Posted on 05/08/2012 12:52:59 PM PDT by Mich1193
"Exploring Your Destiny" Sunday Service Webcast w/ Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Topic: How most women are building a shameless society. What do you think?
(Excerpt) Read more at liberty.com ...
None of the men mentioned were solely voted into office by women, unlike Wilson whose voters and electors were all male. Instead of this divisive time-waster of a supposition, how about we concentrate on educating voters instead of blaming them for their DNA?
Wow....all I can say is wow. Yep, it’s all our fault. All us emotional women who are incapable of control. /s
Wouldn’t be that stupid people vote stupidly....naaa couldn’t be that.
God made Eve as helpmate to Adam, not as property.
This guy is a class A MORON.
Thanks for the ping!
It’s absolutely not unique. I guess you’ve never read a child support thread.
Thanks for the warning! :)
I guess Isaiah was an imbecile, too.
cf. Isaiah 3:12
Little wonder. Just as African Americans are, by and large, the most unapologetic racists in modern American society, so are American women, by and large, the most unapologetic chauvinists.
See what I mean?
I rest my case.
Oh, please. You’re the one calling women names, and somehow I’m the chauvinist. You don’t know one thing about me. Get lost.
I know you reject, out of hand, any generalized criticism of women while making generalized criticism of FReepers on certain threads. Is that not chauvinism, by definition?
As for "getting lost," I suggest it is you who should get lost if the only reason you come to FreeRepublic is to have your vanity stroked.
This is, and always has been, a site primarily occupied by discussion and debate.
My mother always said giving women the vote was the stupidest thing they ever did!
With a hundred years of experience under our belts, I can only agree with your dear Mom insofar as they did so without altering the Constitution to restrain those proclivities common to women as they did with men in the original drafting of the document.
We would have been much wiser to set up a committee of successful, educated, civic minded women to advise on initiatives to protect the republic from unscrupulous women as an adjunct to the protections silently embedded by virtue of the Constitution's exclusively male oriented restraints.
As it stands, our laws laws and legal assumptions have become a very high defensive wall in an age of artillery.
...so this nation endorsed 'sharia' before 1920? Amazing how many people are comparing this Nation to a Muslim state between 1776 and 1920...'taliban'...'burqua'...'sharia'.
Next you'll be critiquing Jesus Christ because He wasn't 'enlightened' enough to select any women as one of His disciples...
She ran the household and held the keys.
The man was often out a Viking or fishing or off pasturing animals.
I am all for a division of labor - but to me that means that a woman is in charge of their area of responsibility.
And I am in charge of mine.
Ok, let's go all in w/Heinlein and make voting rights subject to military service. Only veterans get the franchise.
As far as "Took me 30 seconds to think of two ways that could be abused to the detriment of the Republic." would such "abuse be worse then the current system wherein we have a two party system where one party thinks that stuffing ballot boxes and cheating at the polls is acceptable practice for winning elections and the other party is too bashful to bring it up. Not to mention a court system that thinks requiring "photo ID" is too great a burden for disadvantaged voters to bear.
At the rate we are losing ground it won't be long before we have no Republic to defend.
Regards,
GtG
I have no problem with division of labor.
That is not in conflict with a single thing I stated earlier. But if you have a husband he’s the head of the house and if there is a conflict on something it is proper to defer to him, even if that means it’s not the decision you want. He may learn from a mistake that it’s wiser for him to listen to you on certain things because of it.
But you can’t have two people that are constantly at odds with each other on issues and continually fighting to get their own way. That’s not a working arrangement anybody wants to be in and that’s not the way a family works.
It would be self-serving-- and wrong-- for me to agree with that.
(In Heinlein's universe, it was citizenship-- of which voting is only a small part-- that was contingent upon service. Also, there were avenues of service for civic-minded persons lacking the aptitude or physical condition for the armed forces.)
The question remains, from one Veteran Landowner to (presumably) another; how could land tenure as a condition for voting rights be abused to the point of (a) devolving the Republic into a feudal state or (b) diluting land tenure to the point where more people than now are eligible?
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.