Galt's Gulch
13

A photo that says it all

Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years ago to Pics
509 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A friend posted this on FB. I HAD to share it. Enjoy!

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for being a woman who acknowledges that validity of the facts.

    Look, I don't "get" women. Maybe you can explain why the majority (not all, but the majority) of women are so stupid?

    As for whether I "hate" women or not, that's really irrelevant isn't it? So long as what I present is factual, does motivation matter? If someone "hates" mathematics, but states that "2+2=4", isn't it enough that what they're saying is true?

    *sigh*

    But I can see that despite being perhaps smarter than the average woman, you still trade in their illogical coin, that being, "What are the FEELINGS (not thoughts, but FEELINGS) of the speaker?

    So here's the answer to your question: I have general disgust for those who base policy on FEELING rather than THINKING. That describes the majority of women and a minority of men. There have been some women whom I've known that I like, even greatly admire. It's not a sex-based distinction. It's a RATIONALITY based distinction. I loathe women who are so stupid as to vote to destroy America. (Same goes for men who do that, but they are NOT the problem, since they can vote to mine green cheese on the moon and they're STILL not the majority.)

    That answer your question?

    Good.

    Now, answer mine: Given that I've presented factual information, why does it matter whether I "hate" women or not?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
      What coin did I trade in exactly? I wasn't disputing facts...I was simply curious of your back story (I'm curious about everyone's back story)...it doesn't change the facts.
      I have NO idea why the majority of women are stupid. I'm as disgusted by it as anyone. I work with a hundred of them and if I relied on them for any current event information all I'd know about would be the Jodi Arias trial or Dancing with he stars. "Educated" women completely incapable and uninterested in having meaningful conversations. It's a complete mystery to me. Willful ignorance? Laziness? Denial? PC? Scared of being judged for having an opinion? I've been trying to figure it out for yeeeears, but when they don't talk it's not easy to figure out!
      Hate women...it's of no consequence to me. We are still free to hate, right? (Maph is working on forcing us to change that.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
        The "coin" is guaging by "feelings" rather than thoughts or facts. If the question was asked to no purpose, then you're just wasting time. The most likely purpose for asking is to judge me by my "feelings" (since the answer has no probative value to the issue under discussion).

        What if I asked you if you've ever had a taxpayer-funded abortion, ever got drunk and had sex with a total stranger, ever cheated on your boyfriend/husband? Ever been arrested for criminal activity? Are you one of those "welfare queens"? Do you use mind-altering drugs? Are you a drunk? Those would all be "back story" questions - but of what relevance to the discussion? The issue (to me) is the majority of women who have consigned America to destruction through their short-sighted voting patterns - not whether you're a welfare slut or I'm a misogynist.

        When someone adduces relevant facts, I don't really care whether they're male, female, transgendered, Democrat, Nazi, Republican, Libertarian, white, black, red, yellow, purple, lutheran, catholic, satanist, agnostic, atheist. A fact is a fact, regardless of who introduces it. If you have issue with any facts I've presented, fire away, but in case you haven't noticed, I've given links for source material (haven't noticed anyone else doing that) so if you have issues with what I've presented, you can go direct to the source, read the material yourself and draw your own conclusions. That's a level of transparency I don't see most places - even here, where people tend to be a little smarter than the average bear.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
          It was pure curiosity ONLY. I've already said you have valid points. I didn't think my asking for your story was as intrusive as the questions you have come up with, but I digress. I apologize for asking anything personal. Won't happen again.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
            No problem. I probably overreacted. It would not have been the first time that someone couldn't come up with any facts to support their position and decided to dig into irrelevancies, but I can see that wasn't your intention, so I apologize. Personally, I don't generally have that sort of idle curiosity, so it makes it a little harder for me to understand why it would be of interest to anyone else.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
              You call it idle curiosity...I think people's stories are interesting. It's like reading a book...experiencing something vicariously and learning from it.
              Anyway...like I've already said, I tend to agree with your points about women voters. Most women I know (gulch excluded, kh) are brain dead in the voting department...I've been complaining to great length in here about how nobody talks about important issues and I find this fact extremely frustrating in my day to day life...at work etc. My friends are door knobs (and I'm using the word "friends" lightly). Which is the very reason why I'm in the gulch...for the discussion.
              I am not one of those women you speak of. please keep that in mind...you don't need to convince me and you're not the first person I've heard say it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
    I made an earlier comment on the waste of time and space from the comments about music, but it seems other subjects just as silly are being commented on at this site. Are there really so few intelligent people left that have ant sense of propriety. People, please let's stick to the purpose of this site.

    Thank you,

    Fred Speckmann
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 11 years ago
      Perhaps you are unaware that some of us here in the Gulch use music not only for it's enjoyment value and getting away from the always serious, but also that is one way we are productive. I think AR certainly saw value in music, and I doubt she was adverse to some levity either.

      If you want something deep I agree with Mini, start a thread.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
        Music was very influential to Ayn Rand and there are several posts in the Gulch exploring the topic. Myself, I am forever fascinated at Gulcher's love of music- from classical to some wonderful Objectivist raps. Music is part of the equation for sure
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
      You got a point. I do enjoy the more in-depth threads. Easy remedy: start a topic, Fred.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
        Hello again Mimi,
        For lack of a better starting point, I've chosen one of my earlier pieces that deals with very similar topics as Ayn Rand's predictions of where this nation may very well be headed.

        I'm not sure of the process to start a thread, so I would appreciate a little help and guidance in posting protocol.
        Thank you,

        Fred

        Are American Bankers the Jews of 1938 Germany?
        On November 9th and 10th, 1938 the German Nazi government under Adolph Hitler ordered the attack on the Jewish population of Germany and Austria and confiscated or destroyed their property.
        Are there similarities between that occurrence and the Obama administration demonizing of the American Bankers?
        Is the Obama administration planning to do the same thing? I don't believe so at this time but denunciation of the Jewish population was only the beginning. The reason the Nazi's used this particular tactic was that they needed a common enemy to focus the populations' hatred on.
        There is a similar tactic used today against the management of financial institutions. They make too much money. They don't care about their customers. They're only in profit for themselves. They are destroying the country.
        Let's examine who the real owners of American financial institutions are.
        The majority of stock held in banks and Wall Street institutions are held by mutual and retirement funds. Those funds represent millions of private citizens. Only a small percentage is owned by the executives of financial institutions.
        When the administration demonizes "Bankers and Wall Street," they are in fact demonizing you, the public who are the majority owners. I will agree that in some cases it seems that management of these "Wall Street Firms" and the management of banks are being overpaid, especially when they are creating losses. What is not mentioned in the speeches given by the President and administration officials is that the people who receive what they claim are excessive compensation are contractually required bonuses for making a profit for their divisions.
        Let us not forget that contracts between two parties are in fact property rights and property rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The only parties who have a right to dictate compensation are the stockholders of a corporation.
        Even though the administration committed billions of dollars to "financial institution bailouts," they may not change the terms of a contract retroactively. That can only be done legally by renegotiating a contract.
        What is the purpose of these attacks upon management? Just like in Germany of the 1930's it is to misdirect the true cause of the problems existing in the economy and targeting the management of financial institutions as being evil.
        In reality the economy can only function if a streamlined financial system exists. The public deposits money in banks and invests in Wall Street in order to create a profit for themselves. Pursuing this self-interest provides the basic cash flow for an economy to grow. Banks collect money, pay interest to the saver and lends out the money to businesses and buyers of major products such as homes and automobiles. Without this system of financing, the economy could not grow.
        We can find many faults with how the financial sector operates, but that is a part of the financial system. Those companies that operate within the rules of the capitalistic system will prosper, and those that do not will eventually go bankrupt. No bailouts and let true capitalism work.

        Fred Speckmann
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
          I sent you a private message describing the process of starting your own thread. Your post is a great start, however, I have had a long day and I can barely put two words together right now. I’ll be more forthcoming in the morning. I hope you find many who want to discuss your thoughts with you. Good night.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
        Re: Mimi
        I too enjoy music and have a very lighthearted sense of humor which often begins by laughing at myself, but as I was reading the back and forth I saw very little connection to anything Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged related other than perhaps some clever repartee with some comments bordering on the crude. Your suggestion to start a new thread is certainly a good one.
        Thank you,
        Fred
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
      I have no doubt about the value of music and if the conversation is in the context of Ayn Rand's philosophy or in context of the characters, I would not find it a waste of time and space. However as I was reading the back and forth, I did get the impression of somewhat juvenile content that is so often found on so many sites. I certainly did not mean to insult anyone, but found very few references to Ayn Rand or the character in Atlas Shrugged. Context is everything.

      Fred Speckmann
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years ago
        You have to skim through. I have found a few threads way over my head to understand. I benefit more from educated like-minded people attending to those threads so that I can understand the context. There are many members that are here daily. We do tend to get juvenile from the sheer fact we are giddy with our online friendship, but this is someone else's site and we should focus more on respecting that, and less upon making it our own playground. I agree, and yet, I can’t help myself, sometimes. :) Please, lead by example: start a thread.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
        you have to be in here awhile. this is NOT roberts rule of orders, Fred. but all the important conversations are happening in this site.we live rationally in the world-well most of us. You have to work at it-yes?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
          I agree, you do have to be here awhile in order to grasp the context, I guess I just didn't see much important context as I take Ayn Rand's work very seriously as I see her work as a wonderful philosophical novel, but also as a prophecy of the dangers to come for this great nation. My hope is that the revival of interest due to the wonderful movie of her book will also spark a revival in debates on her subject.

          And yes, we do have to work on everything.

          Fred Speckmann
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Susanne 11 years ago
      I agree with both Mimi and Pirate - we have a plethora of producing artists here on the board, and by enjoying their work (and supporting their endeavors) we not only enrichen them, but get the benefit of being enrichened by their art.

      To, to paraphrase my 2 cohorts here, this board is a fertile garden for viewpoints - plant a seed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
        I suppose the seed I would plant, would be one that grows into discussions based on the foresight and experiences of Ayn Rand's early life in Russia and the comparison to the Clinton years when moochers first came to the forefront of political and economic life to the the path to Armageddon that we now seem to be on.

        I do have a similar background to Ayn Rand, having been born and spent my childhood in East Germany and thereby understanding the future path that the present administration wants to lead us down.

        Fred Speckmann
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
      Fred, please explain...what IS the purpose of this site. Perhaps we've been mislead (for the last year and half).
      Is the purpose to chastise everybody elses conversations? Because so far that's all I'm seeing from you. Stop harping already..sheesh.
      Song for you:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eps81-QV_...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
        OK, a legitimate question. I would direct your attention that I used quite a few question marks (?) in my comments. I of course apologize if my intention wasn't clear. It's certainly not to "harp," but to point out that Ayn Rand's books and especially Atlas Shrugged are indeed wonderful novels, but they are also great philosophical masterpieces. Aside from the romantic aspects they are primarily commentary on what she saw the future of this country to be. How right she was can now bee seen on a daily basis.

        Now we might disagree on those future projections of hers, but those discussions would be much more appropriate than some of the celebrity drivel I've seen here. There are places all over the net for that type of commentary, I thought better of her readers and now movie buffs of her book. If I was mistaken in that view, then I apologize for my foolishness in hoping for conversation and discussions of her work. I guess I'll just shrug as well at the foolishness.

        Fred
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
          Fred....you are not listening to what I've been telling you.
          We talk about Rand, her philosophy, her many books...we post quotes from books that knock our socks off and discuss her ideas at GREAT LENGTH.. just because when you decided to come and read some gulch post (we've been here since Aug 2012 by the way), we happened to be talking about other things does not warrant your habitual criticism.
          Please, I beg of thee, post something you want to discuss about Rand or her works and I will happily hop over and discuss til the cows come home. Go make a post! I look forward to it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
            I have posted. Look under "Are American Bankers the Jews of 1938 Germany." It deals with the comparison of Hitlers persecution of bankers and Obamas persecution of bankers today and his continuing blame shifting.

            As to my criticisms, I beg to respectfully differ with you because of the name of this site. "Galt's Gulch" is not the same as TMZ or many other gossip sites. We differ in our opinions, it's as simple as that. I guess it's the German part in me that is the stickler for proprieties. It doesn't mean that i think anyone is not capable of having serious discussions. As to your timeline, what difference does it make when I chose to participate, frankly I haven't had the time until my retirement now. For your information, I have been a devoted reader of her books though few, for over 50 years and am very happy that the book has finally been turned into a first class series of movies.

            Thank you for your comment,

            Fred
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
              Fred,
              I feel like we're speaking a different language. The timing of your gulch entrance was pertinent to your complaints. We talk Rand often, more often than anything else probably...BUT we talk about other current events, interests, bla bla bla etc etc etc. You came in and went around and complained how disappointed you were with our discussion topics. It IS the Gulch (although cyber version) and we are individually minded people who contemplate on many subjects. Some might seem silly, and you know what...sometimes the gulch needs some silly. We have senses of humor that we often exercise just to lighten the mood of our current event discussions.
              And yes, Fred, we ARE living and breathing Atlas Shrugged in this country more and more every day. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in here who disagrees with that. Well, maybe fuches...but we don't talk about him.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
                You have explained yourself very well. as to speaking different languages, you make a good point. I however believe that you can't understand me. Your statement about being in the gulch and my perhaps not understanding that fact is a good point. I was never one to easily step into the gam playing aspect of many sites here people take on different personalities other than their own. please understand that I'm not comparing you and your friends to these "players." I looked at this site as an ongoing forum for discussions with Atlas Shrugged as a guide and using that guide to address todays economic problems and politics. If I'm late to the conversation, then I apologize for my tardiness. Frankly, I wasn't aware of this forum til a couple of days ago. It's not humor I found distracting, only the celebrity gossip part. believe me, I fully understand the need for humor as a release and I guess maybe we all just misunderstood each other. I have seen the other postings under the various subjects indicated on the header and have engaged some of the authors of the various posts and they have been enlightening. My intent was not to insult anyone intelligence or dfvotion to the subject of Ayn rand's philosophy and books.

                I can only hope that this will put an end to this particular series of posts regarding this matter.

                Thank you for engaging me on this subject matter. Hopefully the future will allow us to find common cause.

                Fred
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
      fred,
      All those topics are discussed in this forum. there is also a fair amount of meandering. There is only one thing most on this site share, and that is the desire to promote the AS movies. Most everything else is fair game. How comfortable are you maneuvering through the site? You can go up to the top and click philosophy for example and find all the posts that discuss it. Or politics or government. Most of us lead driven lives and enjoy the occasional letting down of our hair so to speak. If you find a producer whose comments you identify with, click on their name-you will go directly to all their posts and if you click the drop down box under their name, you can hit comments and follow their most recent comments on other posts. We are not a dedicated Objectivist forum. For many in here, this an introduction to Ayn Rand. I suggest that you create a post where you frame up the discussion and give some parameters to that specific post.
      Music is very important in peoples' lives. check out this post the regarding a Mises discussion on the importance of art by Objectivist and GG guest vinay
      http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1c...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
        Frankly, I have only recently started reading these post and wasn't aware of the post subject headings. That of course is my own fault. I certainly did not mean to impugn anyone's desire to let their hair down. I can only plead guilty to having responded based on my experience of so much silliness and in fact many vile comments posted on various sites that i would have expected better efforts to be displayed. No insult to anyone was intended.

        Fred Speckmann
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
          Many have expressed that the gulch is refreshing compared to typical discussion forums... I think you came in at an odd moment.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
            You are probably correct in your comment. I guess that my initial disappointment is the subject matter was based on the constant drivel that appears in many websites that sound serious by their titles but seem to be inhabited by 12 year old nitwits. It's also sad to constant read the many personal attacks found on these sites along with so much name calling. this is not the first site I have made such criticisms. It seems that without some sort of moderator many sites deteriorate and die. I would hate to say that happen here. Ayn Rand's work deserve to be remembered and taught to future generations.

            Thank you for your comment,

            Fred

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Indeed. I've often said that the one thing of which there is no shortage in the known universe is human stupidity.

    But suppose the majority of women were to start voting in a rational manner. Would it matter how the minority of men voted?

    No, it would not.

    With a majority of men voting for sane policies, and a majority of women likewise voting for sane policies, the problem would be corrected. Switch the voting pattern of ANY OTHER GROUP and you've achieved nothing. Change the way stupid women vote, and you've created a new era of prosperity and freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by khalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    how am I suspicious? I have been clear in this post that I don't buy into the women vote to protect themselves anymore than men vote to protect themselves and give themselves "security" or "entitlement" if anything, I will agree that there are more men than women and it stands to reason that there are more women in urban areas-and I think we all would agree that progressive movements have a strong foothold in major cities. This is more likely the reason behind the voting margins.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
      If it's not to protect themselves, then why do the majority of women vote socialist?

      It's one thing to say, "No. That's not it." But what's the alternative hypothesis?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
        I think often , especially those with means, do it out of peer pressure. They don't want to associated wtih the sarah Palin lovers for example. and the reason I gave before about having the first black President. I have many acquaintances who are not concerned for their security but want to be "nice" people and take care of the poor. Look at the number of affluent progressives who live mostly in urban areas. I'll agree their thinking is illogical but men are the same in urban areas. I'm not saying that many do not vote themselves in goodies-we know they do. It's not just about logical thinking abilities, however. I know many "scientists" who swear man made global warming exists. why do they get to vote or even be scientists for that matter?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
          So, rather than destroying America out of selfishness, women are destroying America out of whimsy? (I think that may be worse than the alternative.) Or "peer pressure" (that they feel in a voting booth where no one can see what their vote is???) You've opened up entirely NEW possibilities for the utter stupidity of the majority of women! They're screwing up America, not because they feel a NEED to do it, but just because,"Oh, gee whiz. Angela is voting for Obama, so I probably should too" or "I'm so freaking gutless, I'm afraid Sharon won't like me anymore if I don't vote for Obama" or even, "Obama's black. I'll vote for the black guy because we haven't had a black president before. Next time I'll vote for a Nazi because we haven't had one of those yet either!"

          I know I see the world through my own "lens". We all do. We tend to ascribe to others some of the attributes we possess, even if there's no evidence they share the trait. It's a human failing. So, being largely logic-oriented, I ascribe to women a measure of logic that they apparently do not possess. I think that they do something because they reason that it's the best choice - but I see now that I'm probably mistaken. There is no "reason" to the process.

          We might as well let monkeys vote.



          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
            point for the nazi comment. People in general need encouragement to think critically. the public education system is the worst for this. I have a post in mind...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
              I think you're right. Public education is, in many cases, the equivalent of a lobotomy.

              But thinking critically today is the equivalent of racism or sexism. Take my argument that virtually all of the economic (and probably most of the social) destruction/degeneration in our society can be tray
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by khalling 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't read the disclaimer, my apologies. But I'll still challenge you on the "any " part. I might agree to the majority of women you know but why not say the majority of PEOPLE you know. That would be my position. I do not see a marked difference between men and women in this regard. If I am right, what is the signifigance of separating out women and making an argument based on gender. statistically speaking, the percentages are fairly narrow as I posted earlier.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
      I've lost the thread. To what message do you refer? "any"?

      Just a shot in the dark, but:

      1) Women are the majority of voters (~53% of all voters)
      2) The "gender gap" between men and women is 10% or 20% or 18% depending on which source you cite and how they measure it. (The major discrepancy seems to be that in one measure, if 60% of women went for Obama and only 40% of men did, the "gap" is 20%, but some say, "If 10% of men/women changed their vote, the gap would be eliminated." Either way, in political terms it's a HUGE gap, considering that in most elections, 45% just vote for their "tribe" and the election is decided by the remaining 10%).

      So the majority of the majority voted for Obama, both times. And the majority of the minority voted against Obama (men - both times). If you've bothered to read the pages at the links I've cited, you'll see that only one democratic president would have been elected in modern times without the female vote. Frankly, I think the Republicans (most of them) are almost as bad as the Democrats. I think of them in terms of the Demoncrats are communists and the Republicans are socialists - with a few Constitutionalists who are trying to drag the Socialist, I mean REPUBLICAN party back to its former roots.

      So when I speak of the majority of women, I speak of idiots. When I speak of the majority of voters, I speak of idiots. And when I speak of the majority of women voters, I speak of… well, you know.

      Let's try that with men. The majority of male voters… wait. They WEREN'T stupid enough to vote for Obama. If it had been left up to men alone to decide, Obama never would have won in the first place. Either time. And as bad as Bush was (and he was HORRIBLE) he wasn't anywhere near as bad as the communist currently in the Oval Office.

      Now here's a little factoid that I didn't know before - but which shows how utterly stupid women really are: The majority of WORKING women voted for Obama! Here's hoping they're in a high enough tax bracket that their health insurance premiums quintuple and they can no longer afford it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
    *** Reply to GMudd*** Part 2
    In short, all that baloney about "equal pay for equal work" or "just wanting to be treated equally"… it's a lie. It has as much validity as Obama's promise that "you can keep your plan" and "you can keep your doctor".

    I'm willing to concede that men and women are roughly equivalent in terms of cognition. Each sex has its strengths and weaknesses. But women apparently lack the ability to build anything but consensus and don't even recognize when they're destroying their last lifeline. Physically, women at every level are inferior to men. The world's most elite female athletes are on par with high school boys. How outclassed are women? Just one example: I met a guy lifeguarding at the University of Florida pool. We got to talking and he told me he'd tried to get a swimming scholarship but wasn't good enough. In fact, he wasn't good enough to even make the team. But his personal times were better than the female gold medalists in SIX different events. Not good enough to make the team as a male. Better than the world's best women in six different events.

    Gun control is one of those major libertarian issues. We don't believe in it. I've sometimes thought what I would do if I saw Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer getting the holy snot beaten out of them. Though armed and able to intervene - I would not. For an unknown, I have thought I might hold the perpetrator at gun point while I asked the victim, "Do you favor a ban on assault weapons?" If the answer was, "Yes", I might holster my weapon and walk away. By proposing to end the right that might have saved their life, they forfeit that life. And so it might be with women generally. Why should I risk anything for someone who is trying to make my life worse?

    So as men opt out, women will suffer. And that's okay with me because it's a natural consequence of what women are doing now. Chivalry IS dead, and women killed it. And as the buildings crumble around the women, and no one protects them, and they are increasingly open to predation, they will look for help - and find none. They will have killed the economy that funded their protection and bred millions of feral men. And then they will begin to think, "Things weren't so bad before. I've sold my freedom for the illusion of government security - and it's gone. What can I do now to feel secure again?"

    In the meantime, a lot of people are going to suffer needlessly due to the stupidity of women.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years ago
      Well, I would do the same regarding Nancy Pelosi if I was standing there. I am a huge supporter of gun rights. Life member NRA, carry permit for my state and Utah CCP. I'm not a simpering female who cowers at the first sign of trouble. I love when my husband opens a door for me. But I accord him equal respect.

      I use my mind rationally because I enjoy it. It is what separates me from the walking dead who surround most of us perpetually. I'm sorry that in your experience, you've come across those who are not deserving of your regard. But to dismiss all because of that isn't rational. I don't believe in title 9 either. Or any other policy that skews admission because of gender or race. All applications for college or jobs should NOT have any questions regarding those attributes. Admission solely on merit. Period. But that's just me. I don't expect anyone to give me anything I haven't earned.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ Hiraghm 11 years ago
        "I love when my husband opens a door for me. But I accord him equal respect. "
        I am going to call you Mary from now on, I think.
        After Charlize Theron's character in "Hancock".
        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/

        There's a scene in the movie where I began to dislike the character (difficult for me, cause I find Theron physically very attractive). It's where we've established that she's Supergirl, and she hands her husband the jar of jelly to open for her.

        That's just condescending and disrespectful, IMO.

        As for me, act like a lady, get treated like a lady. Act like a woman, get treated like a woman.
        Act like a man sans penis*, get treated like an idiot.

        *"man-sans-penis" usually means acting the way a woman *thinks* men act.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
        See? All you've done is make the case that there exists at least one woman who is not a total moron. The problem is, there are over 100 million+ "walking dead" (a minority of whom are men).

        I wish there were a device that allowed one to determine the IQ of those around you, something like a colored light that was white at 100, deep red at 90 and bright green above 120. It sure would save a lot of time to know in advance when the person you're talking to is too stupid to understand what you're saying. (By the same token, it can be torture to try to figure out what some morons are going on about. Take Chuck Schumer and his recent tirades against "plastic guns"!)

        James Fixx (author of "Games for the Super-Intelligent") once said that when two people's IQs differ by more than 30 points, they have nothing in common. I've generally found that to be true.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
    *** Reply to GMudd*** Part 1

    I get your point. Why bother to complain about something if there's no fix?

    I proposed one already. Repeal the 19th Amendment. Of course, that won't fly unless women realize they're destroying America, and if they understood that, maybe they'd choose not to. Being not-so-very-good at economics, most women cannot even tell you how many zeros are in a "trillion". Alright, a lot of men can't either. But is there a reason why women aren't flooding the engineering schools in the same proportion as they are the other schools? Yes. There is. Women lack that type of reasoning.

    There's another solution. Just let it all collapse. There is a reason why women didn't run things before the late 20th Century, and except for a few short periods in a few locations, never have. It's because men have to have a reason to put their lives on the line (defense) and trade a good portion of their lives (providing) to make those sacrifices. That quid pro quo took the form of "I'll provide and protect - you obey" for many millennia. Of course, most of today's women think they're too "evolved" for that. But what they do not understand is that the ONLY reason they have so much freedom (to screw things up) is because MEN secured it for them. In short, men made society safe enough that women could do stupid things and destroy society.

    And that's where Darwin and 100,000 years of evolution will not be denied.

    In the book, "Men on Strike", the author clearly makes the case that men are opting out of the nuclear family, protect-and-provide model. They're no longer interested in making the sacrifices listed above because the risks are too great (legally) and the payback is too small (they're expected to provide-and-protect, but get little in return). So they opt out. Women are now "ascendant" in higher education. Men are the minority.

    Yes, in many ways, the roles of the sexes are reversing. And women may like that... for a while. They will revel in their newfound "wealth"... until their money becomes worthless. Picture a society where men simply stop protecting women, or worse, begin to view them as the "enemy".

    Ever watch the show, "Cops"? One vignette showed two female cops trying to arrest a guy in a bar. The guy had clearly had too much to drink and had (allegedly) hit his girlfriend. She didn't want to press charges and didn't appear injured, but the femme cops were going to arrest him. He resisted without violence. He simply put his hands on the pool table and refused to put them behind his back to be handcuffed. Struggle as they might, the two female cops could not put this (average-sized) guy's hands behind his back. After watching this humiliating display of ineptitude, the bartender finally walked over, took the guy's hands and held them behind his back and the cops cuffed him.

    It's the same everywhere. Women in jobs they cannot do. Just look at the Army fitness standards. A 56-year-old male must do 20 pushups to pass. A 19-year-old woman only needs to do 19. A 56-year-old man scores 100 on the two-mile run test if he completes it in 14:42. A 61-year-old man scores 100 with a time of 15:18. A 19-year-old woman scores 100 if she covers the same course in 15:36. That's right: Within her class, a 19-year-old woman is considered "elite" if she is 18 seconds SLOWER than a 61-year-old man.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ GMudd 11 years ago
      As to your comment about job requirements being changed to make them more accessible to women this is one thing I do not agree with. This is not "equality" and I do not want it here is why! If a fireman comes to my house and it is burning down, I know there are guidelines (most of the time) for him to become said fireman he must be able to lift a certain amount of weight or run a certain distance in a certain time etc. I expect him to have fulfilled the criteria for the job because he may be there to save my life right?

      Women should have to fill the same criteria at the same level. NOT ALL women will be able to do that but then again NOT ALL MEN can do this either. My sister could beat down most men she dates, she is really strong and has high stamina! She is so muscular I used to be jealous, but that is just her body type. If she went to fill a job position that has certain physical requirements she will tell you she wants to fulfill the requirements for the male position not the female!

      When you are in an occupation where their are physical requirements they are there for a reason. I do not want a 100 pound female trying to life my 190 pound body if she can't do it. She wont be able to get me out of my burning house, it should not be HER job but it could be my 175 pound sister who could pick up over 200 pounds! that is more acceptable but then again she could fulfill the requirements that are set for males. She can do what the job requires!

      Hope this response helps you understand my take on this situation. WE as a people need to make better decisions. We allowed things like lowering standards to accept more individuals into a profession, which has lead to less people being able to do what the job requires!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
        >> My sister could beat down most men she dates, she is really strong and has high stamina! She is so muscular I used to be jealous, but that is just her body type.

        Your sister only dated wimps, or your assessment of her strength is grossly overstated.

        Did you realize that in cases of domestic violence, women start the altercations almost exactly 50% of the time? It's true. The rates are something like 49.2% v 50.8%. But who winds up with the smashed face, broken bones, skull fractures and such? Usually not the guy.

        I'd love to see the 10,000th best MMA (male) fighter take on the world's best woman. He'd kill her. I did hear about some female fighter taking on a guy once though, and winning. IIRC, the guy was a drunk who'd never had any kind of training. Sort of like "bum fights".

        Remember these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_t...

        Did you know that there's only ONE NCAA sport where men and women compete head-to-head? Can you guess which one?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
        The problem is the difference in strength is far greater than most people (especially women) realize.

        Here's a test you can do yourself.

        Pick a half dozen or so sports where success is objectively measurable. Something like time to run 100 meters, or swim 100 meters, or the amount of weight someone can lift, or how far they can throw a discus or a javelin (as opposed to subjective measures like, "how beautifully did the rhythmic gymnast twirl her ribbon?").

        Look up the women's WORLD RECORD for the events.

        Now pick a state. Any state. Yes, even Alaska or Hawaii. or Delaware. Or Rhode Island. Now look up that states high school male records for the same event. Compare.

        When I've done this, in half the cases, the women had better records and in half the cases the boys had better records. This tells me that the very best female athletes of all time, worldwide, are on par with a subset of high school boys living in a relatively small state.

        But wait. There are two entire categories of athletes beyond high school. College level and professional.

        So now go look up the men's collegiate and world record for each of the events you chose. How do they compare?

        Women are so hopelessly outclassed… there is no comparison to be made.

        Take the women's versus men world record for the 4x200 freestyle relay. After the men are done beating the women, they could almost get to the locker room and change clothes before the women finish. (6:58.55 v. 7:42.08 ). In marathons, the winner could shower, shave, and be halfway to the airport (2:03:23) before the fastest woman in the world finished the race (2:15:25).

        There are lots of examples of this - areas where one wonders why women are so clearly inferior. Why, for example, are they so much slower at running? I don't know. Maybe someone with more knowledge of physiology can explain.

        But the forcing of these round pegs into square holes does have consequences. You may not recall the USS Acadia debacle. The actions of the women on board won that ship the sobriquet of "The Love Boat". It seems that between the time the ship received orders to mobilize for the Gulf (Gulf War I) and the time it arrived on station, 10% of the females in the crew managed to get pregnant. Look up the details if you're interested - but pregnancy has become the "rip cord" women use to bail out of uncomfortable or potentially dangerous service. Can you imagine being a commander and having 10% of your crew disabled before the first shot is fired?

        Equal pay for equal work?

        Then there's the case of the IG team inspecting the base observing that the women were able to load ammo cans on trucks much faster and with apparent ease compared to the men doing the same task. This puzzled the inspectors, until they discovered that the women were loading EMPTY containers. It seems the base commander was stuck between the political imperative that women be seen as "succeeding" and the reality that they could not do the job they were assigned.

        The book, "Weak Link" details dozens of ways that women in the military have weakened the force, complete with long lists of lies and fraud about how "well" the women are doing. If a requirement is "too difficult" for women to do, then the requirement is modified or eliminated. Better that a wounded man be stranded, dying on the battlefield than we deny a woman the right to find out first hand that she's too weak to drag him to safety.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Comment deleted.
          -
        • Posted by $ GMudd 11 years ago
          Here is a cool trick, if I write enough words and letters down arguing against something that was never even mentioned idiots might actually think there is a reason I am posting.
          If you actually read my post you would know I never once said women are as capable as men, I argued against the lowering of standards and said there are certain cases where women are quick enough or strong enough to meet the standards that have been set for men.
          You sir suck at reading.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by BambiB 11 years ago
            Umm… you weren't the one who posted, "
            Posted by BambiB 1 day, 14 hours ago
            >> My sister could beat down most men she dates, she is really strong and has high stamina! She is so muscular I used to be jealous, but that is just her body type."??

            My response: "Your sister only dated wimps, or your assessment of her strength is grossly overstated."

            The average male has 30% (some studies say 50%) more upper body strength than the average female of the same size. Put another way, your sister would have to have 130% normal female strength to reach normal strength levels for an average male her size. In addition, most men are large than most women, further compounding the difference. Given that the average weights for women/men in America is roughly 164 v. 194 pounds, so the average male should be packing an extra 53% more strength. And "beat down" doesn't imply parity. It implies superiority. Another 50%?

            Which is more likely? Your sister is TWICE as strong as other women? Or she was dating wimps? Or that you were exaggerating?

            You don't mention her being in any special training or taking steroids. (She wasn't an East German weight lifter, was she?) You don't mention martial arts training - and seem to be saying her advantage was strength only.

            And yet that seems highly unlikely.

            My bet is she was stronger than you. And maybe she dated wimps. But mostly, you just got it wrong.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ GMudd 11 years ago
              Athleticism runs in our family, At one point in our life she was almost as strong (when we were around the age of 12 and 10) but no she is not as strong as me. I was a competitor at the collegiate level for track and cross country leg pressing over 750 pounds squatting around 400 and benching about 200. I am not a "small" guy.. pretty fit, in shape.

              Is she a freak of nature, well ya, I am pretty sure she is as far as pure brute strength goes. Could she be a weightlifter and compete professionally, I would imagine she could do it quite well. Does she do this? no.

              You somehow have misconstrued my intentional argument for "some women can do the job that most men can do at the same standard set for men" as... If a man is 175 pounds and a woman is 175 pounds then they can both do equal amounts of work. I never said that but you sir still suck at reading, anyone who reads my post can see you are a giant troll and I am actually tired of responding to you.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago
    I foolishly assumed this was an opportunity to engage in discussions on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, about the movie Atlas Shrugged or even commentary on the political influences of today.

    How did we get to silly commentary about music and whether it's good or not. Are there not enough other sites to discuss music?

    Fred Speckmann
    commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo