Posted on 05/08/2012 12:52:59 PM PDT by Mich1193
"Exploring Your Destiny" Sunday Service Webcast w/ Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Topic: How most women are building a shameless society. What do you think?
(Excerpt) Read more at liberty.com ...
God help us and this guy is supposed to be on our side....no more.
Oh, goody. Another “Wimmin R Evil” thread on FR. I’m shocked.
You’ve got to admit that without the women’s vote we probably wouldn’t be falling into a marxist cesspool.
“If I’m not mistaken, no Democrat in a presidential race has won the men’s vote since Lyndon Johnson!”
Wasted away again in Margaritaville,
Searchin’ for my lost shaker of salt.
Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame,
Now I think, - hell it could be my fault.
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jimmy-Buffett/Margaritaville.html
[[ ANN COULTER reasons it this way:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.” ]]
Ms. Coulter got it right.
Women are —by their very nature — socialists.
Men, however, are largely individualists by their internal constitutions.
To men, freedom matters.
But women, on the other hand, prefer “security” and safety. Again, this is “in their nature”.
What did Mr. Franklin have to say about that subject, a few centuries ago?
I’m gettin’ old, was never that smart, and my opinion don’t count for much.
But if I had my way...
- The voting age for males would be returned to 21, with the exception of those enlisted in the military, who would be granted the privilege of voting from “age 18 upward”.
- Single females would be granted the vote when they reached the age of 30. If they married prior to age 30, females would be granted the vote subsequent to their marriage.
- Women who were serving in the military, married or unmarried, would be given voting privileges identical to males, i.e., “from age 18 upward”, and would carry such privileges subsequent to their military service.
The devolution of the republic from freedom to socialism that we have been witnessing through the early twentieth century to the present is a direct result of “granting too much suffrage” to those who had been denied it in earlier times. Unfortunately, I see no way to reverse the trend, other than to “break free” from the current republic, and reconstruct a new one that is actually a reversion to “the old ways” (of, say, the nineteenth century) — ways that are now considered misogynist, racis’, xenophobic, blah, blah, blah....
Well women are certainly TAXED, and always have been - even when they were denied equal representation!
Add motor voter to that!
LOL!
You had a very wise uncle!
Loren C ? Is that you?
:)
Not true.
Women constitute 53% of the electorate. And, in 2008, women supported Obama and the Democrats by a whopping 56-43 margin.
Almost invariably, women voters favor the Democrat candidate in just about every election and at every level. Even when the Democrat is buried by the Republican, a higher proportion of women vote for the Democrat than do men.
I didn’t understand your post, the problem is the male vote?
Of course, there were no big government presidents before women could vote. Oh wait, there was that Woodrow Wilson guy. He didn’t want women to vote either.
Me Too!
(ducking...)
Kennedy won the male vote, females voted for Nixon.
The problem is ignorance. Would-be voters should have to pass a civics test, similar to the driver’s license exam.
Sample questions:
How many senators in the senate?
Who was the second president?
Name the three branches of government.
Who succeeds to the presidency if both president and vice-president are disabled or dead?
Who won the Civil War?
Which president served the longest term?
What was Lincoln’s party?
What was Woodrow Wilson’s party?
Name the year WWII ended.
What is the major source of the federal government’s revenue? (My fovorite question, as none of the Rats seem to know this.)
Although I am a Woman, and have been voting since 1970, I sincerely DO understand where Rev Jesse is coming from. There is a passage in Isaiah that a judgement from God will come when “Women choose your rulers”. Conservative Women vote well and help elect conservative leaders. However, with the demographics of the country leaning more and more to welfare mothers, single mothers, and entitlement divas, the natural tendency of these people will be to vote for a “Sugar daddy” for their government. “Landowners” being the only ones who can vote is really not practical either, as most land and property is actually mortgaged and belongs to the Bank.
I think the idea of taxpayers getting the franchise, whether male, female, white, black., or whatever, is the best idea. And since folks on Social Security pay taxes on that, they will not be disenfranchised.
Just my humble opinion...and BTW, Rev Jesse sounds like he has had a stroke...just sayin’.
No Pelosi, no Boxer, no Feinstein, no Mikulski, no Maxine Waters, no Cynthia McKinney, no Sanchez sisters, no Louise Slaughter, no Susan Collins, no Olympia Snow, no Claire McCaskill, no Hillary Rodham, no Shelia Jackson Lee, no Debbie Wasserman Schultz, no Lisa Murkowski, no Debbie Stabenow,no Patty Murray, no Maria Cantwell, no Kathleen Sebelius, no Janet Napolitano, no Hilda Solis, no wise Latina, no Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no Elena Kagan ..............................................
OMG, I just convinced myself that giving up my vote would be to the benefit of my country
Thank you.
I agree. People who have no vested interest in voting for anything except other people’s money for themselves have no business voting at all. It’s just wrong, prima fascia.
The 18-year-old vote is a step too far as well, especially since our schools are spitting out good little socialists who don’t become conservative until they’re older and know a rope or two.
Great tagline! It makes a lot of sense.
“Representation without Taxation is just as odious as Taxation without Representation.”
You got that right. There are loads of hysterical men out there, all of them "liberal."
allmendream, you nailed it!
Road Glide,
I don’t want to be taxed without having a say in my representation....
I recall a war was started over that issue.
I’m female and do NOT want my right to vote taken away!!!!
(P.S. I am a lifelong conservative, who does NOT agree with the nanny-state, welfare state policies of the democrats)
“Representation without Taxation is just as odious as Taxation without Representation.”
Thank you! Though I'd like to take credit for it, I have to admit that someone else thought up the concept first.
Yes, I have thought of it myself, but you said it well. ;-)
Using data from 1870 to 1940, Lott and Larry Kenny studied how state government expenditures and revenue changed in 48 state governments after women obtained the right to vote. Women were able to vote in 29 states before women's suffrage and the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Lott found that the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling.[29]
His research indicates that women's suffrage had a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. Even after accounting for variables such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income, per capita real state government spending, which had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting, doubled during the next 11 years. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting in national elections and 19 additional state elections.
You want to look at the percentages for how blacks vote—and maybe argue against allowing them to vote too?
Jeesh!
Sorry. I should have made it clearer. They are both to blame. I am ,however, really sick of ALL divisiveness in any form. Why do you have to single out ANYBODY. It is not a male problem or female problem, it is an American problem. So whats next, only people with a PHD allowed to vote because the rest of us are too stupid or maybe we decide left handed people not worthy? We need to cut out all this crap and become united, not divided.
Once again...were women wearing such garments in this country before 1920?
This is a unique thread on FR. Never saw one like this before. I hope I never do again, either. :)
These guys will love Sharia!
Women constitute 53% of the electorate. And, in 2008, women supported Obama and the Democrats by a whopping 56-43 margin.
I meant monetary support (Soros/Trumka/most of Goldman Sachs/Union bosses etc. Had it not been for the overwhelming cash Obama things might be different regardless of how many women voted for him. Would you also take away the voting rights of people 30 and under? I believe they broke for Obama in much larger numbers than women (60%).
How are “they both to blame”? Your whole post made zero sense, how do you target groups of voters when you try to deny that they exist, by the way, PHD’s vote for the left.
It is pretty hard to be involved in voting and elections, and campaigning, or anything related to advancing/selling a political agenda or point of view, when one pretends that voting is done by just a single entity.
Do you think that even people whose business is selling soap, pretend that?
I do believe that it’s established fact (I could be wrong) that no female vote, means no Obama, no Clinton, no Carter, no Kennedy, etc.
Do you have a cite for that? I find that very hard to believe.
“So..no senior citizen older than 65 can vote?”
Sure they can, if they agree not to be on the dole.
Those who rent pay taxes through the rent payments they are charged. Only the landlord knows whether or not they are paying more than he is required to forward to the government on their behalf. I would estimate that in most cases, the landlords make a little middleman money out of the arrangement. This means, in essence, that most renters pay MORE than their fair share of property taxes.
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE: “And in 1960, men sided with Democrat John F. Kennedy by 4 points, 52% to 48%, and women backed Republican Richard Nixon by 2 points, 51% to 49%.
“Prior to 1964, women tended to vote more Republican than did men.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/2884/big-gender-gap-distinguishes-election-2000.aspx
You want to look at the percentages for how blacks vote—and maybe argue against allowing them to vote too?
Chill, people.
Did I say anything about taking the voting rights away from anybody?
No, I did not.
Instead, I merely corrected a mistaken assertion about men being the primary supporters of Obama -- in the voting booth, anyway.
I supplied some relevant facts to the discussion, not an opinion.
I stand corrected. Truly amazing (to me, anyway). Thanks for the knowledge.
Took me 30 seconds to think of two ways that could be abused to the detriment of the Republic.
Can you? Are you willing to try?
BTW, IR1.
Equal as people but not necessarily per office.
Ie there is one head of a household. Two heads constantly try to be in charge and it doesn’t work well.
The general problem is that men execute on logic, women execute on feelings. This is how government became to spend so much on unconstitutional ‘compassion” programs, and why we are where we are today. Many politicians have rode to office on the feelings of voters promising to do more charity with taxpayers money.
How are “they both to blame”?
Let’s try this again, ALL voters are to blame. Both men and women, young and old, black and white. All demographic groups carry the same burden for the result of elections. I was merely pointing out that you could just as easily blame another group much like the author blamed women. As I recall the youth vote heavily favored Obama as did the Catholic vote. Blaming one gender is very divisive when there is plenty of blame to go around. It seems the Reverend has bought into the “war on women” meme and chose to run with it. Here is the question we should really be asking, “Why is Reverend Peterson trying to prove that Republicans really DO have a war on Women????” Perhaps HE is the Obama supporter.
Everybody gets that one wrong.
I like counter-intuitive trivia and facts, and am kind of drawn to them.
Much of that interest is because of how the media and the system creates misleading memories and impressions, (and outright false history) to drive behavior, voting, tribal identity, dialogues and so on to shape our national direction.
How are “they both to blame”?
Wow, you really hit the nail on the head! Bring on the Burkas!!!!
You just aren’t making sense, you compare a voting block that votes wrong to a voting block that votes right, and label them both equally at blame for the election result?
Sorry, I ut and pasted the wrong comment...I believe this was yours
These guys will love Sharia!
Wow, you really hit the nail on the head! Bring on the Burkas!!!!
You just aren’t making sense, you compare a voting block that votes wrong to a voting block that votes right, and label them both equally at blame for the election result?
I give up!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.