What would you do? What would John Galt do?
You walk into a small beach bar on the ocean and a guy is sitting there. You have met him at this establishment before so you sit down near him and strike up a conversation. This is the sort of bar where patrons generally talk freely amongst each other. The man was in politics years ago in Kansas and occasionally brings up political topics. You know that his opinions are all over the map and have even moved to the pool table in the sand in order to not listen to him before. You try to steer the conversation away from politics, but he is not deterred. Then he says:
1) He is for raising the minimum wage
What would you do?
2) He states that minimum wage will not affect unemployment and the law of supply and demand has been repealed.
What would you do?
3) Then he says Obamacare is great.
WWYD?
4) After explaining that the only areas were the cost of medical has gone down are those the government stayed out of (e.g., Laser correction surgery), he says we are the only advanced nation without nationalized health care.
WWYD?
5) Then he says kathleen sebelius, who is from Kansas, is a wonderful women.
6) Then he calls you a racist, because you state Obama has the same philosophy Stalin, Moa, Hilter, etc.
7) Then he states we should get rid of the Constitution.
WWYD?
1) He is for raising the minimum wage
What would you do?
2) He states that minimum wage will not affect unemployment and the law of supply and demand has been repealed.
What would you do?
3) Then he says Obamacare is great.
WWYD?
4) After explaining that the only areas were the cost of medical has gone down are those the government stayed out of (e.g., Laser correction surgery), he says we are the only advanced nation without nationalized health care.
WWYD?
5) Then he says kathleen sebelius, who is from Kansas, is a wonderful women.
6) Then he calls you a racist, because you state Obama has the same philosophy Stalin, Moa, Hilter, etc.
7) Then he states we should get rid of the Constitution.
WWYD?
More likely, it's because the B-17s were put together by real women, who loved the men fighting overseas, even the ones they didn't know, loved them for being men, and were extra careful and attentive in their work to make sure those B-17s miraculously brought lovers, fathers, sons home again. Which they did.
"It is impossible for a man to love his wife wholeheartedly without loving all women somewhat." - Robert A. Heinlein
I've discovered this to be true (even having no wife), and I'd be willing to bet the converse is true for women, as well.
Every time I see a news report talking about the "unaccompanied minors" coming across the border, I find myself quoting Alan Rickman...
"MINERS, not MINORS!"
"You lost me"
The scene where Taggart discovers he's a joke... the scene where he decides to be the character he played at being. Sigourney Weaver (looking surprisingly beautiful; can't believe I said that about a communist) giving such expressive looks as she observes his evolution.
Alan Rickman's evolution when he loses his one fan.
Oh well. Then just call me a misogynist.
I have not read John Lott's paper and I don't want to either.
It started out with me presenting facts that the women here did not want to hear. They started the name-calling and refused to engage ON THE FACTS.
The more they deny the obvious, engage in personal attacks and refuse to engage on a FACTUAL basis, the more it becomes clear that they're dishonest or mentally challenged. In either case, their opinions become meaningless.
You'll note that NOT ONE has engaged on the facts in the John Lott paper on the effects of women voting. The problem is the women here don't LIKE the facts and they cannot DISPUTE the facts. All that's left to them is name-calling fits. If they receive insults in response to their insults, it's no less than they deserve.
If they would engage on facts, they'd find my posts will lose their barbs - but the facts can be pretty thorny things all by themselves… especially when none support your sacred beliefs.
For the record, I assert that our economic system did not go haywire (begin its plunge into irrecoverable debt) until women began to vote, that women voting was the primary and proximate cause of the aggregation of debt and the female vote is responsible for the vast majority of the unfunded mandates (mostly social welfare programs) which are estimated to be on the order of $200 trillion over the next 50 years. I further assert that if women did NOT vote, that most of our current $17+ trillion dollar debt would not exist.
In short, women in America act like they think government spending is a "no limit" credit card that never has to be paid off and when this is mentioned they don't want to talk about it.
It is the majority of women (and a minority of men), through this financial evisceration of the government (while demanding that it grow to meet their every whim) who are destroying America.
Anyone have FACTS to the contrary? Let 'er rip.
There was a study cited in a science magazine in the mid-80s. The study examined how men and women viewed justice.
The women in the study tended to view justice as doing the least harm to the least number, while the men viewed it as punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior.
The conclusion was that these views were a result of our early roles; men went out on the hunt where making mistakes gets people killed, whereas women were left as the only fully able-bodied to run a camp full of the elderly, the crippled and children. Letting interpersonal situations get out of hand would result in harm, there.
Assuming this study is accurate in their findings and conclusions, it makes sense that as women gain influence in society and government, the nature of the society and government would change.
:)
A saying from the bad old days when women still wore dresses and skirts....
(isn't it funny how guys who dress like girls are called "transvestites" but women dress like men every day and nobody thinks anything of it?)
Load more comments...