Posted on 01/11/2008 1:11:51 PM PST by neverdem
*sigh* Ratified in 1920, capping and marking undoubtedly the most damaging twenty years in American history. All the social ills and political deterioration we face today have their origins between 1900-1920.
Is this why this country overspends?
You can bet that it has.
It was male voters who elected Jimmy Carter and supported Hubert Humphrey.
If you want to see a voting gap, check out the marriage gap (between married and unmarried voters).
What came first, men leaving the family, or government programs that encouraged them to do so? The programs came first, with their mandates that no men would be around.
Women voters turned government into the de facto husband because primarily because of their worldview of attempting to be ‘compassionate’ by using government to ‘fix’ things. Many spineless men did as well, but for different reasons.
Either way, you can’t have government trying to solve everyone’s problems and somehow be the arm of compassion for everyone. Forced compassion isn’t compassion. Taking money from one or more groups to help out other groups whether they want to help or not is not compassion. When one person does this to another it is robbery. When govt does it it’s ‘compassion’?
And this is the fundamental problem we face now because it’s about to cave in on itself. Go to Google and type in “Davy Crockett Sockdolager” (no quotes) and read the story.
You know, not ALL the programs came about beforehand. But there had been momentum building up to that point, and once the programs were in place the acceleration of such behavior just took off.
Just sit and think about how these programs destroyed the black family in this country. Where I live 83% of the black kids are born out of wedlock. 5 out of 6 black kids don’t have a married mom and dad.
Bust, as I said earlier, surveys showed that a bare majority of women vote for Nixon, not JFK.
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that no “tests” can be given to potential voters.
Assuming that’s accurate, it should be remembered that the differences between the parties weren’t that great pre-1964. Both parties had large liberal wings and large conservative wings. One of JFK’s winning issues was a claim that the Eisenhower-Nixon administration had allowed the Soviets to build more missiles than us (the phony “missile gap”). Kennedy promised a massive military build-up in response. Nixon also embraced civil rights legislation more openly than JFK, who had to walk a thin line to keep Southern Democrat supporters from bolting.
Nixon’s running mate was Massachusetts liberal Henry Cabot Lodge. JFK’s was LBJ, who had opposed civil rights legislation and was a hawk on national defense. Both parties in 1960 supported the New Deal, as Robert Taft’s attempted conservative takeover of the GOP had long been turned back.
So the 1960 election wasn’t the clear conservative Republican vs. liberal Democrat contest we project it to be today in hindsight.
The gender gap really began to escalate after the 1960s. I’ve seen data (though I don’t have it handy right now) that Ford edged Carter among women in 1976. Another survey showed that Carter barely won among women. But again, Carter was widely believed in 1976 to be a conservative Democrat (he wasn’t, but millions of voters that year thought he was), while Ford was a “moderate” Republican who had a feminist wife, and who had turned back (delayed) the conservative Reagan revolution.
Since 1976 our presidential elections have generally featured a liberal Democrat vs. a conservative Republican, and in those elections the women’s vote clearly trends ‘Rat. The gender gap has also increased as a consequence of the sexual revolution, which has left us with a large block of women voters who have children but no husband, and they vote overwhelmingly for the state to take on the husband’s provider role.
Other social trends, such as the general feminization of culture (touchy-feely TV shows, public schools emphasizing feelings over performance, etc.) have further pushed women leftward.
There’s no doubt that Hillary or Obama would easily be elected president this year if only women voted.
Single women? This election was held at the end of the ‘50s. The Vassar girls hadn’t yet decided that marriage was a prison, that it was no substitute for a career. The ‘50s didn’t really begin until 1953 and didn’t end until 1963.
Single women? This election was held at the end of the ‘50s. The Vassar girls hadn’t yet decided that marriage was a prison, that it was no substitute for a career. The ‘50s didn’t really begin until 1953 and didn’t end until 1963.
My wife has been spending more time studying the Bible. Since she started she seems to be able to see through a lot of the deceptions on Oprah, Montel, etc...
It’s an amazing phenomenon to witness!
Bite yourself, and John Lott, and Ann Coulter and article author Pam Meister, T’elliot. “... growth in government spending - a Democrat specialty - can be directly linked to women’s suffrage, both at the state and federal level because, ... “women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life.”
Well, that would be a logical idea. But who needs logic when you have misogyny?
Wyoming - first state to allow women to vote (1869)
Wyoming 2004 Presidential Election Results:
Bush/Cheney.....167,629
Kerry/Edwards...70,776
Oops! Not quite a bunch of liberal feminazis, are they?
If every state voted like Wyoming, we’d never have another Democrat in office.
According to some posters on this thread, this country has been destroyed by women. That makes me angry.
Lumping me in with liberals makes me angry, too. Liberals have ruined this country, not women. I live in a red state, and every woman I know is a conservative.
And if Hillary Clinton gets elected, I won't blame women. I will blame the conservatives who sit out the election because they can't vote for their "dream" candidate, and we all get Ross Peroted again, which is how we ended up with the Clintons in the first place.
That would allow people like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton to continue voting.
Most interesting analysis.
What sexist BS!
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.