Posted on 07/13/2018 6:25:34 AM PDT by vannrox
On the Manufactured Ignorance of the State Constitutions…
"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers"
-Judicial Ruling under Wickard & Filburn
How can you possibly have people thinking that “Rights” are “Privileges”? How can you have elected Senators joyously and repeatedly trying to destroy the Rights guaranteed to us? How can you explain the absolutely lack of understanding that our great nation is a Republic and not a Democracy? How can all this be?
Well, the answer is simple.
The ignorance was planned. It is manufactured, and like many small cuts, it has eaten and tore away at the fabric of what the United States is. Today, all we have is something that has absolutely no resemblance to what it was initially set up as.
Let’s look at this.
Here we will look at this sad, sad state of affairs from the most basic premise. This premise is that the ignorance is intentional and manufactured by evil people for their own purposes. Additionally, fundamental to that ignorance is the suppression of the importance
(Excerpt) Read more at metallicman.com ...
I know, two of my siblings are educaters.
Sorry, but you are off-track.
Wickard v Filburn was a case brought to the United States Supreme Court that drastically increased the amount of economic regulatory power the United States government employed.
Towards the conclusion of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which purposely decreased production in the agricultural sector by paying subsidies to farmers that did NOT plant on parts of their land.
As well as the subsidies, the United States urged farmers to kill any excess livestock they may have.
Can you name a year the republican candidate for President got a majority of the women vote?
Just as you did in your prior post.
It’s tragic when an otherwise insightful individual can not break free from indoctrination that runs counter to virtually all empirical evidence.
That is a ridiculous comment. How is suggesting that women should not be lumped together in a group as welfare enablers cherry picking? How is giving a link to a web page of male & female patriots to show women also value & sacrifice for liberty cherry picking?
Have a nice evening.
Uhm, by DEFINITION!
Unlike the way you casually dismiss Ann Coulter without one word of actual verifiable support for your assertion about her reasoning, you were also challenged with “Generalizations about the sexes are just and accurate. The results speak for themselves.”
Which you similarly dismissed without merit.
Despite evidence that women voters have a slight preference for the Democratic Party, Republicans have won more of women's votes in three of the last four presidential elections (Reagan twice and Bush once).
http://prospect.org/article/gender-gap-mystique
And therein lies the problem; your posture comes from how you WANT reality to be, not from reality itself.
The consistent confusion that the class controls the individual depresses me.
Is your consistent confusion of “class” with “identity” (in the a=a, logic sense) any better? If so, how?
Furthermore, that you would quote a prospect.org article, and “cherrypick” one line out of an entire article ABOUT THE GENDER GAP to maintain the validity of your worldview only shows the depths to which you’ll go to preserve that worldview.
Over the last nine presidential elections, however, women have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates at higher rates than men.
Ah. That is your objection. That sentence was not a cherry pick it was the answer to a direct question. Paraphrased..Can you name any election in which women voted in the majority for a Republican candidate?
I’m afraid I am impervious to your sophistry. Have a nice day.
No, I am not off track. The quote he listed, to which I referred, is from Justice Thomas, as I said. It was in dissent to Raich v Gonzales. Look it up.
I just asked a question, you inserted your opinion as to my motive. I actually had not looked for info.
Not as false you would think. Below is from this Article.
In the 1972 and 1976 elections, there was no difference in candidate support between men and women. Over the last nine presidential elections, however, women have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates at higher rates than men. Most recently, in 2012, there was a 10-percentage-point gender gap: 55% of women voted for Democrat Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney, compared with 45% of men. The gap in 2012 was little different than it had been in Ronald Reagan’s victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980, when 45% of women and just 36% of men voted for Carter. The size of the gender gap has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range over the past 36 years; on average, women have been 8 percentage points more likely than men to back the Democratic candidate in elections since 1980.
I am sorry that I assumed you had an agenda. That kind of mistake is easy in posts because the cues we use in hearing people talk or watching their faces are absent.
I have had woman bashing from Central_va before with many interchanges and I just saw red for a little while. I hold no brief for all women or all men, no feminist drivel either. I do think that it is wrong to generalize because there are stellar, guys, stellar girls and lots of the other. When people say women should not have the vote I do get incensed. I believe voters should own property and pass a civics exam before their first vote however race, creed, ethic origin, gender are irrelevant in deciding if a particular individual is an upright, clear thinking responsible citizen.
So again mea culpa. I saw what I was primed to see which was my mistake.
OK. I did not casually dismiss Ann Coulter. That is my considered opinion after following her writing and her appearances for almost a decade. I liked her very much at first but then I found her to have topics on which she was irrational and illogical. Her attacks on POTUS are often over the top, swinging from being on the Trump train to Trump is destroying America & back in a few days time. I guess I am in the position of thinking that anyone who follows Ann for a few years is fully aware of her wild swings. I enjoy her when she’s on target and just shrug when she says stupid things like women shouldn’t vote.
I am in disagreement with you about the remainder of your post but intelligent well meaning people can disagree. Based on life experience we can use words differently.
In my field to say all women or all men is just unthinkable. Individual differences are paramount. I posted that article link because in my world showing that there exist women who sacrificed life, limb and health for America’s liberty disproves the hypothesis that women as a class vote to promote welfare and giveaways rather than policies in America’s interest. I was asked if there was any election in which women voted majority Republican. I responded with 3 examples. That doesn’t mean they always do or mostly do; it means that a blanket statement that they don’t is wrong.
The problem is not with men or women it is with the education that American’s receive and the politically correct version of history, economics and logic they are taught. The dumbing down is deliberate because it favors socialism & globalist policies. President Trump is bringing Americans up to speed on the realities of life and the common sense that is conservatism and the need a vibrant, competitive economy where the necessities are manufactured & grown inside our borders.
Hey, thanks for the heads up. I think that maybe their clerks pulled it from other places. Could be. It’s a great quote, though don’t you think?
Don't we all. No problem.
And that kind of duplicity doesn’t do your credibility any favors. You were explicitly told the statement you objected to was a generalization.
Intentionally conflating generalizations with a universal premise is a time-worn tactic of liberal mendacity, and unfit for anyone who claims to be a person of goodwill.
I note a measure of conciliation in your post for which I am grateful. Nevertheless, you wrote what you wrote, and that’s all I can go by.
If you insist on maintaining the interchangeability of the sexes with regard to politics and “patriotism” with nothing but anecdotes and ad hominem insinuations for support there’s really no way to change your mind, even if you’re wrong.
>> women shouldn’t vote
3 generations of women in my family vote Republican and support Trump.
>> Generalizations about the sexes are just and accurate.
Demographics generalizations are divisive tools of the Left.
Certainly, the majority of women vote Left, but I’ll take those that vote Right over the men the vote Left.
As for voting, I agree with you.
What incenses me is not that in one stroke the 19th Amendment gave women the vote, but that it completely changed both the political dynamic (as women are slightly greater in terms of numbers), and did so WITHOUT providing any new protections from what this new voting bloc could do to the Constitutional status quo.
The Framers wrote The Constitution with an eye toward governing men. The Constitution they gave us is incapable of governing with its previous efficacy an electorate comprised mostly of women in that the evils to which women are prone are of a wholly different character than the evils common to men.
I consider that a given woman may have any trait to a greater or lesser extent than any man and the sum of the traits & behaviors defines the individual, not the gender. To me a mind is not gendered and people who cherish honor, responsibility and kindness are kindred spirits whatever the color, gender, age or race.
Gender is a characteristic of a person and is immutable like race but is just one of many that describe a person. I see my point of view is alien to you but isn't that actually the purpose of places like FR? For trying to express my belief system honestly so that we might better understand each other, and both gain in the exercise you accuse me of duplicity. I can only be myself, I can be no other.
Intentionally conflating generalizations with a universal premise is a time-worn tactic of liberal mendacity, and unfit for anyone who claims to be a person of goodwill.
This statement delivers no context to me. If I do not accept your premise as true then a universal premise is a is merely a generalization. For the record I was not even a liberal in my youth and now I am old.
In trying to make sense of your position I looked into the terms you use and came up with this site which appears relevant. semanticscholar.org There are several chapters that review the connections between universal premise & generalization. To read the material without downloading one can access the cache. I submit that universal premises are shaky ground on which to stand and they often lead to generalizations, a viewpoint that the author expresses with much more elegance and rigor than I could bring to bear.
Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions ... - Semantic Scholar
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2OovvTf4QPwJ:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
/4d78/270ce80da87624e09f04df5d2cf408c3fc02.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1
Syllogistic Reasoning with Generic Premises:
The Generic Overgeneralization Effect
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88aeAIyhaJ0J:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3044/e3556eee948d10fab53fa02f2cfd9a6682b6.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1
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.