Posted on 03/29/2009 5:51:07 PM PDT by OneVike
From the day the founding Fathers risked their liberty and life by signing the Declaration of Independence, there has been those who have wanted to sink this great ship called the United States of America. Well 143 years later the good ship America took a torpedo hit that at the time seemed like just another glancing blow. What many still consider the greatest step forward in equality for the sexes, was more then just a glancing blow however. It was in fact a deadly strike that entered the very heart of the ship and has been smoldering since. The damage caused by the 19th amendment was slow in its destruction, but after almost 100 years we can now see how complete the destruction really was.
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Thanks. I wonder if that was his source, if he had some other source, or if he just made it up. Since he won’t stand by his claim, the world may never know.
Well, done. : )
I provided the link after receiving it from JimR, who stated he was unsure of how accurate it was. I saw no other source on this thread other than that link. So, I think that is all we have to go by, which seems a bit off, don’t ya think?
It look very unreliable to me. For one thing, they list websites that FReepers allegedly frequent, and I’ve only seen links posted to a couple of them. Supposedly we spend the vast majority of our non-FReeping time at http://defendourfreedoms.us . I don’t think so.
I always read the entire thread, I wouldn’t get on a long thread and expect everyone to start over for me.
Come to think of it, I did better in Math and Science than 95% of my male classmates.
I read the entire thread. How many times should I read it? I didn’t see you posting your source anywhere on the thread. How many times do I have to have read the thread to find that? Do I need a secret decoder ring? ‘Fess up, you don’t have a source, do you?
That's pretty dame funny.
You already saw that it was posted in post 335, it is the same source that I was using but I didn’t need it to know that FR was not anywhere close to majority female.
For FR or National Review or the Washington Times or the Weekly Standard or the NRA to be majority female just wouldn’t happen.
I saw Holly’s post, but there was no indication from her or you that it was your source. I’ve since been looking over your source, and it’s full of errors.
I just wasted some time looking at that site. It lists the top 15 sites that people who visit Free Republic also visit. And for each of those sites, it lists the 15 sites that their visitors most frequently visit. It ranks each site also. Free Republic had a higher ranking than any of the 15 sites we allegedly visit most. However, Free Republic is not among the top 15 sites visited by any of the visitors to those 15 sites we’re alleged to frequent. How is that possible? We have more visitors than any of them. We visit their sites more frequently than we visit any other sites. But they don’t visit us often enough for us to rank in the top 15? And btw, “we” and “they” are the same people that are being tracked at all 16 sites.
amen, I believe that to be true. Women can do so much good, but the emotional state of many of them who don’t have a really strong man to help them in right, causes them to feel sorry and vote goodies for people at our expense. Spoiling goodies. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.
“I’ve since been looking over your source, and it’s full of errors.”
It is Jim’s source as well, if you have a better one, we are all ears. I think the margin is wider personally not as large as the incredible margins of conservative publications like the Weekly Standard and The American Spectator, but common sense tells us that we will always have that kind of gap.
I didn’t think it looked reliable either. But, thought you may want to know of the only source mentioned here. So, we’re back to the beginning of ‘that’ argument: what is the ratio of men/women on FR?
I don’t know how JR uses it, but it if you think he’s relying on it to prove things that are demonstrably false, you should tell him.
“I don’t know how JR uses it, but it if you think he’s relying on it to prove things that are demonstrably false, you should tell him.”
HUH? It fits with everything that we know about men, women and political and news sources and especially conservative outlets.
Time, Newsweek and US News & World Reports alone have a total of 7 million more male readers, the rest of the news magazines have the same imbalance (except for Jet).
National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Washington Times, Politico, Rush, Drudge, most of those and those like them have male audiences of around 80 or 85 percent, even lovable fuzz ball Rush has a mostly male audience.
I didn’t even need to see a source for me to know the truth, I only wanted the source to answer any requests that might arise.
Everyone is emotional regarding some or many of their beliefs. The question is whether intellect leads emotions or do emotions lead the intellect. You simply cannot tell for certain from one statement.
Men on this forum and in the conservative movement and in the Republican Party should be welcoming women with open arms and figuring how to get more of them. You should especially be lauding the single conservative/Republican women who didn't fall for the democratic propaganda. Instead, all too often, women are the brunt of too much negativity and disrespect and alienating threads like this one, and single women are treated like pariah's. Instead of men attempting to improve relations, we are told we can either stay and put up with it or leave.
Women who decide maybe they don't want to work side by side on the cause with men who see them as inferior, and/or who are disrespectful, are told they are being "too emotional."
And yet, many of the same men who make such claims, complain how society on TV in the movies and elsewhere, depict white men as stupid. Most women on this forum would agree with that, myself included.
Where's the same support and understanding when the shoes on the other foot, like these and other threads? A few decent men see it and acknowledge it, but the rest not only could care less, they add insult to injury, some seeming to derive much pleasure from it.
Frankly, when men stopped marrying women they impregnated, and some stopped marrying women period, and some forgot their roles as protectors and providers, they abdicated their responsibilities to government. The Democrats, always looking for new groups of constituents (it has become their forte), filled in the vacuum.
Blame yourselves.
Your source claims Daily Kos is 75% male. What does that “prove?” That DK is more conservative than FR, or that men are more liberal than women?
Post 496 addresses it, I don’t know Daily Kos but I am under the impression that it is a political and news site, if it is then that explains it.
“Your source claims Daily Kos is 75% male. What does that “prove?” That DK is more conservative than FR, or that men are more liberal than women?”
I didn’t use Jims source or mine as you are calling it, for anything. The only source we have for freerepublic was given by Jim, not me.
Post 496 does not use that source for anything.
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.