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 ...
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.
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.