Posted on 02/05/2011 12:12:57 PM PST by pissant
The choice of security vs. freedom is a false choice.
There is no increase in security living under tyranny.
A majority of men know this. A minority of women know this. More women tend to be naive versus the number of men who are naive.
That said, as I asked the other poster, would deny the individual, freedom loving woman of FreeRepublic the right to vote, while you would continue to allow the 49% of the males in this country who voted for Obama, the right to vote? (Yes or No)
I am a woman. And, yes, I’m advocating my own disenfranchisement.
Excellent. I’m sure we’re all grateful.
Wow! That's quit a statement.
And it raises a lot of questions.
Have you ever voted in an election?
Don't you think you are capable enough to choose the correct candidate?
What do you think of the capabilities of the 49% of the males in this country who voted for Obama?
And finally, since you, by your own admission, say that you are too emotional to have a rational opinion about things, why do you even post your point of view here?
Thanks for the link!!
And I would also favor restrictions on voting in different elections, such as any welfare payment being cause to suspend voting rights for a period of time, etc.
Also, anyone who works for any gov't entity, or derives income from one.
As a matter of fact, when I'm done with my restrictions, there will only be ......... one voter left.
It's good to be king.
First, I did not say that I, or any other woman, is too emotional to have a rational opinion. I said women, on the whole, make decisions emotionally.
Do I vote? Yes. Why? Because if liberal women are going to vote, then I’d be stupid not to take the opportunity to do so.
Do I think I am capable enough to choose the correct candidate? How does one determine “correct” in this context? (BTW, this question reminds me a lot of the old joke: have you stopped beating your wife, yet.)
The men who voted for Obama...that was part of what I left off a previous answer. Part are what Rush calls the castratii: men who’ve been feminized, taught to embrace their feminine side by the stupidity that is PC, the government schools, and liberal culture. The other part are the opportunists. The former are deceived, the latter evil. Once the large emotion-based voting block is removed, the old yarn of “my opponent will starve old people and throw poor children out to live on the streets” loses its efficacy.
I’m happy to be of service.
I see that you’re concerned pissant. You shouldn’t worry so much about Sarah. She’s gonna be fine. ;o)
Nonsense.
You are avoiding the question and falsely implying that I'm asking you a question that you think you don't deserve. Your the one who said that woman should be denied the right to vote because they are too emotional. The question is right on target and is deserving of an answer from you.
Do you think you are capable enough to choose the correct candidate?
LOL!
So these idiotic men who voted for Obama should be allowed to vote while the patriotic conservative women of FreeRepublic should not.
Got it.
Thanks!
Correct to whom? Correct in what sense? Correct implies there is at least one incorrect candidate. In what way is this correctness defined?
Correct to whom? Correct in what sense? Correct implies there is at least one incorrect candidate. In what way is this correctness defined?
Define "correct" to be the opposite in meaning of how you used the word "mistake", when you said..."giving women the right to vote was a mistake."
Again...Do you think you are capable enough to choose the correct candidate?
[There seem to be two types of Sarah Paling threads commonly found on Free Republic: those started by Palin cultists, and those started by anti-Palin cultists. In both, the posts rapidly degrade into personal attacks. In this one, it started with the second post, yours.]
Oh stuff the self righteousness. The author of this thread has been on a rampage for months and is the object of not only my vitriol, but many others - there is a reason for this if you do a search. And don’t even think about calling me a newbie, I’ve been here since 1998 and honed my skills under Don Morgan’s rampage of terror.
I have zero problems with heated debate and people calling out the flaws in candidates (even Sarah Palin) because that sharpens the skills. But I do have a problem with posters who are out to kneecap solid conservatives for no apparent reason but spite. I am a free man and will state my objections whether you want to hear them or not.
And don’t try to shut me up just so your side can go unopposed, the is a leftwing tactic.
Thanks filbert, we are agreed on Palin. Not flawless, but I see no one else standing in the breech.
Patton was a son of a bitch but his men followed him through hell because they knew whose side he was on.
You make a lot of interesting assumptions there. Name calling isn’t my style. Neither is being self-righteous. I’ve tried to have reasonable discussions on various pro- and anti-Palin threads and it usually very quickly degrades into being accused of being a troll, newbie, RINO, Romneyite, or homosexual. And, yes, I’m aware of pissant’s seeming crusade.
Far be it for me to try to shut anyone up. At the same time, don’t try to do the same to me.
:)
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.