funding. You're the people who WOULD have run this campus if ASAP had won. Why don't you ask questions instead of criticize. Any SA official could have told you this answer. Seriously, think before you post...

? on Apr 22, 2008 at 07:41 AM:

I understand that most students aren't as smart as you when it comes to SA, but why do you have to be such an asshole about it?

Amaithi Lennox on Apr 22, 2008 at 07:43 AM:

Then why don't you explain to me exactly why the LGBT Center has been consistently threatened with having their funding cut, and then, all of a sudden, its not on the ballot? Why don't you explain to me why absolutely no one working for the election was able to tell me the code. I would really love to hear the perspective of someone who immediately launches into a personal attack instead of choosing to express their opinion intelligently. Please educate the savage, Caveman.

Amaithi Lennox on Apr 22, 2008 at 07:50 AM:

And while we're at it, explain to me the numerous violations that the SUFC is so obviously guilty of, especially their horrendous stretching of the bylaws of election protocol? How about the New York trip? Since you are such an insider, I would love for you to message me as well, I have always been curious as to how a corrupt government works from the inside. If, as you say, I'm such an idiot, then take this as an invitation to convert me to the dark side.

Re Amaithi on Apr 22, 2008 at 08:33 AM:

"SUFC has a long history of screwing over the student body"

they've only been in office for one year. Clearly you don't know anything about UWM politics.

"looked for the LGBT Center on the student funding ballot"

That's because it's not up to the students to choose whether or not they want to fund it. all students are forced into funding those centers.

"I pray to god that not one of the people who has allowed this corruption to continue should ever be allowed so much as a chance to have a job in a position of power"

Clearly you didn't pray hard enough. the party takes office in June.

"Then why don't you explain to me exactly why the LGBT Center has been consistently threatened with having their funding cut, and then, all of a sudden, its not on the ballot"

THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT!!! EVERY STUDENT HAS TO PAY FOR LGBT LIKE THEM OR NOT!

There is no code in existence for them, so that's why no one could give you one!!

"And while we're at it, explain to me the numerous violations that the SUFC is so obviously guilty of, especially their horrendous stretching of the bylaws of election protocol?"

I'd like you to name one, please. And if you know all these violations they've committed, it's partially your fault that they were the only ones on the ballot too. anyone can file a complaint to the IEC.

"How about the New York trip?" You mean where the average cost per student was like, $750? They took the entire executive branch and their court leaders on a conference to learn more about student government! I don't think you understand how little this trip actually cost in the bigger picture. Maybe if you went to a grant meeting for student orgs you could start to see the bigger picture when a hundred thousand or more of students' money is shelled out onto student orgs that most students will never participate in.

Also, new York had nothing to do with the election other than being a lame duck attempt by the post to inject more anti-SUFC venom into the ignorant masses that read their trash newspaper. That interview was conducted well over a month before it was published. convenient, no? Especially when the SA had already published in their newsletter that goes to 29000 students who the trip participants were?

Clearly, like I said before, you know NOTHING whatsoever about UWM, SA, and its politics. You just re-hash the horrifically stupid BS that people like ASAP told students. ASAP lied, they mislead students, and it is a damn good thing that they did not get into office, because they couldn't even follow the simple little made-up election rules.

Amazing that ignorance like this exists on our college campus.

Amaithi on Apr 22, 2008 at 09:33 AM:

First of all, its rather disturbing that you can't seem to summon the courage to give us a name, since you very likely have some sort of an agenda here. Now, I was told by said SA members that there was a code for the LGBT Center. Three of these people I asked in the office itself, and recieved the same office, and no one had it. May I ask how current SA members are so ignorant that they are not even aware of this situation? Doesn't speak entirely well of exactly how the SA operates. And I am very familiar with exactly how ASAP was kicked off the ballot. Unaffiliated people expressing support for the party is early campaigning? A few slanderous writings on sidewalks is early campaigning, even if no one knows exactly who it was who did it? And let's talk about the people who crossed out ASAP under the 'Vote for...' signs and wrote in SUFC? Would that not be considered an offense on the same scale as the one that got ASAP kicked off the ballot? Once again, instead of giving me any real information with any modicum of intelligent thought, you resort to what I would equate to yelling if we were face to face.I frankly do not care what the motivation for said New York trip is, because let us remember that this is a college government based in Wisconsin, if you need to make a trip to New York City to learn more about student government then clearly some people going were not all that qualified in the first place. Any misinformation that I was given on the LGBT Center is the fault of the student government, as absolutely no one was able to tell me something which, according to you, is common knowledge. These are your own members buddy, so I suggest you keep your troops in line and up to date on information so that you don't need to put up with acid tongued liberals like myself. You want to talk about the long history? Just six months ago we had the whole debate over funding for numerous resources on this campus, and I actually had to hear a sitting SA member say that if a woman is raped, she need not look any further than the yellow pages for support, the Women's Resource Center is expendable, so that equates to screwing people over. This same person made the laughable point that we could also use a Men's Resource Center if we are going to hold women to a 'higher' standard. I don't know many men who are raped on this campus, do you? Let's not even get into the Sedition Act, that really is a slow moving target, and the fact that it was ever considered in the first place is disgusting. It's amazing that such bigoted morons and mad hatters are in power, it's like a Bush microcosm.

Re: New York... again??? on Apr 22, 2008 at 09:50 AM:

"I frankly do not care what the motivation for said New York trip is"

Its a national conference smart one.

That means students from student governments from all over the country attend to learn.

I guess this means they're all incompetent too, and I'm sure they're all conservative too.

What a class-act liberal. Speaking in absolutes and carelessly stereotyping complex issues that they know nothing about.

Why don't you ask the LGBT Resource Center? on Apr 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM:

ALL students are member of SA...even you, like it or not. It is hard to keep 28,000 students in line on ALL issues. If you are so "concerned" over the LGBT Resource Center, why didn't you ask them what their number is? They SHOULD be able to tell you that they do not get one. Even better yet...why don't you ask your good friend Lauren Otte.

Amaithi Lennox on Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM:

That's like saying that because I live in America its my job to know every little government secret. I did talk to the LGBT Center, they seemed just as confused as everyone else. And let me say again, the people whose job it is to know these things should have been able to tell me this, instead I spent my time asking a bunch of dullards who did not seem to know anything more than I did. The LGBT Center was not running the election, the people who were running it should have been able to give the information required. As for this dunce upstairs who is going on about class act liberals, maybe you should have made this clear to not only the people who have asked (since when I did ask about this, no one at the SA felt the need to tell me that it was in fact a national conference). You people can gripe and whine about how you are being crucified unfairly, but maybe you should give more information about how you run things. I have tried to get information from SA members and all I've heard is 'I don't know' or 'Ask so and so'. You imply that I'm an idiot because I do not know these things, I SAY that the SA runs a shady organization if they are incapable of giving answers which are as simple as these to direct inquiries. Why all the secrecy eh? I still do not think that student funds should be used to this end, at least not at $750 a head, as many other organizations actually hold fundraisers and whatnot in order to do things like this. Maybe, just MAYBE, SA, if you want the trust of the student body you should stop acting like you have something to hide. By the way, want to explain to me why a list that I was given with the names of ASAP members was confiscated when I went to vote?

Haha... on Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM:

You're telling me that the DIRECTOR OF THE LGBT RESOURCE CENTER that is paid, with benefits, at a cost of about $60,000/year TO STUDENTS did not know they they cannot collect check-off funding? Haha...wow...good investment in student money...

SA officials are STUDENTS, they go to school and more than likely have if not one, but two other jobs. They do not know ANYTHING, I would hope that someone who has a COMBINED salary of most of the entire Executive Branch would know that their center cannot get check-off funding.

Well...this explains why you would want to give them EVEN MORE of your money with check-off funding, right?!?!?!

Amaithi spouts off nonsense... again!!! on Apr 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM:

"As for this dunce upstairs who is going on about class act liberals, maybe you should have made this clear to not only the people who have asked (since when I did ask about this, no one at the SA felt the need to tell me that it was in fact a national conference)."

wow... clearly, you are just oblivious. seriously.

"The ASGA Student Government Training Conference in New York City was a wonderful experience. There were representatives from colleges and universities around the country, as well as a few international schools." --Vice President Amanda Voigtlander

Published in the March SA Newsletter, which is e-mailed to all students via the uwmstudents listserv. you can read it for yourself here: http://www.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/sa/executive/documents/newsletter/newsletter03_1st2008.pdf

This is what happens when your sole source of reading is the UWM post.

Kyle Duerstein on Apr 22, 2008 at 11:50 AM:

Amaithi-

Only student organizations can receive checkoff funding. The LGBT center is not a student organization, it is a sub-unit of the office of student life, and receives its funding through the Senate Finance Committee. This funding is decided on a yearly basis, usually at the end of the fall semester every year, and that money that is allocated to them through that process, in addition to outside grant monies make up the LGBT center's budget. If, however, you would like to start up an LGBT student organization, such as something like, "Friends of the LGBT Center" so that it will appear on the checkoff funding ballot in the future, I think you should, actually. I'd be happy to meet with you and the Student Activities Office to explore the possibilities of doing so. That would allow students to direct a portion of their own segregated fees towards the Center's operation, further supplementing its budget beyond the SFC process. I think the same should be done for the WRC, LINKS, and the CVSL as well. Not only would it give students a way to direct more of their money to these entities, but it could play a role in decreasing these centers' dependence on SFC monies.

Email me if interested, and we can work together to set something like that up. Kyle.Duerstein@gmail.com

Not a bad idea for a "psycho conservative," huh?

Senator Ohler on Apr 22, 2008 at 01:29 PM:

For all those who dislike the results of the election, your best bet is probably to check the Yellow Pages. They have a service for just about everything there. It's almost like a bunch of resource centers rolled into one.

Amaithi Lennox on Apr 22, 2008 at 01:43 PM:

That final sentence aside Kyle, thank you very much for the information. As I mentioned earlier, in spite of my inquiries about this stuff absolutely no one was able to give me the information which I am getting here. As for Mr. I-Don't-Have-the-Guts-to-Put-A-Name-to-My-Slander, let me tell you that first of all, I did not speak to a director, I spoke to the only person who was in the office at 10 a.m. on a Friday morning, which was the receptionist. You sir would do better to stop acting like a child and actually give information in a courteous way so that people will not think of you as a "psycho conservative", to use Kyle Durstein's phrase. Since only one person I have ever encountered on here has ever used quotes and then fired off with his own brand of whatever, I'd like to say hello Johanan Raatz. SA officials SHOULD know what is going on, as they do after all work for the bloody SA. I may not even particularly like my job but you should at least know what is going on in case anyone asks, and frankly seven people who cannot give information is six too many. To 'Haha', please note that SA officials were unable to tell me this either, and I went to them first, so I think I'll do my childish oaf bit and direct a 'HAHA' your way too. Back to Kyle, I do agree that a student organization such as that should be set up, and I will email you at some point to discuss the idea of it. Thank you for actually giving some information worth a damn. Cheers.

Still... on Apr 22, 2008 at 02:26 PM:

The LGBT Resource Center Director should have been available to answer that question...after all, it is a FULL-TIME PAID POSITION WITH BENEFITS. BTW: I'm not a Mr.

What Do you Want SA to do? on Apr 22, 2008 at 03:38 PM:

Let's not talk about the past. All of you with all these "ideas" about what SA SHOULD NOT be doing. Tell me what you want SA to do and what campaigns you want SA to work on. Let's not talk about the past, let's talk about the future. No complaining, no pointing fingers...let's talk about REAL campaigns for REAL students :)

Johanan Raatz on Apr 22, 2008 at 07:22 PM:

"I'd like to say hello Johanan Raatz."

Amathai, you have the wrong individual. Quoting and then replying isn't all that uncommon.

Johanan on Apr 22, 2008 at 07:27 PM:

To any Post office staff:

It may be a good idea to post Dan Bahrs list of findings on this website in a special section so that they will be open for public viewing.

Cindy Pawelski on Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06 PM:

Well - I would like to SEE the Election ByLaws.. Why not put some VALID (useful) Information on the SA website (like these By-laws)? Seems that SA hiding behind vague/non-info.... something I would expect from a "government" which tries to pass a Sedition Act" ? http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-935-sedition-at-uwm.html

I am disgusted by the Student Government here. If UWM students knew anything of their "Representatives" they would not be in office.

WHo can make an educated Vote , when we only have 2 weeks to gain info on the candidiates.. SUFC would not even tell me who was on their party until the day before the election. How can it be a CRIME "punishable" with demerit "points" to give information of who it is that we are trying to elect to represent us..?

This "Election" is a Crock! Thanks to the POST for tryingto make this know... I hope that SA does not cut the Post's funding (as they did with the LEADER) for trying to make these FACTS known to the student body here.

SUFC on Apr 23, 2008 at 01:47 PM:

Well Cindy,

They are on the website:

http://www.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/sa/executive/documents/bylaws/iec/current/bylaws_iec.pdf

A Senator on Apr 23, 2008 at 02:52 PM:

Cindy, Why do you care about any of this? Aren't you like 60 years old? Get a life!

Benedict XVI on Apr 23, 2008 at 06:54 PM:

After much thought and prayful consideration, I have decided to fully support the mission of SUFC. In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.

World Over on Apr 23, 2008 at 07:17 PM:

Joe Ohler (SUFC) - 563 All is lost. Joe Ohler (SUFC) - 563 All is lost. Joe Ohler (SUFC) - 563 All is lost. Joe Ohler (SUFC) - 563 All is lost. Joe Ohler (SUFC) - 563 All is lost.

Re: World is Over on Apr 24, 2008 at 09:12 AM:

Yes it is. MUHAHAHAHAHA

And know that is over we shall remake it in our own image.

MUHAHAHAHA! At last our master plan is complete!

Re: Cindy on Apr 24, 2008 at 12:47 PM:

omg aren't you the same idiot from the Links group on facebook who like lives in canada or ireland or something?

go away and butt out of UWM's business. you haven't known anything about it all year long, and your ridiculous statements are just... ridiculous.

DJ on Apr 24, 2008 at 02:24 PM:

Who counts the votes? Oh yeah, SUFC members do. That's strong democratic value.

I'm concerned that many SUFC members are sick sick people. Joe, A.J., Nicole, just talk to these people. They are SICK! UWM student government is a complete joke.

Re: DJ on Apr 24, 2008 at 03:44 PM:

Not just sick, but "sick sick"? Are you basing this exclusively on their apparent political ideology? How can you classify the Inclusion Director as that similar to Ohler and Piwarun anyway?

Chicks with Dicks on Apr 24, 2008 at 04:34 PM:

Chicks with Dicks

f*n crazies. on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:49 AM:

Boy I wish the pope was here to straighten all of you crazies out.

crazies.