View Full Version : ONLY 36% of women lean Republican, lower than ever
randomname
09-20-2013, 12:56 PM
http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sept-18-poll-graphic-2-1.jpg
For Democrats, their biggest net positive is from the gains they’ve made, and built on, with female voters. The Democrats’ edge with women voters has more than doubled since 2010, from six points to 15 points, with Democrats consistently hammering Republicans over social issues, alleging a “war on women.” In 2010, Democrats only held a slim 47%-41% advantage, but in 2013 they lead 51%-36%. Among white women, Democrats erased a seven point deficit during their 2010 losses and now have a one point edge. If the GOP slide continues — a key factor in Romney’s loss in 2012 — it’s a bad sign for Republicans.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/19/reasons-to-expect-more-of-the-same-from-congress/
kathy88
09-20-2013, 01:08 PM
Not hard to believe. With the media spewing 24/7 how the R's hate women and want to send them back to *gasp* the kitchen. A good way to at least make the mouth breather libbers take a step back is to stress that it's funny to see them begging the government to help them acquire special rights over other groups, as opposed to fighting government for rights for everyone. I've seen a couple heads explode.
ObiRandKenobi
09-20-2013, 01:11 PM
some women are radical feminists who put birth control above all else.
other women like strong, manly men.
the gop are mushy dorks that cater to neither.
kathy88
09-20-2013, 01:12 PM
some women are feminists. some women like strong, manly men.
the gop caters to neither.
Some women exist without needing a man to define her, but don't consider themselves feminists.
Sola_Fide
09-20-2013, 01:13 PM
Can Rand's hair bring them home?
calendula
09-20-2013, 01:16 PM
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
Danke
09-20-2013, 01:17 PM
Some women exist without needing a man to define her, but don't consider themselves feminists.
And some women are beyond all definitions.
kathy88
09-20-2013, 01:17 PM
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
OMG I forgot about that ass clown!
calendula
09-20-2013, 01:22 PM
I didn't, but I guess I tend to hold a grudge. People like him just kinda ruin the republican party for me.
TheGrinch
09-20-2013, 01:22 PM
Meh, I think it has do with more white women digging black guys nowadays
http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/obama-and-ladies.jpg
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
this
idiom
09-20-2013, 01:40 PM
Well. Hillary will send em all back to the GOP right? Right?
angelatc
09-20-2013, 01:45 PM
Not hard to believe. With the media spewing 24/7 how the R's hate women and want to send them back to *gasp* the kitchen. A good way to at least make the mouth breather libbers take a step back is to stress that it's funny to see them begging the government to help them acquire special rights over other groups, as opposed to fighting government for rights for everyone. I've seen a couple heads explode.
Not to mention the destruction of marriage and family lifestyle. Now people think you're better off going on welfare than getting married at 19.
angelatc
09-20-2013, 01:47 PM
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
Oh look - a new member, pretending to be a Republican.
The Libtard media made that an issue. God forbid they get excited about Democrats dropping bombs on people. We are all better off now that a Democrat has that seat - not.
Like it or not, people his age were taught that in school.
ObiRandKenobi
09-20-2013, 01:49 PM
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
todd akin has like 0% name recognition. to think promiscuous fake blondes who break 9-to-1 for statism have any idea who todd akin is, is what's retarded.
krugminator
09-20-2013, 01:55 PM
The fact of the matter is women genetically do not think the same as men. Conservatism or libertarianism (especially in economics) appeals much more to logic than gut feel and intuition. The Republican party needs to personalize its economic message more.
calendula
09-20-2013, 01:58 PM
todd akin has like 0% name recognition. to think promiscuous fake blondes who break 9-to-1 for statism have any idea who todd akin is, is what's retarded.
64 percent of the female population are promiscuous fake blondes?
calendula
09-20-2013, 01:59 PM
Oh look - a new member, pretending to be a Republican.
The Libtard media made that an issue. God forbid they get excited about Democrats dropping bombs on people. We are all better off now that a Democrat has that seat - not.
Like it or not, people his age were taught that in school.
You are going to have to explain this "pretending to be a republican" bit to me.
angelatc
09-20-2013, 02:01 PM
You are going to have to explain this "pretending to be a republican" bit to me.
No, I think you are doing a great job of doing that for me.
JCDenton0451
09-20-2013, 02:28 PM
Conservatives, take notice! This is how far mandatory ultrasounds get you with female voters.:rolleyes:
I'm just waiting for Cooch to lose his election in Virginia to really drive the message home.
ObiRandKenobi
09-20-2013, 02:54 PM
Conservatives, take notice! This is how far mandatory ultrasounds get you with female voters.:rolleyes:
75% of women couldn't pick mcauly or cooch out of a lineup (same goes for men).
chicks will vote for whoever they are told gives them more free stuff. the end. goodbye.
AuH20
09-20-2013, 02:56 PM
75% of women couldn't pick mcauly or cooch out of a lineup (same goes for men).
chicks will vote for whoever they are told gives them more free stuff. the end. goodbye.
Yup. That's how they usually arrive at their marriage decisions. LOL
JCDenton0451
09-20-2013, 02:59 PM
You know, if any of you were saying the same things about blacks that you say about blonde women, the more PC posters on board would label you 'racist'.
matt0611
09-20-2013, 03:15 PM
Women are more emotional creatures than men are when it comes to politics and democrats have put their "emotional message" on overdrive. "War on women", "republicans are racist", "the tea party are terrorists", "republicans want to take away your birth control", "republicans want people to have guns so they can kill children in schools", "republicans are against 'equal pay' ", "republicans don't care about the poor" etc etc
Is it any surprise?
People do actually eat this stuff up, more women than men.
Deborah K
09-20-2013, 03:17 PM
Okay wait a minute. This is a poll conducted by whom? NBC/Wall Street Journal polling?? No agenda there.
Deborah K
09-20-2013, 03:21 PM
The fact of the matter is women genetically do not think the same as men. Conservatism or libertarianism (especially in economics) appeals much more to logic than gut feel and intuition. The Republican party needs to personalize its economic message more.
What the hell are you talking about?? I was a man in my prior life, damnit.
JCDenton0451
09-20-2013, 03:23 PM
Women are more emotional creatures than men are when it comes to politics and democrats have put their "emotional message" on overdrive. "War on women", "republicans are racist", "the tea party are terrorists", "republicans want to take away your birth control", "republicans want people to have guns so they can kill children in schools", "republicans are against 'equal pay' ", "republicans don't care about the poor" etc etc
Is it any surprise?
People do actually eat this stuff up, more women than men.
This is true to an extent, but you have to admit: Social Conservatives provide them lots of material to work with.
Barrex
09-20-2013, 03:25 PM
Screw it I am derailing this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-wBo5_sV0I
P.s.
Ginger kids dont have souls.
enhanced_deficit
09-20-2013, 03:52 PM
Meh, I think it has do with more white women digging black guys nowadays
Is he good shopping buddy?
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/features/gay-marriage-fight/_jcr_content/c-col/promo/image.img.283.png/1337024039786.cached.png (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=yOw0-A-PHgXsnM&tbnid=ii7ZVDUqedwejM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles% 2F2012%2F05%2F14%2Fmedia-reaction-to-newsweek-s-obama-the-first-gay-president-cover.html&ei=WMM8Uq_rFM-q4AO4j4HoBQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNFzz448_bua2D7-OwshGwaX46G0YQ&ust=1379800232188665)http://images.smh.com.au/2013/08/12/4655867/nw-nr-obama--300x0.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Ql5nnz6XlZWPwM&tbnid=uw8YI4UcojaFBM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fworld%2Fobama-on-holiday-means-chaos-for-locals-20130812-2rsaf.html&ei=zcM8UsniCa-t4APV7YD4Dg&bvm=bv.52434380,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNGhWaajojvYukvcs89YnSgA-kzdvQ&ust=1379800385726243)
MelissaWV
09-20-2013, 04:02 PM
In b4 sexist comments implying women are dumb, emotion-driven gold-digging whores.
Oops. Too late.
acptulsa
09-20-2013, 04:08 PM
Our very own Blue Republican selling points could turn all that around. We just need to learn how not to say, 'No free stuff at all,' and replace it with, 'No free stuff from the federal government at all.' Unless you're a local or state candidate, that is.
The more it's centralized the more bureaucrats take a cut or a kickback before what's left gets to those who need it. We can sell that. We have, and we can again.
In b4 sexist comments implying women are dumb, emotion-driven gold-digging whores.
Oops. Too late.
Gotta get up pretty early in the morning... :rolleyes:
Deborah K
09-20-2013, 04:10 PM
Women are more emotional creatures than men are when it comes to politics and democrats have put their "emotional message" on overdrive. "War on women", "republicans are racist", "the tea party are terrorists", "republicans want to take away your birth control", "republicans want people to have guns so they can kill children in schools", "republicans are against 'equal pay' ", "republicans don't care about the poor" etc etc
Is it any surprise?
People do actually eat this stuff up, more women than men.
I dunno.....I've met some pretty pussified men in my time.
Brian4Liberty
09-20-2013, 04:15 PM
Divide and conquer.
James Madison
09-20-2013, 04:18 PM
This is true to an extent, but you have to admit: Social Conservatives provide them lots of material to work with.
Name one policy that's objectively 'anti-woman'. And the mythical right to kill your kid doesn't count.
JCDenton0451
09-20-2013, 04:18 PM
In b4 sexist comments implying women are dumb, emotion-driven gold-digging whores.
Oops. Too late.
Republicans really do have a problem with women. Which is a shame, because male chauvinism is a luxury they can no longer afford. While Rand Paul is busy with his minority outreach, his advisors might want to consider reaching out to women as well.
Deborah K
09-20-2013, 04:22 PM
Republicans really do have a problem with women. Which is a shame, because male chauvinism is a luxury they can no longer afford. While Rand Paul is busy with his minority outreach, his advisors might want to consider reaching out to women as well.
Then why does Sarah Palin's FB page have a gazillion likes?? All men? I doubt it.
JCDenton0451
09-20-2013, 04:23 PM
Name one policy that's objectively 'anti-woman'. And the mythical right to kill your kid doesn't count.
Mandatory ultrasounds? They serve no purpose other than to humiliate the women who seek abortion.
It's not just what the socons do (thankfully they don't have much power in this country), but what they say: these people tend to be extremely ignorant, close-minded and insensitive.
JK/SEA
09-20-2013, 04:26 PM
Divide and conquer.
ahhhh, the ol' Left/Right paradigm meme...
My wife was a Republican only because Ron Paul was in that particular group...
today?.....not so much...
James Madison
09-20-2013, 04:35 PM
Mandatory ultrasounds? They serve no purpose other than to humiliate the women who seek abortion.
It's not just what the socons do (thankfully they don't have much power in this country), but what they say: these people tend to be extremely ignorant, close-minded and insensitive.
Mandatory ultrasounds are stupid, but aren't exactly anti-woman. No worse than having to piss in a cup once a year.
Having said that, I have little sympathy for women who solicit murder.
“The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” – Michele Bachmann, October 2006.
I reckon that doesn't help the GOP with women.
cajuncocoa
09-20-2013, 04:43 PM
Oh look - a new member, pretending to be a Republican.
The Libtard media made that an issue. God forbid they get excited about Democrats dropping bombs on people. We are all better off now that a Democrat has that seat - not.
Like it or not, people his age were taught that in school.
I don't know where you get that from. My Dad was older than Todd Akin; I can't imagine he would EVER have said such a thing.
BTW, it's not required to be (or pretend to be) Republican to post here.
Deborah K
09-20-2013, 04:45 PM
“The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” – Michele Bachmann, October 2006.
I reckon that doesn't help the GOP with women.
Bachmann is not the be-all-end-all for women, republican or otherwise. And besides, being submissive to your husband can be pretty sexy - just sayin'.
Seraphim
09-20-2013, 04:49 PM
He said some women LIKE strong men, not that they require said strong man to define their existence.
Some women exist without needing a man to define her, but don't consider themselves feminists.
Anti Federalist
09-20-2013, 05:00 PM
Not to mention the destruction of marriage and family lifestyle. Now people think you're better off going on welfare than getting married at 19.
Financially?
You probably are.
Not too many jobs out there that a 19 man can support a wife and child on.
Of course, that's the plan.
Anti Federalist
09-20-2013, 05:03 PM
Some women exist without needing a man to define her, but don't consider themselves feminists.
My wife and children certainly help define me, in a positive way, and I'm glad for it.
That is what marriage and family is supposed to do, I think.
Anti Federalist
09-20-2013, 05:04 PM
And why am I not surprised at this.
Women, as a demographic, support bigger government and less freedom, across a whole range of issues.
LibertyEagle
09-20-2013, 05:19 PM
You are going to have to explain this "pretending to be a republican" bit to me.
Welcome to the forum. :)
Antischism
09-20-2013, 05:22 PM
Not at all surprising. One of the few things the two parties truly differ on, the abortion issue, is a pretty big deal for a lot of women. I believe women are also more sympathetic towards the LGBT community and Republicans always seem to have a sound byte ready where they say something unsavory about homosexuality. Then there's the issue of contraceptives, and you get people like Michelle Bachmann saying that wives need to be submissive to their husband, because God says so.
If I were your average woman, I'd seriously consider not wanting to identify as a Republican, too.
LibertyEagle
09-20-2013, 05:24 PM
Women are more emotional creatures than men are when it comes to politics and democrats have put their "emotional message" on overdrive. "War on women", "republicans are racist", "the tea party are terrorists", "republicans want to take away your birth control", "republicans want people to have guns so they can kill children in schools", "republicans are against 'equal pay' ", "republicans don't care about the poor" etc etc
Is it any surprise?
People do actually eat this stuff up, more women than men.
Most PEOPLE vote based on emotion. That is something many in this movement don't seem to acknowledge. Obama's handlers knew it and knew it well. That is largely why he won.
randomname
09-20-2013, 05:24 PM
In b4 sexist comments implying women are dumb, emotion-driven gold-digging whores.
Oops. Too late.
In b4 comments stating women shouldnt be allowed to vote
I<3Liberty
09-20-2013, 05:33 PM
I can't stand the GOP's dismal rhetoric; Bachman and Atkins are two great examples of how hideous it has been.
Note: the GOP also has issues with getting support from other groups (especially youth.)
Personally, I registered libertarian as soon as I turned 18. I didn't want to associate with the republicrat party because they (the non-liberty republicans) are just as terrible as the democrats. http://randumbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Election-Year-2012-Different-Animals-Same-Shit.jpg
Can Rand's hair bring them home?
Haha! +rep
Considering thi (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=17028146)s didn't work for the GOP in '12, I highly doubt it. Given some of his positions and voting history, I don't even feel like I can refer to him as a republican, but one thing for sure is he's absolutely adorable. I joked that Ryan was Romney's effort to get more votes from women. My hardcore republicrat friends didn't like that. :D
Zippyjuan
09-20-2013, 05:35 PM
Republicans need to attract more than just angry white males to succeed.
AuH20
09-20-2013, 05:57 PM
And why am I not surprised at this.
Women, as a demographic, support bigger government and less freedom, across a whole range of issues.
You sir, win a prize!
JustinTime
09-20-2013, 06:17 PM
They do just fine with married white women.
The problem with Republicans is they don't know where their goddamned bread is buttered, they have not protected their base (the white middle class). People have a strong, STRONG tendency to vote based on their identity.
JustinTime
09-20-2013, 06:22 PM
Not at all surprising. One of the few things the two parties truly differ on, the abortion issue, is a pretty big deal for a lot of women. I believe women are also more sympathetic towards the LGBT community and Republicans always seem to have a sound byte ready where they say something unsavory about homosexuality. Then there's the issue of contraceptives,
Nobodys taking anyone contraceptives away, that's just fear-mongering BS. All most Republicans have ever asked, and rightly so, is that you pay for your own. But the Dems own the spin machine.
and you get people like Michelle Bachmann saying that wives need to be submissive to their husband, because God says so.
Why does anyone give a shit? Its just her religious opinion, she isn't introducing legislation to require that of women. Im an athetist but Im not concerned one iota about a politcians religion as long as they act constitutionally.
matt0611
09-20-2013, 06:25 PM
Most PEOPLE vote based on emotion. That is something many in this movement don't seem to acknowledge. Obama's handlers knew it and knew it well. That is largely why he won.
I agree with that statement.
HOLLYWOOD
09-20-2013, 06:29 PM
some women are radical feminists who put birth control above all else.
other women like strong, manly men.
the gop are mushy dorks that cater to neither.Yeah, these trivial(compare to a fiscal/monetary collapse) single issue mentally people drive me nuts. They could care less about the constitution/rights/liberties/inflation/wars/etc etc... but if you support: Day After Pill, Peta, million lesbian march, Oprah, Curics, Kardashians, and American Idol , YOU HAVE MY VOTE!
Conservatives, take notice! This is how far mandatory ultrasounds get you with female voters.:rolleyes:
I'm just waiting for Cooch to lose his election in Virginia to really drive the message home.Yeah, Cuccunelli has gone full political retard with the corruption and social issues. If anyone loses Virginia, it will be Ken nimself and his moronic advisers.
Brett85
09-20-2013, 06:31 PM
So apparently keeping it legal to murder babies is more important to women voters than any other issue.
kcchiefs6465
09-20-2013, 07:50 PM
So apparently keeping it legal to murder babies is more important to women voters than any other issue.
Or maybe the condescending tone as evidenced here has something to do with it as well?
Liberty isn't a white male only ideology, not that you think it is, but to be clear. It is popular if people display it in a way that appeals to their audience. Not that republicans preach a philosophy of liberty but you know what I mean.
It doesn't help when retards get a mic and spout off nonsense of naturally repelling sperm in instances of rape. Then that sound bite gets played millions of times over in an age where many are getting their current events from the Daily Show and it's really no wonder why numbers might be low. If you asked me, let republican females be disenfranchised from the republican party. Makes my job easier. And on that same coin let democrat females feel disenfranchised from the democratic party. Makes my job easier.
Brett85
09-20-2013, 07:56 PM
Or maybe the condescending tone as evidenced here has something to do with it as well?
Liberty isn't a white male only ideology, not that you think it is, but to be clear. It is popular if people display it in a way that appeals to their audience. Not that republicans preach a philosophy of liberty but you know what I mean.
It doesn't help when retards get a mic and spout off nonsense of naturally repelling sperm in instances of rape. Then that sound bite gets played millions of times over in an age where many are getting their current events from the Daily Show and it's really no wonder why numbers might be low. If you asked me, let republican females be disenfranchised from the republican party. Makes my job easier. And on that same coin let democrat females feel disenfranchised from the democratic party. Makes my job easier.
Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't seem like women are much fonder of libertarianism than they are of republicanism. I mentioned abortion as one reason why women don't vote Republican, but the polls show that they're much more likely than men to support social welfare programs as well. It seems like it's near impossible to get their vote when they reject the core of the message.
Jordan
09-20-2013, 08:00 PM
Generally speaking, women have reason to approve of things like more Social Security, Medicare, whatever. They live longer. Makes total sense.
Southron
09-20-2013, 08:50 PM
The problem with Republicans is they don't know where their goddamned bread is buttered, they have not protected their base (the white middle class). People have a strong, STRONG tendency to vote based on their identity.
This is true. Republicans still don't have a clue why they lost the last two presidential elections.
Antischism
09-20-2013, 09:03 PM
Nobodys taking anyone contraceptives away, that's just fear-mongering BS. All most Republicans have ever asked, and rightly so, is that you pay for your own. But the Dems own the spin machine.
Why does anyone give a shit? Its just her religious opinion, she isn't introducing legislation to require that of women. Im an athetist but Im not concerned one iota about a politcians religion as long as they act constitutionally.
That's you. Other people do care what people in positions of power state publicly, because they fear it may influence their future decisions. It's a perfectly valid concern when politicians have been known to lie and pursue their own personal agendas. The rhetoric matters to your average person. Hear something enough from Republicans, and they'll just associate Republicans with that message. Not that Republicans are overall any worse than Democrats, but for women voters who don't follow politics and have certain core issues that may sway them (like abortion rights), they'll vote Democrat.
kcchiefs6465
09-20-2013, 09:09 PM
Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't seem like women are much fonder of libertarianism than they are of republicanism. I mentioned abortion as one reason why women don't vote Republican, but the polls show that they're much more likely than men to support social welfare programs as well. It seems like it's near impossible to get their vote when they reject the core of the message.
I like to think I can level with anyone no matter their concerns or pet issue. It takes a little bit of connection and time, sure. Slowly but surely I'm converting people left and right through a variety of means. Music for those too busy or otherwise to pick up a book. Articles and youtube videos as well. Short general libertarian ideology at first though it never stays that way. People say, "Well I agree with libertarians in general but I don't know about this..." (the outcome of Social Security, for example) Well, I have outcomes. I have an alternative. I have facts and countless reasons. For the people who have paid in, they are most concerned if they will get something out of it. They have bet their future that they will, you see?
But I feel I am always a little off topic. You must mention the Federal Reserve and inflationary schemes. You must mention the ineptness of the government and have examples to cite. You must mention the fact that since 1913 the dollar isn't worth its weight in shit paper. (or cite the actual figure of what, 2%.. I like to make my point)
I mean, there are ways to talk to people and there are ways to talk to people. I level with them. We all have the same concerns. Build on it. Educate on the reasons of the problems and suggest the solutions as you see them. I don't pander and I speak the truth. I explain background history on why things are the way they are and then address the related concerns they have. This is but another reason I plan on being well versed in every aspect of liberty. There will not be anything I cannot debunk or address, I don't care what it is.
oyarde
09-21-2013, 12:59 AM
In b4 comments stating women shouldnt be allowed to vote
:) Well ,just a few years later and beverages were illegal, so .... lol , then organized crime made enough money off of that to last 50 years .....
oyarde
09-21-2013, 01:01 AM
Generally speaking, women have reason to approve of things like more Social Security, Medicare, whatever. They live longer. Makes total sense.
Yeah , and by nature they are future, nurturing oriented and therefore more inclined,percentage wise , I imagine.
oyarde
09-21-2013, 01:05 AM
Then. I imagine they would recieve the larger portion of the social program welfare theft dollars...... driven by dem's , so ....
oyarde
09-21-2013, 01:12 AM
Actually , anything near 40 % not dem sounds high .Do the math.59 % of adults in the country work , only about half of those pay fed tax , many of the rest are recievers....
oyarde
09-21-2013, 01:15 AM
I don't know where you get that from. My Dad was older than Todd Akin; I can't imagine he would EVER have said such a thing.
BTW, it's not required to be (or pretend to be) Republican to post here.
There are probably more Libertarians & Dems here than pubs.
oyarde
09-21-2013, 01:21 AM
In b4 sexist comments implying women are dumb, emotion-driven gold-digging whores.
Oops. Too late.
Statistics, looking at just the tax aided child birth rate in the nation currently, makes me think they are far from dumb, but that many like mining someone else's gold, nor do I think think that is emotionally driven, purely calculated, cold dollars and cents.
oyarde
09-21-2013, 01:28 AM
I dunno.....I've met some pretty pussified men in my time.
I actually think that is the largest contributing factor to the demise.
QuickZ06
09-21-2013, 06:27 AM
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WOMEN WANT, DO, FEEL, ECT. ECT.......MAYBE BECAUSE I AM NOT ONE. So my 2 cents means shit. All I know is if I were running for a political position I would never lie and promote freedom to the MAX. I think those two things will bring both sexes to vote for me or any candidate. Screw these dumb polls, everyone that voted for Ron Paul liked him because of his message and his proven record.
jtstellar
09-21-2013, 10:02 AM
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WOMEN WANT, DO, FEEL, ECT. ECT.......MAYBE BECAUSE I AM NOT ONE. So my 2 cents means shit. All I know is if I were running for a political position I would never lie and promote freedom to the MAX. I think those two things will bring both sexes to vote for me or any candidate. Screw these dumb polls, everyone that voted for Ron Paul liked him because of his message and his proven record.
gender gap was already blatantly present in 2012 exit poll if i'm not mistaken?
also had a random moment of curiosity.. i've been looking into health science and alternative science lately, cures for cancer, new theories in physics and chemistry, etc. gender disparity almost seems to be 100% to none in those areas where people compete on their own merit without glamour of diploma and some aspect of superior male dominance, and perhaps some women are in on the game too today--here, you passed my course, i endow you with a piece of paper. now work for my connected friends, etc. wonder why that is the case
Czolgosz
09-21-2013, 10:38 AM
Humans are terrible at being free independent individuals, it's no shocker when group X loves it's massa.
And 'sides, women are ignorant, belong in the kitchen, and should only be purchased to make babies.
GunnyFreedom
09-21-2013, 10:52 AM
Financially?
You probably are.
Not too many jobs out there that a 19 man can support a wife and child on.
Of course, that's the plan.
Not too many jobs out there, period.
helmuth_hubener
09-21-2013, 11:17 AM
In b4 comments stating women shouldnt be allowed to vote Oh, man! You were, indeed, too fast to beat!
Men run the world. Men are the dominant sex. It was men who decided to give women the vote. And as men, we ought to consider taking it away again. It seems to have been a mistake.
Not because of some GOP vs. Dem foolishness, but because women support all kinds of stupid junk. Why? Just the nature of things. Biological, but there's also economic reasons. For one thing, they do not have to pay for the stupidity as much; they are supported by their men, who generally have more income, more property, and thus pay more taxes.
Only property-owning men used to be able to vote. Not too bad an idea, maybe....
A. Havnes
09-21-2013, 11:19 AM
In b4 comments stating women shouldnt be allowed to vote
Already happening, although not on this forum yet.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/05/07/wheres-your-shame-woman/
There's also Pastor Steven Anderson, and he's a piece of work, too. He actually claims to carry his wife around the house against her will to prove who's the boss.
In response to this thread, women aren't Republicans for a number of reasons. You'll have to turn off your group mentality, all-women-think-alike philosophy to do it, though. Why? Because saying, "Women are genetically programmed to think and feel X," and, "This wouldn't happen if men weren't such wusses nowadays!" is basically the equivalent of saying, "They hate us for our freedoms!" You don't have to think once you've found a comfortable and simple explanation.
In my opinion, it's all in the way we market ourselves.
1. Fundamentalist Christians are, in large, Republicans. Some, not all, fundamentalist Christians have a weird habit of saying things that most men would find offensive and inappropriate if it were directed at us. Moreover, a lot of them try and justify it as a good thing. There's nothing we can do about radicals, but we need to show that we're more diverse than a bunch of old guys who think women should be mere subsets of their father's and husband's identities.
In fact, the republicans do very little to show that they have a diverse party. They are the party that consists of middle-class white men and the filthy rich who can't possibly identify with the day-to-day struggling of lower-class citizens. This is an image that needs to change! They need to show that they are the party of blacks, single moms, hispanics, etc.
2. Republicans and libertarians very seldom focus on womens' issues, and I don't mean abortion. Democrats are very good about telling women how their system of government will supposedly help them, and they specifically market towards that demographic. Republicans and libertarians very seldom market outside their niche. They never address, say, the single mom and explain to her how a libertarian government would actually help her by allowing her to keep most of her wages.
Also, sexual harassment and such is still a problem. We need to stop and say how our system of doing things would actually benefit women in the workforce, and how the private sector and women themselves can stand up to unfair working conditions, etc. The only reason that women look to the government right now isn't because they need a protective force in their lives to make sure they're happy and healthy, but because we've done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that our system cares about their well-being. The democrats have. Again, no marketing being done in this area.
The democrats have put a lot of effort into marketing towards the young, women, the disabled, the racial minorities, etc. That's why so many young people are democrats, as well as women and disabled individuals. It's not because of women's brains, hippie kids, illegal immigrants wanting a free ride, or anything like that. People want what's best for them, and so far libertarians and republicans have done a terrible job of addressing women.
cajuncocoa
09-21-2013, 11:25 AM
Oh, man! You were, indeed, too fast to beat!
Men run the world. Men are the dominant sex. It was men who decided to give women the vote. And as men, we ought to consider taking it away again. It seems to have been a mistake.
Not because of some GOP vs. Dem foolishness, but because women support all kinds of stupid junk. Why? Just the nature of things. Biological, but there's also economic reasons. For one thing, they do not have to pay for the stupidity as much; they are supported by their men, who generally have more income, more property, and thus pay more taxes.
Only property-owning men used to be able to vote. Not too bad an idea, maybe....
I luv ya, HH...but maybe ^^this^^ is just one of the examples to explain why women shun Republicans. Just sayin'
helmuth_hubener
09-21-2013, 11:33 AM
I luv ya, HH...but maybe ^^this^^ is just one of the examples to explain why women shun Republicans. Just sayin' Let them shun whom they wish. That only matters to the extent that men let it matter. Stating the obvious, that men are the dominant race, should not even be necessary, much less controversial, much less offensive. What a bizarre world we live in that such a boring, obvious statement is now all of those things.
familydog
09-21-2013, 11:37 AM
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
So many Republican politicians have little to no empathy for women. Laying the hammer down on abortion does nothing but scare women into the hands of Democrats. You can successfully market an anti-abortion message by addressing the reasons for abortion in the first place. Sadly, it seems religiosity or plain ignorance blinds these politicians and activists to the real concerns.
Danke
09-21-2013, 11:38 AM
Let them shun whom they wish. That only matters to the extent that men let it matter. Stating the obvious, that men are the dominant race, should not even be necessary, much less controversial, much less offensive. What a bizarre world we live in that such a boring, obvious statement is now all of those things.
Son, never get married, or you're in for a big surprise.
JustinTime
09-21-2013, 12:05 PM
So many Republican politicians have little to no empathy for women. Laying the hammer down on abortion does nothing but scare women into the hands of Democrats. You can successfully market an anti-abortion message by addressing the reasons for abortion in the first place.
Yeah, but that always equals social welfare and the like.
Id be fine with the right completely dropping the abortion issue altogether. If it weren't for that, the GOP could point at the Democrats and say "Everything you guys do is about creating more power for the government".
GunnyFreedom
09-21-2013, 12:13 PM
So many Republican politicians have little to no empathy for women. Laying the hammer down on abortion does nothing but scare women into the hands of Democrats. You can successfully market an anti-abortion message by addressing the reasons for abortion in the first place. Sadly, it seems religiosity or plain ignorance blinds these politicians and activists to the real concerns.
One of the problem you run into is that it's Republican women who tend to be the most vehemently anti-abortion. You soften your stance on abortion, and you lose 65% of the women you already have, without encouraging Dem women to come over.
Voluntarist
09-21-2013, 12:48 PM
xxxxx
juleswin
09-21-2013, 12:55 PM
Financially?
You probably are.
Not too many jobs out there that a 19 man can support a wife and child on.
Of course, that's the plan.
Last I heard, the military is still hiring and 19 yr olds make good soldiers, just saying
LibertyEagle
09-21-2013, 01:06 PM
Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't seem like women are much fonder of libertarianism than they are of republicanism. I mentioned abortion as one reason why women don't vote Republican, but the polls show that they're much more likely than men to support social welfare programs as well. It seems like it's near impossible to get their vote when they reject the core of the message.
1. Understand THEIR concerns
2. Show them how your platform addresses them and will make them better off
People too often talk about their own interests when trying to win someone over. They don't give a crap about our interests. They have their own and it is those that have to be addressed in order for us to be successful.
Lucille
09-21-2013, 01:07 PM
The GOP is irredeemable, and the brand is destroyed. It's time for a new party.
Republicans need to attract more than just angry white males to succeed.
Quelle surprise. Our resident govt troll is regurgitating the prog concern trolls' favorite line.
Origanalist
09-21-2013, 01:12 PM
Republicans really do have a problem with women. snip...
It's not their fault, nobody showed them how.....
Origanalist
09-21-2013, 01:14 PM
Bachmann is not the be-all-end-all for women, republican or otherwise. And besides, being submissive to your husband can be pretty sexy - just sayin'.
Heresy! :mad:
angelatc
09-21-2013, 01:17 PM
I live just outside of St. Louis and heard Akin's words first from a very conservative co-worker of mine. The media didn't need to make an issue out of it - they simply had to publish his own words
Because it was totally worthy of endless repitition on the cable news channels.....
And evidently Akin shut down his thinking and learning facilities upon graduation. Apparently so did I, then. Yeah, somebody who didn't go back and fact check every little thing he learned from his 8th grade biology teacher is totally unfit to serve. Unless he's a Democrat, in which case it's fine to ask about the possibility of an island tipping over. Something I'm pretty sure he didn't learn from anybody, anywhere.
angelatc
09-21-2013, 01:20 PM
So apparently keeping it legal to murder babies is more important to women voters than any other issue.
It's amazing how many men are in this thread, telling us exactly what women want. And it's the liberal wing of the LP doing that, too.
Rothbardian Girl
09-21-2013, 01:21 PM
Oh, man! You were, indeed, too fast to beat!
Men run the world. Men are the dominant sex. It was men who decided to give women the vote. And as men, we ought to consider taking it away again. It seems to have been a mistake.
Not because of some GOP vs. Dem foolishness, but because women support all kinds of stupid junk. Why? Just the nature of things. Biological, but there's also economic reasons. For one thing, they do not have to pay for the stupidity as much; they are supported by their men, who generally have more income, more property, and thus pay more taxes.
Only property-owning men used to be able to vote. Not too bad an idea, maybe....
Have you ever left your parents' basement? Just wondering.
heavenlyboy34
09-21-2013, 01:24 PM
It's amazing how many men are in this thread, telling us exactly what women want. And it's the liberal wing of the LP doing that, too.
There have always been silly men like that...they just have a forum on the internet to talk about it more often now. :/ I am suddenly reminded of dannno lecturing us on how much women like cervical stimulation...
familydog
09-21-2013, 01:24 PM
One of the problem you run into is that it's Republican women who tend to be the most vehemently anti-abortion. You soften your stance on abortion, and you lose 65% of the women you already have, without encouraging Dem women to come over.
This may be true. However, one can be anti-abortion, but not advocate the state interfere with the choice. Republicans would be better served by addressing the root causes of abortion. Shaming frightened women and threatening them with state violence does nothing beneficial.
angelatc
09-21-2013, 01:27 PM
This may be true. However, one can be anti-abortion, but not advocate the state interfere with the choice. Republicans would be better served by addressing the root causes of abortion. Shaming frightened women and threatening them with state violence does nothing beneficial.
Maybe, dead babies aside for a second, that's the way it should be, but that's not the way it is.
Southron
09-21-2013, 01:39 PM
This may be true. However, one can be anti-abortion, but not advocate the state interfere with the choice. Republicans would be better served by addressing the root causes of abortion. Shaming frightened women and threatening them with state violence does nothing beneficial.
So what are the root causes of abortion?
familydog
09-21-2013, 01:44 PM
Maybe, dead babies aside for a second, that's the way it should be, but that's not the way it is.
Perhaps. But dead babies don't wield electoral power. I don't claim to have all the answers. What we do know is that the current fire and brimstone approach to abortion is not working.
amy31416
09-21-2013, 01:45 PM
Let them shun whom they wish. That only matters to the extent that men let it matter. Stating the obvious, that men are the dominant race, should not even be necessary, much less controversial, much less offensive. What a bizarre world we live in that such a boring, obvious statement is now all of those things.
Do I need to clarify the difference between race and gender for you?
JCDenton0451
09-21-2013, 01:45 PM
One of the problem you run into is that it's Republican women who tend to be the most vehemently anti-abortion. You soften your stance on abortion, and you lose 65% of the women you already have, without encouraging Dem women to come over.
How do you know that none of the Dem-leaning will come over? The GOP can definitely compete for the votes of white single women IMO.
puppetmaster
09-21-2013, 01:55 PM
Good reason to suspend voting rights for women.
I know the ladies we have here are amazing and unique freedom warriors, but the majority I have met vote based on superficial issues, appearances, and to them it is just another version of the kardashians. The question on their mind is who will take care of me the best...freedom is not even a thought.
Yeah I said it don't hate me
angelatc
09-21-2013, 01:56 PM
Perhaps. But dead babies don't wield electoral power. I don't claim to have all the answers. What we do know is that the current fire and brimstone approach to abortion is not working. i
Meh, I don't think abortion is even that big of an issue, except that the Democrats have successfully manipulated people into believing that is. The demgraphic that cares about it the most is the group least likely to vote.
The progessives have been pushing out the Democrat moderates in favor of the hard line baby killing socialists There used to be lots of pro-life Democrats - now I think Harry Reid is about the last of them, and even he's softening on his commitment. I'm not about to vote Repubicans if the neocons manage to get this shoved through, also.
If the GOP has to become more liberal to win elections, then there's really not much point in winning elections. But heck - I live in Michigan, and we elect pro-life Republicans quite a bit. Justin Amash is pro-life. So I'm not convinced that the GOP just needs to give up on it. If anything, they need to actually do something about it. They've used the issue to keep the evangelicals on board, but not passed any significant legislation on the issue.
JCDenton0451
09-21-2013, 01:58 PM
Good reason to suspend voting rights for women.
I know the ladies we have here are amazing and unique freedom warriors, but the majority I have met vote based on superficial issues, appearances, and to them it is just another version of the kardashians. The question on their mind is who will take care of me the best...freedom is not even a thought.
Yeah I said it don't hate me
How about suspending voting rights for blacks?
MelissaWV
09-21-2013, 01:59 PM
Good reason to suspend voting rights for women.
I know the ladies we have here are amazing and unique freedom warriors, but the majority I have met vote based on superficial issues, appearances, and to them it is just another version of the kardashians. The question on their mind is who will take care of me the best...freedom is not even a thought.
Yeah I said it don't hate me
This would very easily describe the men as well. Sports? Hot chicks? Politics? Go ahead. Which one would the "average" voter want to talk about. Oh wait that's right men are very tuned in to politics. Which is why the majority of voters of EVERY SORT for one of the big two.
I<3Liberty
09-21-2013, 02:03 PM
This may be true. However, one can be anti-abortion, but not advocate the state interfere with the choice. Republicans would be better served by addressing the root causes of abortion. Shaming frightened women and threatening them with state violence does nothing beneficial.
Yes! Even Ron Paul talked about how addressing the problem itself is far more effective than leaving it to big gov to create (and attempt to enforce) a ban.
So what are the root causes of abortion?
I've talked about this on several other threads. No woman has ever said "I'm going to get pregnant so I can get an abortion."
This issue is embedded in technology that intervenes too late. Abortion is reactive -- it waits until there are two stakeholders and few means to go about fulfilling a woman's right to choice and unborn's right to life. Until ectogenesis comes about (which isn't going to be anytime soon) we need technology tha will intervene before pregnancy occurs. The first 100% effective contraceptive will be on the American market in 2015. With technologies like this and others in the works, it will create a means of protecting each stakeholder's right to life and liberty. Even libertarians that have no moral issues with abortion can agree that this method is so much more economical.
JCDenton0451
09-21-2013, 02:12 PM
If the GOP has to become more liberal to win elections, then there's really not much point in winning elections. But heck - I live in Michigan, and we elect pro-life Republicans quite a bit. Justin Amash is pro-life. So I'm not convinced that the GOP just needs to give up on it. If anything, they need to actually do something about it. They've used the issue to keep the evangelicals on board, but not passed any significant legislation on the issue. It's the rhetoric. It's mostly the rhetoric that comes out of pro-life politicians that alienates many voters. No offence, but many socons are very dumb and ignorant people.
Either the pro-life movement needs to learn to police itself or the GOP needs to start policing its pro-life members. Because people like Akin, Santorum and Bachmann, and Paul Broun are a major liability. The worst part these doofuses don't even realise what they're saying is often gross and offensive.
familydog
09-21-2013, 02:17 PM
So what are the root causes of abortion?
Generally speaking, the abortions occur with unplanned pregnancies. So, the first step is to prevent those pregnancies. The family unit continues to deteriorate with time and this devastates a child's self esteem. A person with high self esteem will be less sexually active with multiple partners. Also, the rise of single motherhood ruins a girl's chance to develop a strong foundation and understanding of males and masculinity. Republicans like to stress the importance of families in raising children.
Once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, the reason most women choose to have an abortion is that they are unable or unwilling to raise a child. Lack of financial resources plays the most important role here. Taxes and regulations weaken the economy and force women into a situation where they are not financially able to care for another life. Again, Republicans have a good selling point with their small government talk.
I don't claim to be an expert. But again, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to control the narrative. The focus ought not be on what happens to a women who has an abortion or wants one. The focus ought to be on preventing the situation in the first place.
angelatc
09-21-2013, 02:22 PM
It's the rhetoric. It's mostly the rhetoric that comes out of pro-life politicians that alienates many voters. No offence, but many socons are very dumb and ignorant people.
Either the pro-life movement needs to learn to police itself or the GOP needs to start policing its pro-life members. Because people like Akin, Santorum and Bachmann, and Paul Broun are a major liability. The worst part these doofuses don't even realise what they're saying is often gross and offensive.
Nothing gross and offensive about running for office on the backs of dead babies? And yet every single one of those people you listed have indeed won elections.
angelatc
09-21-2013, 02:22 PM
I don't claim to be an expert. But again, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to control the narrative. The focus ought not be on what happens to a women who has an abortion or wants one. The focus ought to be on preventing the situation in the first place.
Yay! Free birth control from the GOP!!!!
angelatc
09-21-2013, 02:24 PM
I've talked about this on several other threads. No woman has ever said "I'm going to get pregnant so I can get an abortion."
This issue is embedded in technology that intervenes too late. Abortion is reactive -- it waits until there are two stakeholders and few means to go about fulfilling a woman's right to choice and unborn's right to life. Until ectogenesis comes about (which isn't going to be anytime soon) we need technology tha will intervene before pregnancy occurs. The first 100% effective contraceptive will be on the American market in 2015. With technologies like this and others in the works, it will create a means of protecting each stakeholder's right to life and liberty. Even libertarians that have no moral issues with abortion can agree that this method is so much more economical.
The problem is that when abortion is legal, it is an implied consent. We have a two generations of women who now think there's nothing morally wrong with killing your own offspring.
familydog
09-21-2013, 02:26 PM
i
If the GOP has to become more liberal to win elections, then there's really not much point in winning elections. But heck - I live in Michigan, and we elect pro-life Republicans quite a bit. Justin Amash is pro-life. So I'm not convinced that the GOP just needs to give up on it. If anything, they need to actually do something about it. They've used the issue to keep the evangelicals on board, but not passed any significant legislation on the issue.
Attitude change with abortion will not come at the ballot box. A volunteer at a crisis shelter who objectively consoles a scared and confused teen will do more to help the unborn than any law. Republicans may just have to learn the hard way.
puppetmaster
09-21-2013, 02:26 PM
This would very easily describe the men as well. Sports? Hot chicks? Politics? Go ahead. Which one would the "average" voter want to talk about. Oh wait that's right men are very tuned in to politics. Which is why the majority of voters of EVERY SORT for one of the big two.
I agree with you mostly.
I just know how powerful instincts in animals are and as such we are subject to these forces.
I am just playing percentages
angelatc
09-21-2013, 02:27 PM
Attitude change with abortion will not come at the ballot box. A volunteer at a crisis shelter who objectively consoles a scared and confused teen will do more to help the unborn than any law. Republicans may just have to learn the hard way.
I don't now why you think that, when history shows it to be true. Abortion used to be taboo, something that only filthy whores would dare even ever mention. We didn't have crisis centers to "help" though. We already knew what the right answer was.
Mark my words, it's the people here who are accepting of the pro-death position that will learn the worst lessons. Anybody here that thinks that the mother will actually have the final say when the full blown national health care finally gets introduced are going to have a rude awakening.
puppetmaster
09-21-2013, 02:29 PM
How about suspending voting rights for blacks?
female yes not males.....
This is just casual thought not a viable option so don't get to wrapped up in this subject as I won't either
cajuncocoa
09-21-2013, 02:31 PM
I don't claim to be an expert. But again, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to control the narrative. The focus ought not be on what happens to a women who has an abortion or wants one. The focus ought to be on preventing the situation in the first place.
Yay! Free birth control from the GOP!!!!Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't read "free birth control" anywhere in familydog's post.
familydog
09-21-2013, 02:42 PM
I don't now why you think that, when history shows it to be true. Abortion used to be taboo, something that only filthy whores would dare even ever mention. We didn't have crisis centers to "help" though. We already knew what the right answer was.
I think your history is a little confused. In any case, the complete lack of empathy for women only hastens the water flow in the Republican Party's sinking ship.
I<3Liberty
09-21-2013, 04:23 PM
The problem is that when abortion is legal, it is an implied consent. We have a two generations of women who now think there's nothing morally wrong with killing your own offspring.
Eons before abortion was medicalized, people did it themselves. It's not like a heart transplant; the science behind it (particularly early trimester abortions) is very basic. Simple things as consuming too much caffeine or losing a lot of weight can result in loss of an embryo or fetus which is partially why there are entire public health campaigns that focus on maternal nutrition.
Some people have no moral problem with it (even libertarians) which is why I mentioned that preventing abortion through long-lasting 100% effective birth control is far more economically sound. $10 for a 10-year lasting Vasalgel/RISUG injection is a lot cheaper than a $3,000 abortion (provided there are no complications that lead to larger costs beyond $3,000.)
I don't believe you'll ever change the views of everyone just like vegetarians and vegans will never change the minds of every meat-eater. I eat meat and I don't deny some hunter or farm is killing another animal, but I believe as long as it is done in humane ways and meat is eaten in moderation, I (a human at the top of the food chain) should be able to eat a fish or chicken. Some abortion supporters use this same logic. They're okay with using an embryo for research or letting a full grown woman abort a embryo or fetus. Not all of them support this view post-quickening. At quickening, some do equate a fetus capable of living outside of the womb, as a person at the same hierarchical level as a full grown adult.
Some beleve it violates some morals when abused (like the people that support the whole "abortion should be legal, yet rare" view.
In order to truly eradicate abortion, we need technology to make it unnecessary or obsolete. Solutions like 100% contraceptives would greatly reduce the demand for abortion and actually establish gender equality (tell me the last time a guy had to undergo a painful procedure to terminate his pregnancy?) Ectogenesis (which is awhile away) would make abortion completely obsolete and save premature infants from complications and death.
Cutlerzzz
09-21-2013, 04:33 PM
Already happening, although not on this forum yet.
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/05/07/wheres-your-shame-woman/
There's also Pastor Steven Anderson, and he's a piece of work, too. He actually claims to carry his wife around the house against her will to prove who's the boss.
In response to this thread, women aren't Republicans for a number of reasons. You'll have to turn off your group mentality, all-women-think-alike philosophy to do it, though. Why? Because saying, "Women are genetically programmed to think and feel X," and, "This wouldn't happen if men weren't such wusses nowadays!" is basically the equivalent of saying, "They hate us for our freedoms!" You don't have to think once you've found a comfortable and simple explanation.
In my opinion, it's all in the way we market ourselves.
1. Fundamentalist Christians are, in large, Republicans. Some, not all, fundamentalist Christians have a weird habit of saying things that most men would find offensive and inappropriate if it were directed at us. Moreover, a lot of them try and justify it as a good thing. There's nothing we can do about radicals, but we need to show that we're more diverse than a bunch of old guys who think women should be mere subsets of their father's and husband's identities.
In fact, the republicans do very little to show that they have a diverse party. They are the party that consists of middle-class white men and the filthy rich who can't possibly identify with the day-to-day struggling of lower-class citizens. This is an image that needs to change! They need to show that they are the party of blacks, single moms, hispanics, etc.
2. Republicans and libertarians very seldom focus on womens' issues, and I don't mean abortion. Democrats are very good about telling women how their system of government will supposedly help them, and they specifically market towards that demographic. Republicans and libertarians very seldom market outside their niche. They never address, say, the single mom and explain to her how a libertarian government would actually help her by allowing her to keep most of her wages.
Also, sexual harassment and such is still a problem. We need to stop and say how our system of doing things would actually benefit women in the workforce, and how the private sector and women themselves can stand up to unfair working conditions, etc. The only reason that women look to the government right now isn't because they need a protective force in their lives to make sure they're happy and healthy, but because we've done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that our system cares about their well-being. The democrats have. Again, no marketing being done in this area.
The democrats have put a lot of effort into marketing towards the young, women, the disabled, the racial minorities, etc. That's why so many young people are democrats, as well as women and disabled individuals. It's not because of women's brains, hippie kids, illegal immigrants wanting a free ride, or anything like that. People want what's best for them, and so far libertarians and republicans have done a terrible job of addressing women.
It is happening on this forum. Nobody has any right to vote. Who the hell are women to use government to tell others how to live their life.
James Madison
09-21-2013, 04:36 PM
I'm surprised that Progressive talking points are being regurgitated by so many forum members. I had higher standards for you, RPFs.
Besides all the rhetoric of 'War on Women' and 'Republicans Hate Women', can anyone give one concrete example of how Republicans are anti-woman? All I got was mandatory ultrasounds. While stupid, that's not 'anti-woman'. And since women who seek abortions are soliciting murder, I can't say I have much sympathy for them.
As for the comments about Akin, yes, what he said was stupid. It's not any worse than asking if an island can tip over. And it's not any worse than claiming the position of ones cheek bones is enough to determine ethnicity. But since those statements were made by members of Team Blue, they get a pass.
And while we're on the top of democrats being anti-science, might I remind everyone here that a single zygote is biologically alive. No, the magical lifeforce rapes you on your way out. Being against abortion is actually closer to scientific reality than supporting it.
amy31416
09-21-2013, 04:45 PM
I'm surprised that Progressive talking points are being regurgitated by so many forum members. I had higher standards for you, RPFs.
Besides all the rhetoric of 'War on Women' and 'Republicans Hate Women', can anyone give one concrete example of how Republicans are anti-woman? All I got was mandatory ultrasounds. While stupid, that's not 'anti-woman'. And since women who seek abortions are soliciting murder, I can't say I have much sympathy for them.
As for the comments about Akin, yes, what he said was stupid. It's not any worse than asking if an island can tip over. And it's not any worse than claiming the position of ones cheek bones is enough to determine ethnicity. But since those statements were made by members of Team Blue, they get a pass.
And while we're on the top of democrats being anti-science, might I remind everyone here that a single zygote is biologically alive. No, the magical lifeforce rapes you on your way out. Being against abortion is actually closer to scientific reality than supporting it.
Neither the Guam fellow, Elizabeth Warren nor Pelosi got a "pass" for their idiocy here.
And I disagree with abortion based on scientific reasoning, but I'm only a Republican anymore to vote in primaries and on the slight chance there's someone worthwhile in a general. It's nothing I'd advertise, not that I'd advertise being a Democrat either.
cajuncocoa
09-21-2013, 04:48 PM
I'm surprised that Progressive talking points are being regurgitated by so many forum members. I had higher standards for you, RPFs.
Besides all the rhetoric of 'War on Women' and 'Republicans Hate Women', can anyone give one concrete example of how Republicans are anti-woman? All I got was mandatory ultrasounds. While stupid, that's not 'anti-woman'. And since women who seek abortions are soliciting murder, I can't say I have much sympathy for them.
As for the comments about Akin, yes, what he said was stupid. It's not any worse than asking if an island can tip over. And it's not any worse than claiming the position of ones cheek bones is enough to determine ethnicity. But since those statements were made by members of Team Blue, they get a pass.
And while we're on the top of democrats being anti-science, might I remind everyone here that a single zygote is biologically alive. No, the magical lifeforce rapes you on your way out. Being against abortion is actually closer to scientific reality than supporting it.
I'm with you 100% on the abortion issue, but looking over the comments from those who don't even think women should have the right to vote (smh) it's pretty clear that there are some Republicans who really are anti-woman. It goes way beyond what goes on in the uterus, apparently.
alucard13mm
09-21-2013, 05:20 PM
What if you are a white supremacist and is prolife. Your daughter gets raped by a minority and got pregnant. What do you and your daughter do?
im not white. Just hypothetical.
cajuncocoa
09-21-2013, 05:24 PM
What if you are a white supremacist and is prolife. Your daughter gets raped by a minority and got pregnant. What do you and your daughter do?
im not white. Just hypothetical.
Probably kill the daughter. That's my guess.
kpitcher
09-21-2013, 07:06 PM
Probably kill the daughter. That's my guess.
Reminds me of a Chappelle Skit of the black white supremacist : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8cc_1352405973
Voluntarist
09-21-2013, 08:47 PM
xxxxx
Christian Liberty
09-21-2013, 08:57 PM
@Cajun- Other than Ann Coulter, I've never heard anyone say women shouldn't be able to vote...
MelissaWV
09-21-2013, 08:58 PM
@Cajun- Other than Ann Coulter, I've never heard anyone say women shouldn't be able to vote...
You must be new here.
cajuncocoa
09-21-2013, 09:07 PM
@Cajun- Other than Ann Coulter, I've never heard anyone say women shouldn't be able to vote...
You should read through this thread again.
Christian Liberty
09-21-2013, 09:13 PM
You should read through this thread again.
I didn't even read it once.
BTW: I've discussed that there's no such thing as a "right to vote" but I see no point in limiting the franchise to men. I see nothing that would be gained for liberty by doing that. The Republican Party isn't about liberty or small government.
Carlybee
09-21-2013, 09:38 PM
Oh, man! You were, indeed, too fast to beat!
Men run the world. Men are the dominant sex. It was men who decided to give women the vote. And as men, we ought to consider taking it away again. It seems to have been a mistake.
Not because of some GOP vs. Dem foolishness, but because women support all kinds of stupid junk. Why? Just the nature of things. Biological, but there's also economic reasons. For one thing, they do not have to pay for the stupidity as much; they are supported by their men, who generally have more income, more property, and thus pay more taxes.
Only property-owning men used to be able to vote. Not too bad an idea, maybe....
The only reason men are in positions of power is because they like to blow shit up. If women were so inclined y'all's asses would be grass. :) We already own half the money and all the vaginas so don't get too ahead of yourself.
/residentfeminazirant
Brett85
09-21-2013, 09:39 PM
I've said that it would be better for the Republican Party if women weren't allowed to vote, but I still don't support that.
RickyJ
09-21-2013, 10:11 PM
I've said that it would be better for the Republican Party if women weren't allowed to vote, but I still don't support that.
The problem isn't so much who is voting, but rather who is counting the votes. There has been massive voter fraud taking place in many state, city and county elections, and almost every national election. It is not a good idea for anyone to vote when they don't have a clue about the issues. Someone like that would be better off not voting at all.
cajuncocoa
09-21-2013, 10:40 PM
The only reason men are in positions of power is because they like to blow shit up. If women were so inclined y'all's asses would be grass. :) We already own half the money and all the vaginas so don't get too ahead of yourself.
/residentfeminazirant
Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day...Still giggling. +rep!!
Christian Liberty
09-21-2013, 10:45 PM
Oh, man! You were, indeed, too fast to beat!
Men run the world. Men are the dominant sex. It was men who decided to give women the vote. And as men, we ought to consider taking it away again. It seems to have been a mistake.
Not because of some GOP vs. Dem foolishness, but because women support all kinds of stupid junk. Why? Just the nature of things. Biological, but there's also economic reasons. For one thing, they do not have to pay for the stupidity as much; they are supported by their men, who generally have more income, more property, and thus pay more taxes.
Only property-owning men used to be able to vote. Not too bad an idea, maybe....
What if we limited it to people who are currently registered members of RPF? Wouldn't that be even better?:p
But, in your scheme, and I can understand what you're going for here, why shouldn't a woman who owns property be able to vote? What's the difference between a property-owning man and a property-owning woman?
heavenlyboy34
09-21-2013, 11:32 PM
The only reason men are in positions of power is because they like to blow shit up. If women were so inclined y'all's asses would be grass. :) We already own half the money and all the vaginas so don't get too ahead of yourself.
/residentfeminazirant
Yeah, but y'all don't have the testosterone. You'd run out of muscle power right quick. ;) :D
helmuth_hubener
09-21-2013, 11:46 PM
Son, never get married, or you're in for a big surprise. Yeah, I just got married; don't you remember?
Have you ever left your parents' basement? Just wondering. See, you guys are giving me nothing but ad hominem. Give me some substance! If you think I've said something wrong, explain what's wrong!
How many great historical figures have been women? Virtually zip. How many important scientific discoveries are made by women? Again, zippo. Great painters and sculptors? Great composers? Great generals and strategists? Great inventors and creators of new ways of doing things? Great leaders of business and industrialists? All of the above are of course overwhelmingly male. How many great books written by women? They do a little better in this last category, but still, disproportionately male.
The history of humanity is the history of men. Sure, there's exceptions: Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Ayn Rand, and on and on. And everyone should be free to be whatever kind of exception they want to be. And hats off to them. But men and women are different. Men are dominant, women are not, men lead, women follow, and that seems very, very, very unlikely to change.
I'm for everyone having their equal rights, but voting is not even a legitimate right anyway, and so in order to ultimately get to a free system wherein everyone is denied their "right" to vote, it seems reasonable to adopt a pure consequentialist outlook on who to allow to vote, which means as much as possible allowing only those who agree with libertarianism to vote. If certain groups are voting against libertarian ideas, they should be prevented from voting. Their voting is essentially criminal behavior, resulting in robbery, enslavement, torture, mass-murder, etc.
Danke
09-21-2013, 11:58 PM
Yeah, I just got married; don't you remember?
See, you guys are giving me nothing but ad hominem. Give me some substance! If you think I've said something wrong, explain what's wrong!
How many great historical figures have been women? Virtually zip. How many important scientific discoveries are made by women? Again, zippo. Great painters and sculptors? Great composers? Great generals and strategists? Great inventors and creators of new ways of doing things? Great leaders of business and industrialists? All of the above are of course overwhelmingly male. How many great books written by women? They do a little better in this last category, but still, disproportionately male.
The history of humanity is the history of men. Sure, there's exceptions: Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Ayn Rand, and on and on. And everyone should be free to be whatever kind of exception they want to be. And hats off to them. But men and women are different. Men are dominant, women are not, men lead, women follow, and that seems very, very, very unlikely to change.
I'm for everyone having their equal rights, but voting is not even a legitimate right anyway, and so in order to ultimately get to a free system wherein everyone is denied their "right" to vote, it seems reasonable to adopt a pure consequentialist outlook on who to allow to vote, which means as much as possible allowing only those who agree with libertarianism to vote. If certain groups are voting against libertarian ideas, they should be prevented from voting. Their voting is essentially criminal behavior, resulting in robbery, enslavement, torture, mass-murder, etc.
Do you expect women to be able to understand your point?
helmuth_hubener
09-21-2013, 11:59 PM
What if we limited it to people who are currently registered members of RPF? Wouldn't that be even better?:p Yes, it absolutely would. I fully support that plan. No new registrations allowed, though.
But, in your scheme, and I can understand what you're going for here, why shouldn't a woman who owns property be able to vote? What's the difference between a property-owning man and a property-owning woman?
Women tend to vote for more intervention, a more paternalistic/maternalistic government. For whatever reason, women just vote more horribly than men. We have almost 100 years of evidence to back this up in the US.
Your suggestion (porperty owners only) would be far more feasible politically today. People are just too far gone, hopped up about how egalitarian we've got to be and how unjust it would be to deprive women of the sacred, holy sacrament of voting. So realistically, women's suffrage is at no risk to get taken away. But in hindsight, playing alternative history, we would have been better off had women never been given the ability to vote.
helmuth_hubener
09-22-2013, 12:00 AM
Do you expect women to be able to understand your point? I don't really care. They don't rule the world. Men do. http://www.seetherites.com/images/smilies/smiley-tongue.png
thoughtomator
09-22-2013, 12:01 AM
Yes, it absolutely would. I fully support that plan. No new registrations allowed, though.
Awesome. With my 42927 registered sock puppets, I am now humanity's new overlord.
puppetmaster
09-22-2013, 12:07 AM
You must be new here.
I am not really calling for loss of voting rights I just don't buy into the the BS of equality.
Both men and women have equal value to our civilization but each has their own strengths and weaknesses. These attributes are not only physical but mental also, leading me to conclude that in order to thrive as the human race we must recognize these differences and not try to adjust them to equal that of something that we were not designed to mimic. I don't not pretend to understand the female but I do understand that there are important differences. Our overall value is equal but our sex based qualities are extremely different. That being said there are always exceptions to the rule and RPF has many of these exceptional people.
Danke
09-22-2013, 12:12 AM
I don't really care. They don't rule the world. Men do. http://www.seetherites.com/images/smilies/smiley-tongue.png
I'd say in theory, but not practically.
RickyJ
09-22-2013, 12:24 AM
I don't really care. They don't rule the world. Men do. http://www.seetherites.com/images/smilies/smiley-tongue.png
Neither rule the world, Satan rules it.
Rothbardian Girl
09-22-2013, 12:27 AM
Yeah, I just got married; don't you remember?
See, you guys are giving me nothing but ad hominem. Give me some substance! If you think I've said something wrong, explain what's wrong!
How many great historical figures have been women? Virtually zip. How many important scientific discoveries are made by women? Again, zippo. Great painters and sculptors? Great composers? Great generals and strategists? Great inventors and creators of new ways of doing things? Great leaders of business and industrialists? All of the above are of course overwhelmingly male. How many great books written by women? They do a little better in this last category, but still, disproportionately male.
The history of humanity is the history of men. Sure, there's exceptions: Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Ayn Rand, and on and on. And everyone should be free to be whatever kind of exception they want to be. And hats off to them. But men and women are different. Men are dominant, women are not, men lead, women follow, and that seems very, very, very unlikely to change.
I'm for everyone having their equal rights, but voting is not even a legitimate right anyway, and so in order to ultimately get to a free system wherein everyone is denied their "right" to vote, it seems reasonable to adopt a pure consequentialist outlook on who to allow to vote, which means as much as possible allowing only those who agree with libertarianism to vote. If certain groups are voting against libertarian ideas, they should be prevented from voting. Their voting is essentially criminal behavior, resulting in robbery, enslavement, torture, mass-murder, etc.
First of all, I'm not really sure what the first part of your post has to do with the last. You're basically insinuating, if I read your post correctly, that because women haven't historically been represented in so-called "great accomplishments" for humanity, they shouldn't be able to vote? Is that what you are saying? Because otherwise, your post is just two chunks of bloviating, unrelated Quatsch.
Secondly, haven't you stopped to consider the role human psychology plays in all of this? What tends to happen when one group tells another that they cannot succeed, and indeed -- not to even try? The oppressed group tends to accept this as their reality. Telling women they cannot be entrepreneurial or that they cannot handle rigorous math and science means that fewer will bother to try it in the first place. Thus there is a positive feedback loop in which women are told they cannot do [x], fewer try, leading to the supposed "validation" of the aforementioned stereotype. You tried to whitewash your post by saying "Everyone should be free to be whatever kind of exception they want to be", but this is just a passive-aggressive way of reinforcing your terribly biased and destructive viewpoint on the proper roles for men and women.
The above explains why women haven't received as much recognition throughout history. Do you also believe the same is true for blacks and other minorities? How many precious minds have we lost from those groups of people as well, when they were told they would never amount to anything? One of Malcolm X's teachers told him he would best be suited as a manual laborer. He was, as you say, one of the exceptions. But you cannot escape the fact that the cultural attitude you praise and attempt to justify in your post has kept other, potentially brilliant people down. Hell, imagine if your namesake had accepted the advice of his "betters" and kept quiet, never daring to speak out against the Nazi regime?
In fact, your post can be used to justify eugenics as well. Let's go ahead and give every person an IQ test and tell them what kind of "work" they will be doing and what they will be contributing to the state, since obviously some groups are inherently superior to others.
The whole issue I have with your posts in this thread is that you are cherry-picking what you see as a problem, not bothering to adequately research how that problem came about (why exactly are women not as well-represented?), and then picking a "solution" based on your own bias. Back to the drawing board.
Smart3
09-22-2013, 12:49 AM
some women are radical feminists who put birth control above all else.
other women like strong, manly men.
the gop are mushy dorks that cater to neither.
Strong manly men? There aren't any in the US.
Most of these women won't vote GOP because they oppose the perceived Christian bias to the party's leadership and policies. (and mind you, women are much more religious than men)
Origanalist
09-22-2013, 01:00 AM
So just where are these strong manly men to be found Smart 3?
heavenlyboy34
09-22-2013, 01:11 AM
Strong manly men? There aren't any in the US.
Most of these women won't vote GOP because they oppose the perceived Christian bias to the party's leadership and policies. (and mind you, women are much more religious than men)
Sure there are. We beat the hell out of each other for sport though, so normal folks are pretty scared of us. :D
jtstellar
09-22-2013, 01:35 AM
@Cajun- Other than Ann Coulter, I've never heard anyone say women shouldn't be able to vote...
conceptually and superficially, some might claim that with some merit,
i think the whole issue however is more complicated than that. some roles are bound to play antagonists in a society. the various problems by a feminine approach to things with a non provider mindset poses pressure to mankind and could in some ways push us all to become more cynical toward human nature and hone our senses, and it could in some ways push us to excel past obstacles. not saying creating your own oppositions and always self imposing handicap is desireable in all circumstances, but i think it's more complicated than just banning a certain gender from voting..
surely you could argue that on an individual basis, in a match between masculinity and feminism, there is no comparison which side provides for itself better when quality of life/material is concerned, but in an eco system of things, society that learns how to deal with feminine concepts on an intellectual level and overcome the burden of some of their unrealistic requests might in eventuality trump the society that seeks to keep them down by force. it's rather complicated
notice also,
in some environments where genders are segregated, some men begin to take on the role of women, as is the case with all male prisons, so this might again eventually be about the very yin and yang of things, some roles are bound to exist just by the way nature is designed, so it's much less of a question of "who," but rather "what". maybe in the future, "gender" will become conceptual, and you can do it by choice. but in those circumstance, who should and shouldn't vote would become a question much less stigmatized, since there is an element of free will in there, and perhaps this question will then come up again, when certain ideological associations by choice constantly produces a reliable outcome proven too detrimental to society when allowed to dictate public policy and resources
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 02:07 AM
Yeah, but y'all don't have the testosterone. You'd run out of muscle power right quick. ;) :D
We don't need no stinking muscles
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/machine/mg12/m60e4.jpg
:)
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 02:09 AM
And with that, I am out of this idiotic thread
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 03:11 AM
Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?
I really don't get why that comment was so horrifying to the American public that they had to cower in a corner and cover their ears against the atrocity of someone saying the words "legitimate" and "rape" together as if no rape has ever happened under questionable circumstances. That, and their knee-jerk reaction to the idea that the female body doesn't have that sort of capability, which, I assure you, is not necessarily an educated opinion. Granted, I don't really have the answer either, but I don't pretend to know things based on the amount of political knee-jerky it contains.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 03:13 AM
64 percent of the female population are promiscuous fake blondes?
It wouldn't surprise me anymore.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 03:40 AM
Have you ever left your parents' basement? Just wondering.
How delightfully cliche.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 03:42 AM
So what are the root causes of abortion?
I think it's high blood pressure.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 03:54 AM
What if you are a white supremacist and is prolife. Your daughter gets raped by a minority and got pregnant. What do you and your daughter do?
im not white. Just hypothetical.
I was temporarily too distracted by the horrible grammar to realize the conundrum you have presented.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 03:58 AM
The only reason men are in positions of power is because they like to blow shit up. If women were so inclined y'all's asses would be grass. :) We already own half the money and all the vaginas so don't get too ahead of yourself.
/residentfeminazirant
I don't think you own half the money, and not all of those vaginas of yours are desirable. Just sayin.
calendula
09-22-2013, 06:50 AM
It wouldn't surprise me anymore.
Bull. You know that's not true.
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 10:25 AM
I don't think you own half the money, and not all of those vaginas of yours are desirable. Just sayin.
True..some of your species prefer teh penis and if you don't think we own half the money, try to get a divorce in a community property state. And that doesn't count the women who are lawyers, doctors, investment bankers, business owners, heiresses, etc. who actually DO make a lot of money. That being said, my comments were tongue in cheek in an effort to illustrate how ridiculous some of these comments are here that maybe women shouldn't be able to vote. I would love to see someone try to make that happen because shit will start getting real real. There may be a reason there are only a handful of active female posters on this board. I really expected more from people who like to attach the word liberty to their ideology.
Voluntarist
09-22-2013, 10:29 AM
xxxxx
Danke
09-22-2013, 10:33 AM
And with that, I am out of this idiotic thread
True..some of your species prefer teh penis
Glad you're back. :)
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 10:35 AM
Glad you're back. :)
Couldn't let that comment slide. (see edited post)
heavenlyboy34
09-22-2013, 11:21 AM
We don't need no stinking muscles
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/machine/mg12/m60e4.jpg
:)
Pssh. Women couldn't carry enough equipment like that to win. :P They already have lighter requirements to get into teh regime's military.
JustinTime
09-22-2013, 11:28 AM
2. Republicans and libertarians very seldom focus on womens' issues, and I don't mean abortion. Democrats are very good about telling women how their system of government will supposedly help them, and they specifically market towards that demographic. Republicans and libertarians very seldom market outside their niche. They never address, say, the single mom and explain to her how a libertarian government would actually help her by allowing her to keep most of her wages.
Its difficult to explain, especially when so many people today have short attention spans and much more entertaining stuff is on TV and the internet 24/7.
Its just so much easier to say and more appealing to listen to when someone says "We'll give ya free shit, and those guys over there just hate you!"
And another thing is I dislike politicians who market to a niche, Id find it tough to vote for some douche who does that rather than speak to all Americans as a whole... but that's cultural Marxism and it works.
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 11:28 AM
Pssh. Women couldn't carry enough equipment like that to win. :P They already have lighter requirements to get into teh regime's military.
Honey try to take away our voting rights and we'll haul that sucker around in a wheelbarrow :p
JustinTime
09-22-2013, 11:33 AM
We already own half the money and all the vaginas
Want to see the perfect woman? http://shannonsbooknook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/iaintgonnahand.png
cajuncocoa
09-22-2013, 11:45 AM
Yeah, I just got married; don't you remember?
See, you guys are giving me nothing but ad hominem. Give me some substance! If you think I've said something wrong, explain what's wrong!
How many great historical figures have been women? Virtually zip. How many important scientific discoveries are made by women? Again, zippo. Great painters and sculptors? Great composers? Great generals and strategists? Great inventors and creators of new ways of doing things? Great leaders of business and industrialists? All of the above are of course overwhelmingly male. How many great books written by women? They do a little better in this last category, but still, disproportionately male.
The history of humanity is the history of men. Sure, there's exceptions: Joan of Arc, Marie Curie, Ayn Rand, and on and on. And everyone should be free to be whatever kind of exception they want to be. And hats off to them. But men and women are different. Men are dominant, women are not, men lead, women follow, and that seems very, very, very unlikely to change.
I'm for everyone having their equal rights, but voting is not even a legitimate right anyway, and so in order to ultimately get to a free system wherein everyone is denied their "right" to vote, it seems reasonable to adopt a pure consequentialist outlook on who to allow to vote, which means as much as possible allowing only those who agree with libertarianism to vote. If certain groups are voting against libertarian ideas, they should be prevented from voting. Their voting is essentially criminal behavior, resulting in robbery, enslavement, torture, mass-murder, etc.
I was going to respond to this, but I see Rothbardian Girl said (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428299-ONLY-36-of-women-lean-Republican-lower-than-ever&p=5236234&viewfull=1#post5236234) basically everything I was going to say, so I'll just give her a +rep and leave it at that.
Brian4Liberty
09-22-2013, 11:45 AM
The left media has successfully painted Republicans as "angry, straight, white, Christian males" who need to be neutered or eliminated. Everyone else should be a Democrat, including anyone who fits that very specific category and is easily shamed. Everybody must hate that group, and if you are unlucky enough to be a member, go ahead and hate yourself.
cajuncocoa
09-22-2013, 11:56 AM
The left media has successfully painted Republicans as "angry, straight, white, Christian males" who need to be neutered or eliminated. Everyone else should be a Democrat, including anyone who fits that very specific category and is easily shamed. Everybody must hate that group, and if you are unlucky enough to be a member, go ahead and hate yourself.
That's partially true, but some GOP males make sure they live up to the stereotype.
Brian4Liberty
09-22-2013, 12:07 PM
That's partially true, but some GOP males make sure they live up to the stereotype.
Unless you are talking about the "angry" part, you may have unintentionally confirmed the depth of this programming.
Which component of this stereotype is most offensive? Straight, white, Christian, or male?
cajuncocoa
09-22-2013, 12:11 PM
Unless you are talking about the "angry" part, you may have unintentionally confirmed the depth of this programming.
Which component of this stereotype is most offensive? Straight, white, Christian, or male?
I love me some straight white Christian males...it's the angry (and, at times, sexist) part that bothers me.
Brian4Liberty
09-22-2013, 12:27 PM
...it's the angry (and, at times, sexist) part that bothers me.
Yeah, that "angry" part of the stereotype is what allows the smearing of the rest of the stereotype, and makes it acceptable to hate them in return. It's also politically useful. Every Sunday morning political show alluded to the irrational "anger" from the Tea Party segment of the GOP over Obamacare. "Quit being angry and mean, you bad boys (i.e. Ted, Rand and their "libertarian" supporters)."
jbauer
09-22-2013, 01:11 PM
The fact of the matter is women genetically do not think the same as men. Conservatism or libertarianism (especially in economics) appeals much more to logic than gut feel and intuition. The Republican party needs to personalize its economic message more.
What economic lesson? I haven't heard anyone outside of the Paul's talk economics on team Rs side in more then a decade.
Deborah K
09-22-2013, 02:17 PM
Do I need to clarify the difference between race and gender for you?
How dare you, Amy. He's a man!!!
(I owe ya a +rep) ;)
kcchiefs6465
09-22-2013, 02:20 PM
Honey try to take away our voting rights and we'll haul that sucker around in a wheelbarrow :p
Frankly I wouldn't particularly blame you.
This talk of limiting redress of issues is somewhat disturbing to me. Especially on grounds of something so superficial and collectivized as women being second class to the man, taking his money and not earning their due. That people don't understand precedence is troubling in itself as it shows the short sightedness of some. Eliminating one avenue of petitioning the government for half of the country based on something as superficial as gender seems draconian or even bigoted. Of course as I mentioned the precedent of limiting who can and can't vote being established will lead to further restriction of voting "rights" for political dissidents of the established status quo, land owners or not. (as if a collective group of land owners wouldn't just as easily vote away property needed for their expansion... people must forget what corporate welfare is and how deeply entrenched it is in our system.. so much for property owners adhering to the Constitution) It is somewhat offensive that believers in liberty offer this up as some sort of solution. For one, it wouldn't solve anything without a reeducation of the people, property owners included. And for two, the collectivized opinion is sickening. Limiting voting rights would most surely guarantee a revolt. And as for the so called privileged land owners, you think someone is trying to vote your property away now, wait until some 50 million of them are looting and burning the countryside only to most probably establish a more socialist government when the fighting ceases. You might imagine it as glorious or even heroic defending your land against marauding hoards but I assure you, dead is dead and it won't make a damn bit of difference the preparations you think you have. Many will die in such an instance. And not just the "bad guys." Changing the system through education is about the only means through which we change anything. Not through limiting voting privileges or denying rights.
Deborah K
09-22-2013, 02:26 PM
Good reason to suspend voting rights for women.
I know the ladies we have here are amazing and unique freedom warriors, but the majority I have met vote based on superficial issues, appearances, and to them it is just another version of the kardashians. The question on their mind is who will take care of me the best...freedom is not even a thought.
Yeah I said it don't hate me
So the rest of us should have our right to vote taken? What about all the freakin men who have virtually destroyed the economy and started wars?? See how it doesn't make sense to think like this??
kcchiefs6465
09-22-2013, 03:41 PM
So the rest of us should have our right to vote taken? What about all the freakin men who have virtually destroyed the economy and started wars?? See how it doesn't make sense to think like this??
Property owners at that.
The point should be clear, they, being the property "owners," are just as likely to vote towards some scheme or scam to enrich themselves at the expense of others as are the poor folk who do not "own" their land. It is a systemic problem that cannot be done away by simply stating, all blacks can't vote, or, all women can't vote. Rich [white or otherwise] men have gotten fat off of the government's takings for as long as anyone. I could cite example after example but what would be the point? Seems some are stuck in their quasi-bigoted ways and I doubt my thoughts on the subject even register. In any case, it will never happen. The vote is rigged, if not blatantly than through the two party system. This thread is nothing more than offensive mental masturbation that instead of reaching out towards liberty receptive women it no doubt shoos them away (which I'd add further exaggerates the problem as they see it. That is, the appearance of women "inherently" voting for one of the two evil parties presented). It's a shame too, for I think most all people would be receptive towards libertarian ideals if they'd be presented in a way that appeals to their individual concerns.
JustinTime
09-22-2013, 03:41 PM
Does anyone know what percentage of the total female population is married and white?
Deborah K
09-22-2013, 05:30 PM
I don't really care. They don't rule the world. Men do. http://www.seetherites.com/images/smilies/smiley-tongue.png
So you accept full responsibility for the fucked up mess the world's in??? Or is that somehow our fault?
Deborah K
09-22-2013, 05:34 PM
We don't need no stinking muscles
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/machine/mg12/m60e4.jpg
:)
And there's the mighty poonani! :D
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 06:08 PM
And there's the mighty poonani! :D
They must have had us confused with some libtard females. :D
juleswin
09-22-2013, 06:36 PM
Property owners at that.
The point should be clear, they, being the property "owners," are just as likely to vote towards some scheme or scam to enrich themselves at the expense of others as are the poor folk who do not "own" their land. It is a systemic problem that cannot be done away by simply stating, all blacks can't vote, or, all women can't vote. Rich [white or otherwise] men have gotten fat off of the government's takings for as long as anyone. I could cite example after example but what would be the point? Seems some are stuck in their quasi-bigoted ways and I doubt my thoughts on the subject even register. In any case, it will never happen. The vote is rigged, if not blatantly than through the two party system. This thread is nothing more than offensive mental masturbation that instead of reaching out towards liberty receptive women it no doubt shoos them away (which I'd add further exaggerates the problem as they see it. That is, the appearance of women "inherently" voting for one of the two evil parties presented). It's a shame too, for I think most all people would be receptive towards libertarian ideals if they'd be presented in a way that appeals to their individual concerns.
I sorta agree with you, but I think there is a way to fix the voting system without outright banning of women, black or x group. What you need is to device a system that will only allowing citizens who are net tax payers to vote. If you collect a penny more than you pay in taxes? you dont get to vote, if you are a govt worker? you don't get to vote, same goes if you live off govt contracts.
Find a way to do that and the country will fix itself in 1 decade
helmuth_hubener
09-22-2013, 06:53 PM
So you accept full responsibility for the fucked up mess the world's in??? Or is that somehow our fault? Yes! That was my whole point. That was the only reason for including the little note about how males are dominant which so confused Rothbardian Girl as to how it was relevant. It was to say that look, I am not blaming women, nothing against women, it's men's fault, men did this. Men chose to give women the vote. It turned out to be a bad decision.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 07:01 PM
Couldn't let that comment slide. (see edited post)
Face it. It doesn't matter how many women you SAY are successful, there are still way more successful men. It's a fact of life. No bias, no bull. Also, I prefer not to refer to the sexes as "species." That and "race" are substitute words used by people who don't know what they're talking about it. It irks me.
MelissaWV
09-22-2013, 07:04 PM
Face it. It doesn't matter how many women you SAY are successful, there are still way more successful men. It's a fact of life. No bias, no bull. Also, I prefer not to refer to the sexes as "species." That and "race" are substitute words used by people who don't know what they're talking about it. It irks me.
I haven't the foggiest idea why women aren't flocking to the party with ambassadors like these.
I am tempted to believe this and helmuth's posts, though. Obviously a couple of people's mothers failed miserably on several fronts.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 07:14 PM
First of all, I'm not really sure what the first part of your post has to do with the last. You're basically insinuating, if I read your post correctly, that because women haven't historically been represented in so-called "great accomplishments" for humanity, they shouldn't be able to vote? Is that what you are saying? Because otherwise, your post is just two chunks of bloviating, unrelated Quatsch.
Secondly, haven't you stopped to consider the role human psychology plays in all of this? What tends to happen when one group tells another that they cannot succeed, and indeed -- not to even try? The oppressed group tends to accept this as their reality. Telling women they cannot be entrepreneurial or that they cannot handle rigorous math and science means that fewer will bother to try it in the first place. Thus there is a positive feedback loop in which women are told they cannot do [x], fewer try, leading to the supposed "validation" of the aforementioned stereotype. You tried to whitewash your post by saying "Everyone should be free to be whatever kind of exception they want to be", but this is just a passive-aggressive way of reinforcing your terribly biased and destructive viewpoint on the proper roles for men and women.
The above explains why women haven't received as much recognition throughout history. Do you also believe the same is true for blacks and other minorities? How many precious minds have we lost from those groups of people as well, when they were told they would never amount to anything? One of Malcolm X's teachers told him he would best be suited as a manual laborer. He was, as you say, one of the exceptions. But you cannot escape the fact that the cultural attitude you praise and attempt to justify in your post has kept other, potentially brilliant people down. Hell, imagine if your namesake had accepted the advice of his "betters" and kept quiet, never daring to speak out against the Nazi regime?
In fact, your post can be used to justify eugenics as well. Let's go ahead and give every person an IQ test and tell them what kind of "work" they will be doing and what they will be contributing to the state, since obviously some groups are inherently superior to others.
The whole issue I have with your posts in this thread is that you are cherry-picking what you see as a problem, not bothering to adequately research how that problem came about (why exactly are women not as well-represented?), and then picking a "solution" based on your own bias. Back to the drawing board.
There is one simple, yet crucial, error in your assessment. You posited that women are stuck in a feedback loop where they are constantly told that they cannot do certain things. What you fail to consider is why that loop got started in the first place. The fact is, gender roles are as old as humans themselves, and there is a very good reason for it. That's how we've survived, and that's just the way it's been throughout history.
Think about it. Did men just suddenly decide to start brainwashing women into thinking they couldn't do things thousands of years ago so that they could dominate the earth? No, these roles were adopted rather early, and it's because of these roles that women traditionally haven't deviated too far from the mean. The roles served a purpose, and still do. Women aren't kept from greatness, but the reason they generally don't achieve it as much is because it's just a fact of nature that they were built to serve a different biological purpose than men.
So, you're right, they don't try as much, but that's because it involves the internal debate as to whether they should abandon their biological purpose to achieve their own individualistic success and happiness. Most of them choose to serve their biological purpose because it is fulfilling to them and it is a very important part of the circle of life. We all have to make these kinds of decisions, and I won't judge any woman for choosing any certain way, just as long as they don't blame me for their lack of success.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 07:25 PM
I haven't the foggiest idea why women aren't flocking to the party with ambassadors like these.
I am tempted to believe this and helmuth's posts, though. Obviously a couple of people's mothers failed miserably on several fronts.
That's why I said "Face it." I'm not interested in flocking anyone. It's just a fact of life that we all have to come to grips with, regardless of the political agenda we are pursuing. I'm not saying this to attract women to my political camp. It's just the simple truth and no jokes about my mother's failure are going to change that.
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 07:27 PM
I haven't the foggiest idea why women aren't flocking to the party with ambassadors like these.
I am tempted to believe this and helmuth's posts, though. Obviously a couple of people's mothers failed miserably on several fronts.
No kidding. They sound like characters from a dystopian novel where women are chattel.
cajuncocoa
09-22-2013, 07:30 PM
So let me get this straight: some of you are fine with driving libertarians away from your candidates, and others (perhaps some who are also in the first group) are not interested in attracting women to your political camp....or, it would be more accurate to say, you're fine with driving us away in droves also. Well, good luck winning elections with that attitude.
Carlybee
09-22-2013, 07:37 PM
So let me get this straight: some of you are fine with driving libertarians away from your candidates, and others (perhaps some who are also in the first group) are not interested in attracting women to your political camp....or, it would be more accurate to say, you're fine with driving us away in droves also. Well, good luck winning elections with that attitude.
Not to mention they are feeding the Democrat meme that Republicans are waging war on women.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 07:58 PM
So let me get this straight: some of you are fine with driving libertarians away from your candidates, and others (perhaps some who are also in the first group) are not interested in attracting women to your political camp....or, it would be more accurate to say, you're fine with driving us away in droves also. Well, good luck winning elections with that attitude.
Who cares about the elections? I'm all but past expecting political change to occur.
Brian4Liberty
09-22-2013, 07:59 PM
So let me get this straight: some of you are fine with driving libertarians away from your candidates, and others (perhaps some who are also in the first group) are not interested in attracting women to your political camp....or, it would be more accurate to say, you're fine with driving us away in droves also. Well, good luck winning elections with that attitude.
**DISCLAIMER** The views expressed by <insert offensive poster screen name here> are their own, and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RPF management, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Republicans, men, women or any of it's other members. Thank you.
;)
Rothbardian Girl
09-22-2013, 08:02 PM
There is one simple, yet crucial, error in your assessment. You posited that women are stuck in a feedback loop where they are constantly told that they cannot do certain things. What you fail to consider is why that loop got started in the first place. The fact is, gender roles are as old as humans themselves, and there is a very good reason for it. That's how we've survived, and that's just the way it's been throughout history.
Think about it. Did men just suddenly decide to start brainwashing women into thinking they couldn't do things thousands of years ago so that they could dominate the earth? No, these roles were adopted rather early, and it's because of these roles that women traditionally haven't deviated too far from the mean. The roles served a purpose, and still do. Women aren't kept from greatness, but the reason they generally don't achieve it as much is because it's just a fact of nature that they were built to serve a different biological purpose than men.
So, you're right, they don't try as much, but that's because it involves the internal debate as to whether they should abandon their biological purpose to achieve their own individualistic success and happiness. Most of them choose to serve their biological purpose because it is fulfilling to them and it is a very important part of the circle of life. We all have to make these kinds of decisions, and I won't judge any woman for choosing any certain way, just as long as they don't blame me for their lack of success.
I'm not really going to argue with the first paragraph, because I won't deny history. However, I would just like to note that the "biologically-based" excuses for locking women away for their own "safety" have since been debunked (think the ridiculous ones, like the idea that physical activity of any kind would lead to fertility problems). Technology is blurring other biologically-segregated lines as well. So it seems to be an odd sort of romanticism that keeps the barriers to more girls trying math and science in place. That sort of thing has no place in the modern world.
I still don't agree with your other points. By now it should be clear that continuing to push gender roles is simply unlibertarian because the rhetoric does a lot to limit personal freedom, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. Are you willing to deny that girls and women are constantly told that they can't do [x]? Seems to me like the only being that could determine the proper roles for men and women would have to be something spiritual, beyond our comprehension. Since this force hasn't issued any commands in the modern era, or furiously exhorted certain women on this planet to give up their plans and have more children by rapturing them and burning them in hell for all eternity, what exactly provides the justification for continuing to push views that have been continually debunked by modernity? Otherwise it's just one group of imperfect humans telling another group what to do.
I don't know about any other women here, but I haven't ever had an 'internal debate' on whether or not to 'abandon my biological purpose'. I am too young to be thinking about a family yet anyway. Since it obviously takes a man and a woman to make a child, and since we've established that barriers to math and science proficiency are being made obsolete, could we not also say male engineers and scientists abandon their biological purposes, too? Who scolds these men?
Your post also comes off as very passive-aggressive. Any woman reading your post IS going to blame you, because it's again a reinforcement of certain flawed views. You simply have no proof that women now are kept from greatness based on biology. The research shows otherwise.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 08:04 PM
Not to mention they are feeding the Democrat meme that Republicans are waging war on women.
First of all, that's not a meme. Second of all, how am I representing republicans? Am I republican because I am on this board? Am I republican because I espouse unpopular truths about the roles of men and women? Does that alone make me a representative of republicans? These aren't bad things I'm talking about anyway, they're just the way we were designed. I've never said anything about voting "rights". I just believe that women have the role they do in society because of simple biological differences between the sexes that destine us to different purposes. Anyone who is being honest with themselves knows it's the truth because it's right in front of our eyes.
MelissaWV
09-22-2013, 08:09 PM
First of all, that's not a meme. Second of all, how am I representing republicans? Am I republican because I am on this board? Am I republican because I espouse unpopular truths about the roles of men and women? Does that alone make me a representative of republicans? These aren't bad things I'm talking about anyway, they're just the way we were designed. I've never said anything about voting "rights". I just believe that women have the role they do in society because of simple biological differences between the sexes that destine us to different purposes. Anyone who is being honest with themselves knows it's the truth because it's right in front of our eyes.
*looks at thread title*
Yeah this thread has nothing to do with Republicans, and certainly nothing to do with women as voters.
cajuncocoa
09-22-2013, 08:15 PM
**DISCLAIMER** The views expressed by <insert offensive poster screen name here> are their own, and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, RPF management, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Republicans, men, women or any of it's other members. Thank you.
;)OK, so you got this from my sig line. What's your point?
heavenlyboy34
09-22-2013, 08:34 PM
Honey try to take away our voting rights and we'll haul that sucker around in a wheelbarrow :p
lolz...uh-huh...you keep telling yourself that. ;)
Christian Liberty
09-22-2013, 08:39 PM
So let me get this straight: some of you are fine with driving libertarians away from your candidates, and others (perhaps some who are also in the first group) are not interested in attracting women to your political camp....or, it would be more accurate to say, you're fine with driving us away in droves also. Well, good luck winning elections with that attitude.
Who cares about the elections? I'm all but past expecting political change to occur.
Same here. Just proclaim the truth (Whatever you believe that is) and roll with it.
amy31416
09-22-2013, 09:01 PM
So you accept full responsibility for the fucked up mess the world's in??? Or is that somehow our fault?
I'm sure it's somehow our fault...regardless that we have zero power.
Hey Hubener--fuck off.
Christian Liberty
09-22-2013, 09:16 PM
@Rothbardian Girl- Whatever the merits of PaulConventionWV's points, I don't see how they are unlibertarian. It would only be unlibertarian if he were advocating force, which it seems like he isn't.
Trying to make libertarianism into an all-sufficient philosophy for life, rather than a political theory, is something to which Rothbard was strongly opposed.
MelissaWV
09-22-2013, 09:21 PM
Can someone remind me of this thread the next time a "women suck and I'm so lonely and I can't figure out why they don't want me" thread pops up?
Anti Federalist
09-22-2013, 09:23 PM
LOL.
Humanity will be superfluous in 100 years, at the rate we're going.
cajuncocoa
09-22-2013, 09:28 PM
Can someone remind me of this thread the next time a "women suck and I'm so lonely and I can't figure out why they don't want me" thread pops up?
Already bookmarked it.
Rothbardian Girl
09-22-2013, 09:28 PM
@Rothbardian Girl- Whatever the merits of PaulConventionWV's points, I don't see how they are unlibertarian. It would only be unlibertarian if he were advocating force, which it seems like he isn't.
Trying to make libertarianism into an all-sufficient philosophy for life, rather than a political theory, is something to which Rothbard was strongly opposed.
Here I must admit my name is somewhat of a misnomer and doesn't adequately describe my ideology at this point; I've moved past strict Rothbardianism. What you're describing is sometimes termed "thin libertarianism" -- I find that such a viewpoint is too myopic for my tastes. My personal goal is to achieve a more just society for all. In my estimation, the State arose and was able to perpetuate itself precisely because people wanted to impose their unlibertarian viewpoints on others. The way to kill the ugliness associated with statism is to work towards changing people's hearts and minds. As an an-cap, you should favor this end of education, no?
By the way, I rather like how your post seems to imply people are wrong when they pick and choose elements of different ideological influences. If everyone simply regurgitated the talking points of everyone that came before them, it seems to me that intellectual growth would stagnate.
Feeding the Abscess
09-22-2013, 09:39 PM
Good for women. Hopefully more of them will continue to reject the Republican message of the welfare/warfare state and instead embrace the message of liberty and a free society.
amy31416
09-22-2013, 09:53 PM
I hate people.
Brett85
09-22-2013, 09:56 PM
Good for women. Hopefully more of them will continue to reject the Republican message of the welfare/warfare state and instead embrace the message of liberty and a free society.
That's not what they're embracing. They think that the Republican Party isn't nearly supportive enough of the welfare state.
Feeding the Abscess
09-22-2013, 10:07 PM
That's not what they're embracing. They think that the Republican Party isn't nearly supportive enough of the welfare state.
Then the Republican party is doing a terrible job at voter outreach, setting aside the collectivist nature of your statement. Every Republican president since Hoover has brought massive expansions in the welfare and entitlement states, and the only tangible idea from the Romney/Ryan presidential campaign was a criticism of Obama's $700 billion 'cut' to Medicare.
The Republican party needs to die. More women need to be brought into the liberty fold. If one happens before the other, that is great. If both happens, even better. Criticizing women for not supporting the idiocy of the Republican party will not achieve either goal.
Nirvikalpa
09-22-2013, 10:08 PM
Just would like to report that there were tons of liberty ladies at LPAC, working hard to advance the message of liberty. Here's a thank you to the lovely ladies who stick around here... and work for, donate, phonebank, and support our liberty candidates in other ways despite the (rampant) bullshit that seems to present itself in this pursuit of freedom.
Feeding the Abscess
09-22-2013, 10:10 PM
Just would like to report that there were tons of liberty ladies at LPAC, working hard to advance the message of liberty. Here's a thank you to the lovely ladies who stick around here... and work for, donate, phonebank, and support our liberty candidates in other ways despite the (rampant) bullshit that seems to present itself in this pursuit of freedom.
Fantastic. Continue to bring more women into the fold.
Austrian Econ Disciple
09-22-2013, 10:22 PM
My first question is; why are people equating GOP with libertarianism? That's funny. My first point qua first question, I don't see anything unique about women that predisposes against libertarian positions. I don't like feminism, and I don't like the extremely religious folks who think women should have different standards than themselves.
I do have to say though that hormonal issues can be frustrating. Don't try and have a political dialogue when a girl is at her peak time of the month. :p
Other than that, as long as we're moving in the same direction - all aboard.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 10:24 PM
*looks at thread title*
Yeah this thread has nothing to do with Republicans, and certainly nothing to do with women as voters.
That's not what I said. I said I didn't refer to it. And no, just because we're talking about republicans, that doesn't mean I or any of us represent them in any way.
PaulConventionWV
09-22-2013, 10:27 PM
Can someone remind me of this thread the next time a "women suck and I'm so lonely and I can't figure out why they don't want me" thread pops up?
Don't flatter yourself.
Christian Liberty
09-22-2013, 10:33 PM
Here I must admit my name is somewhat of a misnomer and doesn't adequately describe my ideology at this point; I've moved past strict Rothbardianism. What you're describing is sometimes termed "thin libertarianism" -- I find that such a viewpoint is too myopic for my tastes. My personal goal is to achieve a more just society for all. In my estimation, the State arose and was able to perpetuate itself precisely because people wanted to impose their unlibertarian viewpoints on others. The way to kill the ugliness associated with statism is to work towards changing people's hearts and minds. As an an-cap, you should favor this end of education, no?
By the way, I rather like how your post seems to imply people are wrong when they pick and choose elements of different ideological influences. If everyone simply regurgitated the talking points of everyone that came before them, it seems to me that intellectual growth would stagnate.
OK, let me address a couple of things.
First of all, I'm not a strict Rothbardian, but I suppose I assumed that you were. This is the exact same thing that I got ticked off about on another forum: for awhile my username was "RandPaulfor2016" so everyone kept acting like I was speaking for Rand on every view (Which, if you know me, is NOT a good thing to put on Rand, not on a conservative forum at any rate). I've since changed my username, but it was annoying nonetheless. So I'll start by apologizing to you that I did kind of subtlely imply that Rothbard's views were always yours. I did not intend to do so.
Second: with regards to Rothbard's statement, I tend to agree with him on that particular statement, but I don't claim to agree with him on every view either. I believe I've called Rothbard's position on abortion "ridiculous" actually. Even for a pro-choice libertarian, Walter Block articulates a much more logical "pro-choice" stance than Rothbard does. I think Rothbard's stance is pretty easy to refute. But Rothbard was excellent on a lot of issues as well. The only one person I would take my views from is God himself, as revealed in his Holy Bible. Anything else is subject to error, whether Rothbard, Ron Paul, myself, or anyone else.
All that said, I'm much more a supporter of the family and the church than some "philospohical/lifestyle" type libertarians. Although I'm a strong believer in the NAP, I don't pretend like it applies within a family, whereas some ""philosophical libertarians" like Molineux kind of go off the deep end with, IMO.
As for education, I'm 100% in favor of that, in fact, ANY other tactic, whether running for office, voting, civil disobedience, or even (defensive) violence are ultimately only useful if they succeed in educating.
Now: I don't think someone is "unlibertarian" in any way because they have a collectivist view of women, whether correct or not. I think that falls outside the purview of strict libertarianism, and falls under the jurisdiction of something else.
Brian4Liberty
09-22-2013, 10:36 PM
OK, so you got this from my sig line. What's your point?
Nothing other than the obvious. Posters only represent themselves, no one else.
Christian Liberty
09-22-2013, 10:40 PM
Can someone remind me of this thread the next time a "women suck and I'm so lonely and I can't figure out why they don't want me" thread pops up?
lol. WIth all that said, I don't think anyone is referring to anyone here with any generalization they might make.
Anti Federalist
09-23-2013, 06:04 AM
Just would like to report that there were tons of liberty ladies at LPAC, working hard to advance the message of liberty. Here's a thank you to the lovely ladies who stick around here... and work for, donate, phonebank, and support our liberty candidates in other ways despite the (rampant) bullshit that seems to present itself in this pursuit of freedom.
I'm glad that happens and agree.
It happens because some folks have identified a problem and choose to address it, rather than stomp and fuss and try to argue that there is no problem.
Origanalist
09-23-2013, 06:27 AM
Already bookmarked it.
Girls never forget.......
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 06:34 AM
Nothing other than the obvious. Posters only represent themselves, no one else.Yeah, you posted it in response to this:
So let me get this straight: some of you are fine with driving libertarians away from your candidates, and others (perhaps some who are also in the first group) are not interested in attracting women to your political camp....or, it would be more accurate to say, you're fine with driving us away in droves also. Well, good luck winning elections with that attitude.The fact that these posters who are fine with (etc. etc. etc.) only represent themselves doesn't change the fact that they've made it clear that's how THEY feel. And (speaking only for myself) I find it strange that they think they will be successful winning elections by driving people away.
I hope that clears it up. :)
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 06:35 AM
Girls never forget.......
;)
Brett85
09-23-2013, 06:42 AM
Then the Republican party is doing a terrible job at voter outreach, setting aside the collectivist nature of your statement. Every Republican president since Hoover has brought massive expansions in the welfare and entitlement states, and the only tangible idea from the Romney/Ryan presidential campaign was a criticism of Obama's $700 billion 'cut' to Medicare.
The Republican party needs to die. More women need to be brought into the liberty fold. If one happens before the other, that is great. If both happens, even better. Criticizing women for not supporting the idiocy of the Republican party will not achieve either goal.
The Republican Party will most likely die since most voters believe that the Republican Party goes too far in the direction of liberty and limited government. Voters aren't voting for Democrats because they believe that the Repubicans are somehow "not small government enough." I mean, Romney lost Ohio because he opposed the auto bailouts.
And I'm talking about voters in general, not just women voters.
Voluntarist
09-23-2013, 06:45 AM
xxxxx
otherone
09-23-2013, 06:57 AM
The Republican Party will most likely die since most voters believe that the Republican Party goes too far in the direction of liberty and limited government.
Wait...this is the Republican party you're talking about?
Origanalist
09-23-2013, 07:02 AM
Wait...this is the Republican party you're talking about?
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Jack-Nicholson-lol.gif
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 07:09 AM
The Republican Party will most likely die since most voters believe that the Republican Party goes too far in the direction of liberty and limited government. Voters aren't voting for Democrats because they believe that the Repubicans are somehow "not small government enough." I mean, Romney lost Ohio because he opposed the auto bailouts.
And I'm talking about voters in general, not just women voters.
Wait...this is the Republican party you're talking about?
LOL @ otherone...I get the joke, but I also get TC's point. We are living in times where people hold on tight to their entitlements and it's hard to promote reducing the size of government when you can't cut anything. THAT IS WHY EDUCATING THEM IS SO IMPORTANT. If we just continue to pander to them, we CAN'T get anywhere. They need to see that they're part of the problem.
Brett85
09-23-2013, 07:19 AM
Wait...this is the Republican party you're talking about?
Yes, I'm pointing out that while many of us don't like the Republican Party because we don't view them as being an authentic limited government Party, a lot of regular voters don't like them because they think the GOP wants to cut too much spending and reduce the size of government too much for their tastes.
Petar
09-23-2013, 07:31 AM
Seriously; the only reason that this thread keeps on raging is because both camps are trying to "blame" this statistic on either:
A) Stupid men who are ignorant and rude and dissuade women from supporting limited government
or
B) Stupid women who just aren't smart enough to support limited government
Let's just say that it's some indeterminate mix of both.
If we keep fighting about which gender is "more at fault" then all we really do is make asses of ourselves in general.
"Hermaphro-asses"
Barrex
09-23-2013, 07:43 AM
Wait... Did I start this?
Petar
09-23-2013, 07:48 AM
Wait... Did I start this?
I think it started the day that nature decided that sexual reproduction was gonna be the general modus operandi.
thoughtomator
09-23-2013, 08:41 AM
The bottom line problem is that men love women more than women love men and I don't see a solution to that issue coming anytime soon.
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 08:51 AM
The bottom line problem is that men love women more than women love men and I don't see a solution to that issue coming anytime soon.
I don't think that's it at all.
AuH20
09-23-2013, 08:52 AM
Women are generally hardwired to overtures of security, which the democrats excel at fraudulently projecting. This isn't exactly complex to understand. The republican and libertarian message will always be at a disadvantage for this very reason.
Cabal
09-23-2013, 08:55 AM
LOL @ otherone...I get the joke, but I also get TC's point. We are living in times where people hold on tight to their entitlements and it's hard to promote reducing the size of government when you can't cut anything. THAT IS WHY EDUCATING THEM IS SO IMPORTANT. If we just continue to pander to them, we CAN'T get anywhere. They need to see that they're part of the problem.
Ever heard of something called 'backfire'?
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 09:01 AM
Ever heard of something called 'backfire'?Explain.
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 09:05 AM
Women are generally hardwired to overtures of security, which the democrats excel at fraudulently projecting. This isn't exactly complex to understand. The republican and libertarian message will always be at a disadvantage for this very reason.
I don't think it's hardwiring. I think circumstances make it necessary in many cases (unfortunately). When a couple who have children split up, most of the time it's the mom who winds up as the primary caregiver and financial provider for the kids. Not being prepared to find herself in that situation, the woman then looks to government to provide the security she thought she would get from her children's father. In a perfect world, women would make better choices and men would live up to their responsibilities.
EDIT TO ADD: I'm not painting all men as "deadbeat Dads" ... not at all. There are many men who DO live up to their responsibilities, but when others don't, women look to other sources for financial support. Hence, "security moms" vote Democrat.
helmuth_hubener
09-23-2013, 09:23 AM
I'm sure it's somehow our fault...regardless that we have zero power.
Hey Hubener-- you're a doo-doo head No, actually Deborah K gets it exactly right (as I said (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428299-ONLY-36-of-women-lean-Republican-lower-than-ever&p=5236921&viewfull=1#post5236921)). It is men's fault. This was what I've been saying from the start. You simply did not carefully read my words which were there, plain and clear on the page. Instead you let your emotions get the best of you. Are you a... woman, by chance? ;)
Here is my line of reasoning, yet again:
1. Women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate.
1b. P.S: I am saying this not because they fail to "vote Republican," as if Republican is somehow invariably the correct choice. Rather, on a wide range of issues, in fact on almost every issue, they support the wrong position in greater numbers than men.
1c. P.P.S: I am not saying women are to be despised because of this, nor that our country's problems are to be laid at the feet of women. Rather, I carefully explain that men are the ones who lead in society, and that it was men who made the decision to even let women vote in the first place. For that matter, they also were the ones who decided to rule things via voting -- that is, mob rule -- at all, which was obviously a horrible and foolish decision. Men have no one to blame but themselves for the problems that predictably arise from allowing women to vote, and indeed from a voting system generally.
2. No one has any "right" to vote. It's not a natural right. The "right" to participate in mob-rule does not exist, because mob-rule itself should not exist, and is an abomination.
3. Our ultimate goal as libertarians is to eliminate mob-rule altogether, as incompatible with human happiness and liberty. That is, we want to take away everyone's "right" to vote! You have no right to vote on how your neighbor must live his life.
4. In the mean time, if we could use or manipulate our mob-rule system in any way to further advance the outcome of liberty, we should feel free to do so. Because we believe there is no "right" to vote, we are in a pure consequentialist, or practical, position. Whatever works to advance our goals, let's do it. If preventing certain groups with undesirable views from voting will prevent their views from being implemented, obviously we should prevent them.
5. Because women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate (see 1), they should be prevented from voting.
You can see my reply to FreedomFanatic on this, too. We should also forbid blacks from voting, for the same reason as women. If it were feasible, we should forbid everyone but hard-core libertarians from voting (who will then quickly eliminate the monopoly state, and thus voting, altogether). Of course, none of this is politically feasible, at this time, in the United States overall.
Cabal
09-23-2013, 09:23 AM
Explain.
IIRC, it's a term coined by a group of researchers out of the University of Michigan who conducted a study a few years ago. The study found that in general, when people are presented with evidence and facts that contradict the political beliefs they hold, they actually tend to adhere to those political beliefs more strongly than before.
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
It's a psychological phenomenon, and really it makes a lot of sense. People make a lot of choices in their lives that are very much guided by their politics to one degree or another--who they're friends with, who their significant others are, how they raise their kids, what initiatives they support, how they perceive the world, etc. It's in their synaptic circuitry. So, to show them how wrong they've been about something they've believed all this time, and made lifestyle decisions from is often too jarring, and threatening. Thus, irrational defense mechanisms will be thrown up, and that presentation of evidence will actually have cemented them further in their misconceptions.
It's basically faith over reason. Really interesting stuff, actually, however unfortunate.
thoughtomator
09-23-2013, 09:24 AM
I don't think it's hardwiring. I think circumstances make it necessary in many cases (unfortunately). When a couple who have children split up, most of the time it's the mom who winds up as the primary caregiver and financial provider for the kids. Not being prepared to find herself in that situation, the woman then looks to government to provide the security she thought she would get from her children's father. In a perfect world, women would make better choices and men would live up to their responsibilities.
EDIT TO ADD: I'm not painting all men as "deadbeat Dads" ... not at all. There are many men who DO live up to their responsibilities, but when others don't, women look to other sources for financial support. Hence, "security moms" vote Democrat.
Unfortunately, the "solution" to that problem is to give every woman, who is in a relationship with a man, a government gun permanently pressed to the temple of her partner. This dynamic alone has caused more pain and suffering than the original problem that this solution was allegedly intended to solve. Women are perfectly satisfied with this arrangement; not one in a thousand will protest its essential injustice and cruelty.
Rothbardian Girl
09-23-2013, 09:46 AM
No, actually Deborah K gets it exactly right (as I said (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428299-ONLY-36-of-women-lean-Republican-lower-than-ever&p=5236921&viewfull=1#post5236921)). It is men's fault. This was what I've been saying from the start. You simply did not carefully read my words which were there, plain and clear on the page. Instead you let your emotions get the best of you. Are you a... woman, by chance? ;)
Here is my line of reasoning, yet again:
1. Women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate.
1b. P.S: I am saying this not because they fail to "vote Republican," as if Republican is somehow invariably the correct choice. Rather, on a wide range of issues, in fact on almost every issue, they support the wrong position in greater numbers than men.
1c. P.P.S: I am not saying women are to be despised because of this, nor that our country's problems are to be laid at the feet of women. Rather, I carefully explain that men are the ones who lead in society, and that it was men who made the decision to even let women vote in the first place. For that matter, they also were the ones who decided to rule things via voting -- that is, mob rule -- at all, which was obviously a horrible and foolish decision. Men have no one to blame but themselves for the problems that predictably arise from allowing women to vote, and indeed from a voting system generally.
2. No one has any "right" to vote. It's not a natural right. The "right" to participate in mob-rule does not exist, because mob-rule itself should not exist, and is an abomination.
3. Our ultimate goal as libertarians is to eliminate mob-rule altogether, as incompatible with human happiness and liberty. That is, we want to take away everyone's "right" to vote! You have no right to vote on how your neighbor must live his life.
4. In the mean time, if we could use or manipulate our mob-rule system in any way to further advance the outcome of liberty, we should feel free to do so. Because we believe there is no "right" to vote, we are in a pure consequentialist, or practical, position. Whatever works to advance our goals, let's do it. If preventing certain groups with undesirable views from voting will prevent their views from being implemented, obviously we should prevent them.
5. Because women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate (see 1), they should be prevented from voting.
You can see my reply to FreedomFanatic on this, too. We should also forbid blacks from voting, for the same reason as women. If it were feasible, we should forbid everyone but hard-core libertarians from voting (who will then quickly eliminate the monopoly state, and thus voting, altogether). Of course, none of this is politically feasible, at this time, in the United States overall.
I fail to see how your posts have any practical application whatsoever, unless you're one of those people who thinks the system will collapse within the next five years. You're right that voting is not truly legitimate. However, it seems as though you just wanted an excuse to be a jackass in this thread, because anyone with at least an ounce of sense in his or her head would recognize that posting such inflammatory and provocative things ultimately doesn't bring anyone over to our side. How do you explain the steady growth of the Roman state, given that only natural-born Roman men were allowed to vote? I'd be interested in seeing how your little hypotheticals would have worked out in that time period.
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 09:49 AM
IIRC, it's a term coined by a group of researchers out of the University of Michigan who conducted a study a few years ago. The study found that in general, when people are presented with evidence and facts that contradict the political beliefs they hold, they actually tend to adhere to those political beliefs more strongly than before.
It's a psychological phenomenon, and really it makes a lot of sense. People make a lot of choices in their lives that are very much guided by their politics to one degree or another--who they're friends with, who their significant others are, how they raise their kids, what initiatives they support, how they perceive the world, etc. It's in their synaptic circuitry. So, to show them how wrong they've been about something they've believed all this time, and made lifestyle decisions from is often too jarring, and threatening. Thus, irrational defense mechanisms will be thrown up, and that presentation of evidence will actually have cemented them further in their misconceptions.
It's basically faith over reason. Really interesting stuff, actually, however unfortunate.similar to cognitive dissonance. Yes, I'm familiar with that concept.
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 09:52 AM
Unfortunately, the "solution" to that problem is to give every woman, who is in a relationship with a man, a government gun permanently pressed to the temple of her partner. This dynamic alone has caused more pain and suffering than the original problem that this solution was allegedly intended to solve. Women are perfectly satisfied with this arrangement; not one in a thousand will protest its essential injustice and cruelty.
Meh...I don't want a government gun. I've been married to the same man for going on 37 years...we have 2 grown sons, and they're all good men. Make good choices.
amy31416
09-23-2013, 10:21 AM
No, actually Deborah K gets it exactly right (as I said (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428299-ONLY-36-of-women-lean-Republican-lower-than-ever&p=5236921&viewfull=1#post5236921)). It is men's fault. This was what I've been saying from the start. You simply did not carefully read my words which were there, plain and clear on the page. Instead you let your emotions get the best of you. Are you a... woman, by chance? ;)
Here is my line of reasoning, yet again:
1. Women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate.
1b. P.S: I am saying this not because they fail to "vote Republican," as if Republican is somehow invariably the correct choice. Rather, on a wide range of issues, in fact on almost every issue, they support the wrong position in greater numbers than men.
1c. P.P.S: I am not saying women are to be despised because of this, nor that our country's problems are to be laid at the feet of women. Rather, I carefully explain that men are the ones who lead in society, and that it was men who made the decision to even let women vote in the first place. For that matter, they also were the ones who decided to rule things via voting -- that is, mob rule -- at all, which was obviously a horrible and foolish decision. Men have no one to blame but themselves for the problems that predictably arise from allowing women to vote, and indeed from a voting system generally.
2. No one has any "right" to vote. It's not a natural right. The "right" to participate in mob-rule does not exist, because mob-rule itself should not exist, and is an abomination.
3. Our ultimate goal as libertarians is to eliminate mob-rule altogether, as incompatible with human happiness and liberty. That is, we want to take away everyone's "right" to vote! You have no right to vote on how your neighbor must live his life.
4. In the mean time, if we could use or manipulate our mob-rule system in any way to further advance the outcome of liberty, we should feel free to do so. Because we believe there is no "right" to vote, we are in a pure consequentialist, or practical, position. Whatever works to advance our goals, let's do it. If preventing certain groups with undesirable views from voting will prevent their views from being implemented, obviously we should prevent them.
5. Because women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate (see 1), they should be prevented from voting.
You can see my reply to FreedomFanatic on this, too. We should also forbid blacks from voting, for the same reason as women. If it were feasible, we should forbid everyone but hard-core libertarians from voting (who will then quickly eliminate the monopoly state, and thus voting, altogether). Of course, none of this is politically feasible, at this time, in the United States overall.
Fuck off, Helmuth. You have no idea how to get your point across in a decent, rational way. And that is 100% your fault.
Christian Liberty
09-23-2013, 10:39 AM
Wait...this is the Republican party you're talking about?
Unfortunately TC is probably right, but its a total joke. I mean, my world politics teacher pointed out that a Republican started DHS. I asked why people still think the GOP is a small government party. No response could be given.
Carlybee
09-23-2013, 10:54 AM
No, actually Deborah K gets it exactly right (as I said (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428299-ONLY-36-of-women-lean-Republican-lower-than-ever&p=5236921&viewfull=1#post5236921)). It is men's fault. This was what I've been saying from the start. You simply did not carefully read my words which were there, plain and clear on the page. Instead you let your emotions get the best of you. Are you a... woman, by chance? ;)
Here is my line of reasoning, yet again:
1. Women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate.
1b. P.S: I am saying this not because they fail to "vote Republican," as if Republican is somehow invariably the correct choice. Rather, on a wide range of issues, in fact on almost every issue, they support the wrong position in greater numbers than men.
1c. P.P.S: I am not saying women are to be despised because of this, nor that our country's problems are to be laid at the feet of women. Rather, I carefully explain that men are the ones who lead in society, and that it was men who made the decision to even let women vote in the first place. For that matter, they also were the ones who decided to rule things via voting -- that is, mob rule -- at all, which was obviously a horrible and foolish decision. Men have no one to blame but themselves for the problems that predictably arise from allowing women to vote, and indeed from a voting system generally.
2. No one has any "right" to vote. It's not a natural right. The "right" to participate in mob-rule does not exist, because mob-rule itself should not exist, and is an abomination.
3. Our ultimate goal as libertarians is to eliminate mob-rule altogether, as incompatible with human happiness and liberty. That is, we want to take away everyone's "right" to vote! You have no right to vote on how your neighbor must live his life.
4. In the mean time, if we could use or manipulate our mob-rule system in any way to further advance the outcome of liberty, we should feel free to do so. Because we believe there is no "right" to vote, we are in a pure consequentialist, or practical, position. Whatever works to advance our goals, let's do it. If preventing certain groups with undesirable views from voting will prevent their views from being implemented, obviously we should prevent them.
5. Because women tend to vote for bad things at a higher rate (see 1), they should be prevented from voting.
You can see my reply to FreedomFanatic on this, too. We should also forbid blacks from voting, for the same reason as women. If it were feasible, we should forbid everyone but hard-core libertarians from voting (who will then quickly eliminate the monopoly state, and thus voting, altogether). Of course, none of this is politically feasible, at this time, in the United States overall.
And maybe men should lose the right to vote because they vote for stupid shit. See how that works?
Christian Liberty
09-23-2013, 11:08 AM
And maybe men should lose the right to vote because they vote for stupid shit. See how that works?
Again, why can't we just limit voting to members of this forum?:p
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 11:11 AM
Again, why can't we just limit voting to members of this forum?:pGiven some comments I'm seeing on here today, I'm not even sure that would yield good results.
Christian Liberty
09-23-2013, 11:11 AM
Given some comments I'm seeing on here today, I'm not even sure that would yield good results.
I think it would yield BETTER results.
Carlybee
09-23-2013, 11:23 AM
Limiting voting to one group only is anti libertarian. May as well return to feudal times if that's the case but if that happened the women won't be doing anything but birthing babies and learning to play the harpsichord this time.
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 11:26 AM
I think it would yield BETTER results.You would think so, but I'm not so sure.
Christian Liberty
09-23-2013, 11:27 AM
Limiting voting to one group only is anti libertarian. May as well return to feudal times if that's the case but if that happened the women won't be doing anything but birthing babies and learning to play the harpsichord this time.
That implies that voting is actually a right. As an anarchist, I completely disagree with that.
cajuncocoa
09-23-2013, 11:28 AM
Limiting voting to one group only is anti libertarian. May as well return to feudal times if that's the case but if that happened the women won't be doing anything but birthing babies and learning to play the harpsichord this time.
I agree with you, but I think (I hope?) FF is just being facetious. Even so, I'm not so sure about many of the members on this forum, given this thread and the other one in which you and I have participated today.
Anti Federalist
09-23-2013, 11:28 AM
I'm in favor of eliminating the "right" to vote for everybody.
If I am to be ruled by tyrants, as it certainly appears, I'd rather be ruled by one, than by thousands.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.