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 ...
I have been a Freeper since Feb 1998, and a Republican since my wife's father convinced me that the Democrats have left me. Later I realized that the Democrats never left me, I never had common beliefs with them in the first place. I was just thinking emotionally instead of logically.
It's OK for him to vote and keep his right to vote, because he's a man. Even when he votes emotionally, by his own admission, he can keep his right to vote, but he advocates that women should never have had the vote because they vote *emotionally*.
Being a tad hypocritical, isn't he?
No it didn't. It began with the sexual revolution and the growth of the welfare state, mostly implemented by men. How gleeful men were at the prospect of having all the sex they wanted with no consequences, and some employed it with relish. (No emotionalism there, right?) Those consequences are now coming home to roost.
I have found absolutely no support for the premise that men are more logical and less emotional then women, even among the conservative men I know. To me, one of life's great disappointments.
It wouldn't surprise me if he were one of the many men who embraced the sexual revolution and the consequence-free sex it offered, with great enthusiasm.
And remember, this conversation which he began, is over when he says it is! : )
Right. They don't think with their emotions. They think with their, er....ahhh... hormones. Yeah, that's it, their hormones.....
Now move on as you have been so commanded!
Where to? To get my burka?
Have a nice day, and remember to look for my article on,
“Is it time the Church surrendered its tax exempt status?”
Too long of a title?
I agree with Ann. In fact, I’d gladly give up the vote if it meant I could get my country back. And while we’re at it, the vote should be limited to landowners, or in some way limited to those who are actually paying the bills.
Taking the right to vote away from women is about as likely to happen, as taking the vote away from liberals, who truly deserve it. Therefore, offering to give up one's vote in this case is an empty gesture. And I truly resent the men on these threads, foisting most of the blame for our socialistic state upon women, and our "emotional" way of thinking.
Furthermore, all taxpayers, landowners or not, deserve the right to vote. Landownership has nothing to do with how I vote. I vote the same way when I don't own property as when I do. I suspect with most voters non landownership does not have enough of an impact to justify taking away their vote, and is about as likely to happen as are the two examples above.
At the moment I don't own my home. I sold it five years ago. Yet today I received information in the mail from the township in which I live, stating that due to a recently passed ruling, residents must get a permit for a fee for remodeling their kitchens and bathrooms, or pay double the price for the permit if caught without one. That is an outrageous violation of both privacy rights and property ownership, and I have a call into the township to complain and find out how such a ruling passed to begin with, even though, at present, I am not subject to the ruling.
Such discussions about taking away people's right to vote from various groups, are mere wishful thinking and do nothing but engender ill will and divisiveness among conservatives, at a time when it is imperative to remain united IMHO.
Let’s face it. Women like you and I are a small minority.
Notice I wasn't advocating banning beer or bikini's from American life, and yet the male poster, along with many other male posters, emotionally responded as if I had.
But my point is, the men aren't any more logical. They are sometimes more knowledgeable regarding particular subjects, but not more logical. And they are just as apt to react emotionally.
Right back at you, as far as logic.
But I’m not so sure I agree with your point about men and women.
Men can be emotional, sure. But I think they are less emotional than women. I think there has been research to show that men tend to be dispassionate problem solvers while women think about feelings and relationships.
Plus, I don’t think men are as likely to be looking for someone to take care of them.
Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
If they want to view soft porn, there's other sites they can go to rather than doing it here where it's discouraged and inappropriate and then complaining about it when they are called on it.
The thread got pulled. Who was right?
It'd be interesting to see them post like that to the mods....
Isn’t it odd how men carry on about women reacting emotionally when men’s big problem is anger? Like anger isn’t an emotional response?
Yet men just cannot stand to be challenged or bested and they are, they blow up and what happens? A big fight or someone gets blown away.
The problem is conflating emotionalism and logic with morals and political positions.
Less emotional doesn't by default mean more conservative. The liberal/conservative issue is one of morals and values, not mental, psychological, or emotional make up.
That's why the whole issue of blaming women for the mess the country is in because they are more emotional voters, doesn't work.
I'd take an emotional conservative over a unemotional liberal any day. ( I was going to say logical liberal, but realized that that would be an oxymoron...)
I think women are more likely to respond to the “feel good” rhetoric and the phony compassion of the Left. They are less likely to think in a straight line to the inevitable statist results. I could be wrong, and all I have is anecdotal evidence. But there must be some reason for the advantage the Democrats have among women.
What about the fact that so many women without men are looking for someone to take care of them? I think Nature —and the women’s own crappy choices — put women in that position.
I have six grown children. I must say, when I was pregnant and taking care of little ones, I craved security. Fortunately, I had a good husband and a stable marriage, so I was still a conservative.
And now that my children are grown, I mightly resent paying enough in taxes every year to support two or three skanks who can’t keep their knees together.
I’ve seen enough welfare in my life to know that the sperm donor deadbeats like it that way as well.
They get all the drugs and sex they want from these skanks for free while they live with them. The skanks collect welfare and support the sperm donors who are living with them.
It’s a neat little system for the guys. They don’t have to work, they have no responsibility, no pressure, no accountability, nothing beyond the immediate gratification of their hormonal impulses.
When someone expects anything out of them, they’re on to the next tramp, leaving behind a trail of progeny for the state to support because they are too lazy and irresponsible to do it themselves.
Men (for lack of a better term) like that are going to vote as liberal as the rest to keep up the gravy train. It’s not about emotionalism. It’s about personal responsibility and values.
Speaking of hormones — and completely changing this topic — lol — I wonder-— if a woman cannot finish, especially if it’s because she’s tired, it’s not a big deal. But, if a guy doesn’t it’s a huge deal. On that topic do so many men really have erectile dysfunction to require so many commercials?
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.