See other 4play Articles
Title: Why Women Shouldn’t be Allowed to Vote
Source:
Unclebob's Treehouse
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 21, 2010
Author: Bob Wallace
Post Date: 2010-08-21 10:44:39 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 461
Comments: 19
Before women got the vote, many intelligent women did not want them to get it. They thought they had more important things to do than get involved in politics. I known enough women to realize why they have been denied the vote: many of them are natural socialists. One of my girlfriends, who became a libertarian, believed many women are natural socialists, and she believed it because she had been one before she overcame it. All these women I have known, who are natural socialists, operated on the same irrational, fuzzy-minded beliefs: I am supposed to get back ten times more than I give. In other words, people are supposed to support and subsidize them, but their support and subsidizing others is supposed to be a fraction of what they get. I recently met a very intelligent woman who told me she was for national health care. When I gently asked her if she understood supply and demand, she admitted she did not. I told her that while the government can control supply, it cannot control demand. It can never control demand. Since under national health care, people will perceive cost as dropping to zero, demand will skyrocket. Since the government knows this will happen, rationing will happen, because of shortages. Sarah Palin, who understood this, correctly called these rationing bodies “death panels.” I’m not sure this woman believed me, but when I asked her if she would take a 50% cut in pay to subsidize everyone’s health care, would she do it? She told me “that wouldn’t happen,” which of course was not the question, I see the same beliefs among women when it comes to not understanding they cannot have a career and children at the same time. “If you quit work, and believe by law that your job should be waiting for you when you come back,” I’ve told them, “do you realize you are forcing your coworkers to cover your job, not get paid for it, and support your with their money if you get pregnancy pay?” They’ve never looked at it that way, and don’t seem to think it’s unfair until I ask them if they should be forced to take a large pay cut to subsidize other women taking off work for two years to have a kid. They’re not for that because of what I wrote: I should get ten times more than I give. Socialism is a female thing, even if men believe in it: we should by law be forced to share and do favors for another. We should be happy to do it and not feel resentful. And of course, socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money. Wages stopped going up in 1973, courtesy of our evil government. Had it stayed out of the free market, I wouldn’t be surprised if the average salary would be $70,000 a year. I estimate now less than five percent of men can support a family on their own. Yet I see meet women who think they supposed to be supported by men and are in a rage at them this isn’t happening (they’re also in rage when some guy making $75,000 a year is 5’6” and married to an Asian woman). Since this support can no longer happen, what these women do is marry the State. They become wards of the State and live on food stamps, in subsidized housing, with a medical card, and aid for their children. A life like this does not get better; it gets worse. One woman I know quite well believes it is all supposed to be free for her: free food, free utilities, a free apartment, free nice furniture. Of course, she is married to the State. That’s why women have traditionally been denied the vote. A society run solely by women – a socialist society – would be a destroyed society.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend, abraxas (#0)
Hahahaha!!!!
“How many Sex and the City fans have funneled all their maternal instincts into their Chinese bulldog without even noticing their ovaries have expired?”
this country's demise began a long, long time before women's suffrage.
Obama and the Women's Vote: Eight Million More Women than Men ... Nov 7, 2008 ... Exit polls show that Obama's emphasis on women's issues helped to bring him
All this may be true, but it was men that put this into action. And men voted for it too. So, our society is destroyed by morons of both sexes. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Men let women do it out of a misguided sense of fairness.
“How many Sex and the City fans have funneled all their maternal instincts into their Chinese bulldog without even noticing their ovaries have expired?”
I dont think it was misguided. All men and women should have the opportunity to be idiots. It's only fair. When we talk about the destructiveness of women, look at the temperance movement. They started it, and that helped no one but organized crime. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Carrie A. Nation was one of the main instigators - and she was insane -- and men did not stop her right at the beginning.
“How many Sex and the City fans have funneled all their maternal instincts into their Chinese bulldog without even noticing their ovaries have expired?”
I vote for the Lincoln administration.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
After slavery was abolished, they needed another cause to pour their energies into.
he who wants bread is the servant of the man that will feed him, if a man thus feeds a whole people, they are under his control.
And men voted for it too. So, our society is destroyed by morons of both sexes. . Actually, the 18th and 19th amendments were both forced through while most of the able bodied men were still in Europe after World War One waiting to rotate home. The 4-Fers, men left at home were browbeaten and denied female companionship and served cold/burned dinners until they relented. This is why after the majority of men returned they promptly repealed the ban on the production of alcohol. (It took longer to repeal the 18th amendment than to pass it because there were two sides to the issue once again. But, during the ratification there was no opposition while Americans were fighting for the French people's right to drink) This fact alone is proof that these amendments were not the will of the majority, but rather political anomalies caused by the Great War. I agree with chris that scapegoating women for their natural nesting/nurturing instincts fails to address the real causes. If men across the spectrum were doing their duty as vigilant citizens instead of voting for their special interests (farmers supporting DEMs, banksters buying PUBs) "the war to end all wars" would never have taken place or it wouldn't have been fought with American troops. Assuming women were in charge and they eventually learned the error of socialism, they still wouldn't solve the nation's problems by military-corporate plunder. Men have had forever to learn the error of our ways and we still won't even admit to the obvious, i.e. having the public credit issued by a private for-profit banking cabal is a mistake. And, if women stopped all foreign wars and brought the troops home while defunding the MIC/CIA it would be a long time before they bankrupted the nation and had to rethink their policies.
I would run the illegal aliens out. I would also collapse all of the government welfare into one program suggested by Milton Friedman which was a negative income tax. I would deny all voting privileges to the children of illegal aliens, to all welfare recipients including the negative income tax and to all dual Israeli citizens. That would cut the voting roles down to realistic levels.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
In going over the history of it, you're right. Good post. I'm not sure I agree that it was caused by the political anomalies of the war though. By best guess is that they intentionally took advantage of the situation to pass the amendment, like what happens today. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
Private charities could better address the needs of the less fortunate rather than the govt, which would invariably seek political advantage with the tax allowances. For instance under private relief food and shelter would be a priority, but under a govt plan it would likely be divided down the middle to fund daycare and "women's health clinics". Private charities couldn't be hamstrung into supporting policies they don't like, (few churches regard abortion as the political sacrament that it is) and any type of income tax is by definition destructive of property rights. And, it would likely continue as a make work program for countless non productive tax preparers, lawyers, inspectors (to determine govt eligibility) etc.,. And, there is no constitutionally permissible way you can take from Citizen A and give to Citizen B or respect the equal protection clause with a nego tax. Either way would be constitutionally deficient or irreconcilable. If people couldn't survive in a country unimpeded by the multi layers of wasteful govt under which we labor I'd be very surprised.
Perhaps I was a little too cautious in my choice of words. I agree with you of course, and by "political anomalies" I mean "sexual blackmail and endless female nagging" which was an anomalous form of lobbying, I guess. Let's not overlook that the only large blocs that could vote for or against suffrage were old men and pisswillies, and da wimmens were able to roll them with ease while the majority of testosterone was factored out.
Since I operate in a mans world, I'm gonna stride right into this testosterone toxic thread! Don't ever treat women as second class non-voters. The world would be with less needless wars if (non-Zionist) women held the reins of power. Now that we have birth control and we have less children to care for(including husbands), we need something to occupy our quite capable appendages. Controlling males is a good start. Health care! We NEED national health care. We need to dismantle corporate insurance companies because nothing as important as health care should be in the hands of profit driven, Wall Street whores. People should pay SOMETHING for health care based on their abilities. Free services always get abused. Get a national health care insurance and base monthly premiums, deductables, co- pays and all other fees on tax bracket. We would pay less because the amount of profit all the insurance companies and other middlemen take in is extraordinary. I am a Hospialist. I take care of sick inpatients. I get the ones without insurance because the attending phycisians will get no money from them, so they are mine. I get the drug overdoses, the insane, and the jailed as well as the poor. I spend much of my day in the ER admitting. THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!! WE NEED HELP. Who comes in without health insurance? Drug addicts? No, they have Medicaid. Mexicans? No, they have Medicaid or local churches/charities foot their bill. The people without health insurance are: (1)Those who work for small businesses without insurance, (2) Those with preexisting conditions, who can't get any type of insurance, (3) Those, who in bad economic times, without a job cannot afford insurance, and (4) Those who are self employed and cannot pay more than $1000 per month to obtain $10000 dedutable non-insurance. These people come in SICK. Their diabetes is too expensive to control and their blood pressure ignored. Even though 90% of health problems can be handled on Walmart $4 per month scripts, they cannot afford a doctor. Some times thats because they have no money left after food, rent, and cigarettes. We DO spend too much money on end of life care. Much of my servive is devoted to the over 90 population. In the last year of life, some patients get admitted one or two times a month and can only be kept alive with constant monitoring and tweaking in the hospital. 80% of Medicare funding goes to the elderly in the last 6 months of life. This is wasted, they gain no quality life, only prolonged death. Families and doctors need help deciding when to give up. Nobody wants to give up on somebody they love, or maybe somebody they wish they had loved more. Death Panels?? Maybe. We have a culture that abhors death and cannot accept in on any terms. I have thirty years behind me as a physician, death is an old friend as well as an enemy. Like a good book put on a shelf, sitting at the bedside of a dying friend/patient is a precious, bittersweet experience. Oh wait. Lets spend all our money fending off death. Do you know how it feels to do Cardiopulmonary ressusitation on a 80-90 year old? They all have osteoporosis. When I compress their chest to preserve life, I break every rib in their body. I feel them crunching under my hands and I remember my first oath. First, do no harm.
That is a great post, with some real world facts and advice.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" BULLSHIT! Women are freaking vicious! More so than men are, imo. There is no stopping a bitch-fight. I think costs could be cut when hospital pharmacies quit charging $20 for an aspirin. Hell, maybe it's more now. I'm going back a few years here. They charge that much because they know the insurance companies will pay that much. That is because, like you said, "We would pay less because the amount of profit all the insurance companies and other middlemen take in is extraordinary. " Another expense I read about is idiots going to the ER when they don't even need to see a nursing student. But by law you have to treat them and make their boo-boo feel better. There are probably numerous ways to cut costs. We have a culture that abhors death and cannot accept in on any terms. We have a culture that loves death. We need to dismantle corporate insurance companies because nothing as important as health care should be in the hands of profit driven, Wall Street whores. People should pay SOMETHING for health care based on their abilities. Dismantle insurance companies? Then who are the people going to pay that SOMETHING to? The government? Do you really want them in charge of anything more complicated than a 3rd grade spelling bee? What's the answer? .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files I've listened to preachers I've listened to fools I've watched all the dropouts Who make their own rules One person conditioned to rule and control The media sells it and you live the role ~Ozzy Osbourne: Crazy Train
And they would also be outraged by the suggestion that the man be supported by his wife.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. Ridiclous. Women are far more vicious than men, irrational, ruled by their feelings, and believe they are entitled to all the good things in lfie without working -- men or the government is supposed to give it to them.
“How many Sex and the City fans have funneled all their maternal instincts into their Chinese bulldog without even noticing their ovaries have expired?”
#2. To: Turtle (#0)
#3. To: Turtle (#1)
victory In the US presidential election of 2008.
#4. To: Turtle (#0)
A society run solely by women – a socialist society – would be a destroyed society.
#5. To: PSUSA (#4)
All this may be true, but it was men that put this into action
#6. To: Turtle (#5)
#7. To: PSUSA (#6)
When we talk about the destructiveness of women, look at the temperance movement. They started it, and that helped no one but organized crime.
#8. To: christine (#2)
#9. To: PSUSA (#6)
When we talk about the destructiveness of women, look at the temperance movement. They started it, and that helped no one but organized crime.
#10. To: PSUSA, christine (#4)
(Edited)
All this may be true, but it was men that put this into action.
#11. To: HOUNDDAWG, PSUSA, christine (#10)
#12. To: HOUNDDAWG (#10)
Actually, the 18th and 19th amendments were both forced through while most of the able bodied men were still in Europe after World War One waiting to rotate home. ... This fact alone is proof that these amendments were not the will of the majority, but rather political anomalies caused by the Great War.
#13. To: Horse (#11)
(Edited)
I would also collapse all of the government welfare into one program suggested by Milton Friedman which was a negative income tax.
#14. To: PSUSA (#12)
I'm not sure I agree that it was caused by the political anomalies of the war though. By best guess is that they intentionally took advantage of the situation to pass the amendment, like what happens today.
#15. To: Turtle (#0)
#16. To: octavia (#15)
#17. To: octavia (#15)
(Edited)
The world would be with less needless wars if (non-Zionist) women held the reins of power.
#18. To: Turtle (#0)
Yet I see meet women who think they supposed to be supported by men and are in a rage at them this isn’t happening
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
#19. To: octavia (#15)
The world would be with less needless wars if (non-Zionist) women held the reins of power.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest