Hello Democrats! I have more “lady parts” than you think.
Posted by stargeezer 10 years, 8 months ago to Government
You gotta read this! I may not be a lady, but I know a few - and they are all republicans - this is why.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
There is a reason which may possibly be in the genes. It is verbal ability. This skill becomes more important with more democracy, the ability to debate and speak well becomes more important than abilities to think logically and produce.
I rather think that this observed trend is from the expectation that women were and had to be more sympathetic, more generous, and more caring than men.
Thus, the observations here of BambiB are correct, but the attitude implied is wrong. This over-representation of women in silliness, whether harmful or not will pass as women take their place according to their individual abilities rather than stereotypes.
To sum up - It is due to past repression of women.
Great article. Women are no more monolithic than men in their thinking. If all of us, men and women alike, place reason ahead of emotion our political discourse would be so much more profitable.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I also want it to be stuff that reflects the values I stand on. That makes defending the things that the author brings forth MUCH easier. It's hard to find things that are a complete match, but they're out there.
Some conjectures on why that may be.
I think men generally look at government as the social "grease" to keep society from developing too much friction. Got a beef with your neighbor? Don't shoot it out, go to small claims court. Some moron wants to do 100mph through your neighborhood? Don't string a steel cable a head-height… let the cops handle it.
But I think women fundamentally view government through different lenses. They see government as a means to increase their access to resources… other people's resources. The evidence that deficit spending is directly tied to the female vote in America is incontrovertible. In every state, and at the federal level, deficits were small and generally amounted to unforeseen expenses which were paid for in the next year's budget. So basically, debt was resolved - at all levels - on an annual basis.
Once women got the vote, that all changed. In each state individually, and at the Federal level, once women got the vote, deficits began to grow out-of-control.
So men want to (generally) use government to make things work better, while women want to use government to steal from other people for their own purposes.
Is this a "monolithic" characteristic? Of course not. There are, after all, male Demoncrats, and female Republicans. But when push comes to shove, women will vote to take your food off your table and put it on their own. That's what a 20% gender gap tells us.
What is the consequence? A $17.3 trillion debt, $210+ trillion in unfunded mandates and about 25% of the Federal budget funded through loans. This is the equivalent of the female who in abject confusion declares, "I can't be out of money… I still have checks."
Bottom line: The majority of men have it right. The majority of women are working to destroy America (and probably don't even realize it.)
On the other hand, the males tend to be more longer-term oriented. They are the builders of shelter, those that plant today so as to reap tomorrow.
I had a comment on a post (maybe even this one) that described this in more detail. This would not seem to be a gender specific thing, rather a role response. If the males were the caregivers and females the builders and providers, then I think the rationality would be reversed. Just a thought.
Ironically, their effort to get more and be safe will bring them less and endanger them. Not a very bright strategy… but as you point out, it may be that women are purely tactical in their "thinking", while men are more strategic.
Are you asking if there's a redeeming quality that all women have, or if all women have at least one redeeming quality, or if there exists at least one woman who has at least one redeeming quality… or something else.
Let's say that asking a clear question is NOT one of your redeeming qualities.
But quite apart from that, the tendency of SOME women to make facts personal is NOT a redeeming quality. For example, I give you hard facts, and you respond with a non sequitur. Not a redeeming quality. Inability of some women to engage on a factual, rational level - NOT a redeeming quality.
Does that help?
Is she included?
The majority of women in America routinely vote to steal your money and spend it on themselves.
Are they included too?
I don't know if women are smart enough to recognize the connection between their "government exists to give me things" attitude and the utter destruction of America that's the result. I think much depends on how much pain is visited on women between now and 2016. I'm hoping it's a LOT (like women and children starving in the streets). The longer the female agenda goes on, the more depleted America will be and the longer a recovery (if any) will take.
Me too! I could generalize and blame, but that would be unfair to all of those that are undeserving. I also do not profess to be an expert on the reasons for demographic voting differences. It could be men who influence the conditions making it more sociological than biological, and I prefer to look at them as individuals since I also know plenty of very foolish men.
Respectfully,
O.A.
-----
I would just like to point out that all those things happened prior to the 1960s and 1970s. Those two decades literally flipped the political spectrum around. I've noticed many Republicans like to point out how the KKK was founded by Democrats, while totally ignoring that the KKK is Republican today...
I agree with most of the article, but this girl is blind to reality if she doesn't think the Republicans in several states have been actively trying to strip away the laws which protect African Americans and other minorities.
I'm also suspicious of the whole school voucher thing. I admit I don't really understand the voucher program, but I don't see why anyone needs some special ticket to switch schools.
She also says that adoption is a viable alternative to abortion, which it may be in some cases, but certainly not in every case, and getting rid of abortion and insisting that all women always carry their babies to term and then give them up for adoption if they don't want them isn't going to help solve anything. The debate over exactly when life beings is dumb. Technically, a sperm and an egg are already living organisms in and of themselves. I don't see why it makes any sense at all to say that life suddenly begins when the two merge (conception), but that prior to that point there is no life. If your argument that life begins at conception is based on the fact that a clump of cells is technically alive, then you must logically say that life actually begins BEFORE conception, because an egg and a sperm are clumps of cells.
Aside from those few issues, I pretty much agree with everything else she says.
1st. The KKK is neither a Republican or Democratic organization, it is a hate group. They have members from both sides of the aisle, and aren't very selective due to their massively dwindling numbers (a sign we are heading in the right direction racially).
2. Pertaining to the statement that republicans in several states are actively trying to strip away rights from minorities. The right to vote illegally is not a right, the right to mislead and intimidate voters is not a right. The bottom line is these restrictions are not made only for one racial group they are applied universally, therefore the uproar caused by the left must be seen for what it is ...an attempt to keep the playing field unleveled in their favor.
3. Regarding school vouchers, visit a underachieving school and then visit a school that excels, if you had a child wouldn't you want them in the best possible environment? If you were a school administrator and parents started pulling their kids from your school and placing them into schools that outperform yours, wouldn't you see a NEED to improve and act on it?
4. Abortion, while the writer did state she believed abortion was wrong I don't believe she was advocating a ban on abortion, but actually was advocating individuals should restrain themselves after having given the matter due consideration.
2. Laws that are applied universally but only impact certain groups are still a form of institutionalized discrimination.
3. Yes, but I don't see why parents need a special voucher to change schools.
4. I agree that abortion should be carefully considered, but to me, she did absolutely sound like she was advocating banning abortion, or at least severely limiting women's ability to access it.
Now, if at ANY level you can feel insulted by that, perhaps you might consider that the human beings that were murdered by abortions this past week just might have grown into men and women who were valued members of our society, hard workers with families, social and political leaders or even just the folks who dry clean your suits, but whatever they might have been, some young woman with confused ideals decided that they were going to be incontinent in her life and the potentially great man or woman was murdered on a out-patient table. What if that woman had been YOUR mother 20 years (whatever it was) ago.
I think EVERY life is important, even those who can't speak for themselves. And yes, even yours maph.
If she can't "endure" the next 18-20 years of a kid like you under foot, she shouldn't be playing adult games. (I guess I better be blunt) She should not be having sex if she's not prepared to raise a kid. Abortion is murder, not birth control.
So college scholarships/tuition assistance for certain skin colors/ethnicity/citizenship should be illegal then? That's discriminatory and unfair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_i...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...
2. Caucasian students applying for professional schools and state universities
3. Caucasians assumed racist until proven innocent
4. Christians forced to perform on contracts they do not wish to enter?
I lived in El Paso Tx which is 90% Hispanic. When I applied to the University of Texas, ElPaso I had to wait three semesters because there were not enough Hispanics in the Civil Engineering Dept. They could only allow ONE white, non-hispanic student into the program each semester due to the racial "imbalance".
just above you say 'discriminated against',
in the earlier comment you said 'persecution'.
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2014/04/14/...
Max Blumenthal is the son of Sidney Blumenthal, who is, of course, Hillary Clinton's confidant. But Max Blumenthal, if I'm not mistaken, works at Media Matters for America. And Max Blumenthal is one of a cabal of left-wing journalists that despise Israel, and this guy found his way to things that these people had written, and he was inspired. He admits he was inspired by all this, and that's why he took action against the three Jewish people in Kansas City.
Good grief. All good liberals assign the worst possible attributes to anyone they disagree with to destroy them and the valid arguments they make. Maphesdus, what specific laws are conservatives trying to strip away that prortect blacks and"other minorities" in america. I guess actually presenting an ID to prove citizenship is stripping away the right to vote illegally.
See
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/search?s...
cheers.
Every single nut case that's killed a bunch of innocent jews, blacks, or any other racial mix has been a democrat.
BOTH of the Ft Hood shooters have been democrat.
Does ANYBODY except maph see a pattern????
Cheers
1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds.
2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America.
3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned.
4) The past is always inferior to the present.
5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it.
6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought.
7) Intentions are much more important than results.
8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism.
9) All solutions must be government-oriented.
10) You must be absolutely close minded.
11) Feelings are more important than logic.
12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action.
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6e...
And even if such were the case, what of it? Most of the KKK are in the south, does that mean that all southerners are racist? Most KKK are white, does that mean that all whites are racist? Your logic and reasoning are so shallow as to be meaningless.
I too have a question. Can you substantiate the claim that today's KKK is made of predominately Republicans. Do they have a census? I remember the 60s and the 70s and I recall only a diminution of their influence and membership. Regardless, the membership numbers are down significantly and they are largely irrelevant today. I believe that all significant parties in America today largely disavow any relation.
Many today, especially in the MSM try to paint the Tea party as racist and the modern day equivalent, and while there is likely to be a bad apple in any large gathering, that wide brush smear is unjust.
Respectfully,
O.A.
The logic involved is based on the fact that neither the egg nor the sperm contain a complete nucleolus until they join and begin to divide. This is unlike any group of cells in the body. A unfertilized egg cannot live more than (as I recall) a few days at most. Again you show a complete absence of knowledge of biology when you refer to the biological process as you do.
The goal of radical feminists has been to relegate the unborn child to be no more than the lump of cells in the manner you describe them. Congratulations, you have been successfully brainwashed by their propaganda. They and you say that belief in life beginning at conception is dumb, even though it is when the combined egg and sperm have successfully joined and fertilization is complete, But you offer no other point at which a child is a human being and not just a clump of cells - which is all any of us are. So do you hold to 16 weeks, 22 weeks, at birth, when they are 12yo? Do more the regurgitate propaganda, take a stand.
Now, please expand on how the republican party has "been actively trying to strip away the laws which protect African Americans and other minorities"? Apart from claims from various "race-baiters" and known hate mongers who infest MSM I've not heard anything about that. Enlighten us please, or are you just throwing more bombs with no substance?
>> the republican party has "been actively trying to strip away the laws which protect African Americans and other minorities
I think that refers to trying to roll back legislation that steals money from working Americans and confers it on bitches-of-color who decide to get knocked up without a plan to support the biological result.
What would you call them?