You wrote some interesting comments. I'll try to reply to some of those.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #46 :
"
When you can post a logical reason we should back WW3, get back to me cupcake."
...but not that comment. It says enough by itself.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #50 :
"
I recently had a 2 day battle with one who was so sure of his position that I invited him to turn men in to DHS as an enemy agent or at least to JR as a liberal...Lots of hyperpatriotic hot air from lots of people that can’t think 2 inches ahead of what happens when you stand impotently punching a pit bull."
That's "battle" in the metaphorical sense, and it is revealing. So are the other statements there.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #70 :
"
What exactly benefits America by tobogganing Russia?"
Poor Russia. We've seen such victimology issued from the same kinds of constituencies that often use words like "battle" metaphorically.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #87 :
"
Oil flow there matters to Europe. Not to us. We are awash in oil...Where exactly has Russia confronted us at ANY time?"
Total daily U.S. oil production is at about two-thirds of what we consume. Crude oil production is less than half. Shale oil plays don't last long. "Latest year" follows.
U.S. Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US
But your comment was beside the point. There's plenty of oil for waging wars, but prices will go up for civilian consumers. That's a price for our continuing access to oil at all.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #100 :
"
When you have 2 countries hostile and you send one food, is that not helping them against the other?"
Russia has not been cheated on that. We've sent many loads of food to Russia for quite a few decades, even during some of the times that Russia posed antagonistically.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #101 :
"
So do you think they are going to pussyfoot around when Obama and the GOP start shipping food while Ukraine saves the cash for more weapons/other uses?"
We should be arming Ukraine.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #104 :
"
A time where every man woman child and government funded transvestite is over 100,000 bucks in the hole at birth thanks to sending the Ukraines of the world food and cash"
There is special concern about the financial wealth of transvestites in some constituencies.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #119 :
"
Because there are no national security interests these days."
Thanks to our contemporary political, business and academic leadership, we've had "whorled peas" for a long time. Irony on my part there, of course. More commie/fascist nations are building up their nuclear weapons forces with their leaders repeatedly threatening to use them against our country and those of our allies. They should be nuked.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #125 :
"
Why do you think Japan is rearming? Why are all these allies abandoning us?"
Our nation has been helping Japan with that buildup. Japan has anti-ballistic missile systems now. It's public, common knowledge. Japan is closer to the West than ever before.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #128 :
"
As for me, Bedtime for Bonzo. you are welcome to keep describing your imaginary world where our foreign policy that never failed has now failed and yet is no different."
"Bedtime for Bonzo?" The Reagan Administration's foreign and defense policy was its strongest suit. It's common knowledge that the policy was quite warlike, too. As for defense posture in general, it has to be maintained regardless of effeminate political speech focusing on individual personalities. It's a matter of survival for the West. Despite man-hating campaigns to feminize and pervert our military force followed by perverts' pretenses to abhor their own campaigns afterwards, our military force is not wearing a dress (despite saying "yes ma'am" to fool liberaltarians).
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #166:
"
Well then Buttercup, as I told another chest thumping hyperpatriot banging the war drums last week, you have a duty as an American to contact Fedgov and turn me and all those like me in as the foreign agents you believe us to be. At the very least, ping JR and have us zotted as liberal scum...When you begin the game of backing one hostile country with food, med supplies ect, that is in and of itself an act of war...As such, take your ‘appeasement’ talking point and shove it firmly yet lovingly, with special attention to social justice, homosexual rights for the military and perhaps a slice of lime for added ‘zing’."
That comment said plenty for itself, too.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #174:
"
But if we ship supplies and Putin decides it is an act of war, his people will quickly pull russian businesses in the ‘correct’ mindframe. Just as Russian leaders have done for centuries."
That one says more than enough, too. Our interests are those of the U.S.A.--not the Soviet Union or any shade of Russia.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #175:
"
The drone attacks that set world opinion further against us? That is a foreign policy success in your book?"
There will be many more of the most advanced combat drones built for U.S. defense, and no political speech from irrelevant anti-defense constituents will stop that process.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #182 :
"
Is it like dropping acid?"
Conservatives have no insight about that.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #189 :
"
Kinda like us going to the Ukraine and running an Occupy wall St type scam."
That one says enough for conservatives, but our soldiers are not participating in such a scam.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #195 :
"
As opposed to impotent chest thumpers"
Anti-defense constituents tend to project their own shortcomings on conservatives.
Norm Lenhart wrote
in comment #208 :
"
Losing an argument sucks I hear. Makes people haZ a sad. You haZ a sad. Do the math."
Conservatives also avoid indulging in that kind of speech.
How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?
JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (download links for whole document at bottom of page)
September 1998
University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 60
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, Number 6, Part 1, pp. 1163-1198, December 1999
Abstract:
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.