Posted on 05/08/2012 12:52:59 PM PDT by Mich1193
Bingo. Jefferson knew what he was talking about...
Plus spending at sustainable and reasonable levels.
The margin of women who vote for socialists/nanny state IS scary, so why don't we discuss it?
Heck, from what I hear about the "Life of Julia" statist propaganda piece from the Big Zero, it begs the question...what idiots are they progagandizing that would buy into that and would it be better if those (regardless of gender) who have a stake in the public trough, be restricted from voting?
That, combined with 5 points of voter fraud.
ANN COULTER reasons it this way:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”
I didn’t read the article, but thought I’d repeat what I’ve posted in the past quite often when a thread like this warrants the post.
My wife believes that women shouldn’t have the vote simply because as she states of the absolutely stupid reasons they vote for. Mostly emotional, impulsive.
Records indicate the women’s vote successfully sicced upon our society Carter, Clinton, and Obama to name a few.
I don’t argue with her.
“The problem with mankind is that men are lunatics and women are idiots.” - Rebecca West
“The women got the vote and the nation got Harding.” - anon
Anne Coulter made more or less the same point. Votes for women means big government and income redistribution.
????
Funny statistic. That's a long time ago now, and I believe women were more Republican back then. What about more recent elections?
The problem with these kinds of hypotheticals is that changing one factor means other factors change. Without women's suffrage the more liberal party would behave differently and make more of an appeal to men, rather than to part of the population that couldn't vote. Government policy might be different, but it's hard to imagine Republicans winning every election and Democrats not doing anything about it because they were committed to winning votes that weren't being cast.
When women began voting nationally, the large majority of woman voters were married and voted pretty much as their husbands did. But in the last thirty to forty years or so, with more unmarried women and more women reliant on Big Brother, there has been a noticeable "gender gap" in the presidential vote, with women significantly more likely to vote Democrat.
If I'm not mistaken, no Democrat in a presidential race has won the men's vote since Lyndon Johnson! So it's reasonable to think that the country would have been spared quite a number of left-leaning policies had it not been for the Nineteenth Amendment.
God help us and this guy is supposed to be on our side....no more.
Oh, goody. Another “Wimmin R Evil” thread on FR. I’m shocked.
You’ve got to admit that without the women’s vote we probably wouldn’t be falling into a marxist cesspool.
“If I’m not mistaken, no Democrat in a presidential race has won the men’s vote since Lyndon Johnson!”
Wasted away again in Margaritaville,
Searchin’ for my lost shaker of salt.
Some people claim that there’s a woman to blame,
Now I think, - hell it could be my fault.
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jimmy-Buffett/Margaritaville.html
[[ ANN COULTER reasons it this way:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.” ]]
Ms. Coulter got it right.
Women are —by their very nature — socialists.
Men, however, are largely individualists by their internal constitutions.
To men, freedom matters.
But women, on the other hand, prefer “security” and safety. Again, this is “in their nature”.
What did Mr. Franklin have to say about that subject, a few centuries ago?
I’m gettin’ old, was never that smart, and my opinion don’t count for much.
But if I had my way...
- The voting age for males would be returned to 21, with the exception of those enlisted in the military, who would be granted the privilege of voting from “age 18 upward”.
- Single females would be granted the vote when they reached the age of 30. If they married prior to age 30, females would be granted the vote subsequent to their marriage.
- Women who were serving in the military, married or unmarried, would be given voting privileges identical to males, i.e., “from age 18 upward”, and would carry such privileges subsequent to their military service.
The devolution of the republic from freedom to socialism that we have been witnessing through the early twentieth century to the present is a direct result of “granting too much suffrage” to those who had been denied it in earlier times. Unfortunately, I see no way to reverse the trend, other than to “break free” from the current republic, and reconstruct a new one that is actually a reversion to “the old ways” (of, say, the nineteenth century) — ways that are now considered misogynist, racis’, xenophobic, blah, blah, blah....
Well women are certainly TAXED, and always have been - even when they were denied equal representation!
Add motor voter to that!
LOL!
You had a very wise uncle!
Loren C ? Is that you?
:)
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.