Just came across this story… http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/...

The article wasn't politically-correct, so CNN yanked it. So not just monkeys. Pre-menstrual monkeys.

No problem. I probably overreacted. It would not have been the first time that someone couldn't come up with any facts to support their position and decided to dig into irrelevancies, but I can see that wasn't your intention, so I apologize. Personally, I don't generally have that sort of idle curiosity, so it makes it a little harder for me to understand why it would be of interest to anyone else.

I've lost the thread. To what message do you refer? "any"?

Just a shot in the dark, but:

1) Women are the majority of voters (~53% of all voters)
2) The "gender gap" between men and women is 10% or 20% or 18% depending on which source you cite and how they measure it. (The major discrepancy seems to be that in one measure, if 60% of women went for Obama and only 40% of men did, the "gap" is 20%, but some say, "If 10% of men/women changed their vote, the gap would be eliminated." Either way, in political terms it's a HUGE gap, considering that in most elections, 45% just vote for their "tribe" and the election is decided by the remaining 10%).

So the majority of the majority voted for Obama, both times. And the majority of the minority voted against Obama (men - both times). If you've bothered to read the pages at the links I've cited, you'll see that only one democratic president would have been elected in modern times without the female vote. Frankly, I think the Republicans (most of them) are almost as bad as the Democrats. I think of them in terms of the Demoncrats are communists and the Republicans are socialists - with a few Constitutionalists who are trying to drag the Socialist, I mean REPUBLICAN party back to its former roots.

So when I speak of the majority of women, I speak of idiots. When I speak of the majority of voters, I speak of idiots. And when I speak of the majority of women voters, I speak of… well, you know.

Let's try that with men. The majority of male voters… wait. They WEREN'T stupid enough to vote for Obama. If it had been left up to men alone to decide, Obama never would have won in the first place. Either time. And as bad as Bush was (and he was HORRIBLE) he wasn't anywhere near as bad as the communist currently in the Oval Office.

Now here's a little factoid that I didn't know before - but which shows how utterly stupid women really are: The majority of WORKING women voted for Obama! Here's hoping they're in a high enough tax bracket that their health insurance premiums quintuple and they can no longer afford it.

So, rather than destroying America out of selfishness, women are destroying America out of whimsy? (I think that may be worse than the alternative.) Or "peer pressure" (that they feel in a voting booth where no one can see what their vote is???) You've opened up entirely NEW possibilities for the utter stupidity of the majority of women! They're screwing up America, not because they feel a NEED to do it, but just because,"Oh, gee whiz. Angela is voting for Obama, so I probably should too" or "I'm so freaking gutless, I'm afraid Sharon won't like me anymore if I don't vote for Obama" or even, "Obama's black. I'll vote for the black guy because we haven't had a black president before. Next time I'll vote for a Nazi because we haven't had one of those yet either!"

I know I see the world through my own "lens". We all do. We tend to ascribe to others some of the attributes we possess, even if there's no evidence they share the trait. It's a human failing. So, being largely logic-oriented, I ascribe to women a measure of logic that they apparently do not possess. I think that they do something because they reason that it's the best choice - but I see now that I'm probably mistaken. There is no "reason" to the process.

We might as well let monkeys vote.

If it's not to protect themselves, then why do the majority of women vote socialist?

It's one thing to say, "No. That's not it." But what's the alternative hypothesis?

Hard to tell.

Think you can explain it?

See? All you've done is make the case that there exists at least one woman who is not a total moron. The problem is, there are over 100 million+ "walking dead" (a minority of whom are men).

I wish there were a device that allowed one to determine the IQ of those around you, something like a colored light that was white at 100, deep red at 90 and bright green above 120. It sure would save a lot of time to know in advance when the person you're talking to is too stupid to understand what you're saying. (By the same token, it can be torture to try to figure out what some morons are going on about. Take Chuck Schumer and his recent tirades against "plastic guns"!)

James Fixx (author of "Games for the Super-Intelligent") once said that when two people's IQs differ by more than 30 points, they have nothing in common. I've generally found that to be true.

>> "I will agree that there are more men than women"

Whaaaaht? You don't know that women are 53% of voters?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/w...

Not sure what you mean by that? Are you saying you love socialist policies so much that you will continue to vote for them despite the fact that the "team" (America) is being killed by that approach?

The "coin" is guaging by "feelings" rather than thoughts or facts. If the question was asked to no purpose, then you're just wasting time. The most likely purpose for asking is to judge me by my "feelings" (since the answer has no probative value to the issue under discussion).

What if I asked you if you've ever had a taxpayer-funded abortion, ever got drunk and had sex with a total stranger, ever cheated on your boyfriend/husband? Ever been arrested for criminal activity? Are you one of those "welfare queens"? Do you use mind-altering drugs? Are you a drunk? Those would all be "back story" questions - but of what relevance to the discussion? The issue (to me) is the majority of women who have consigned America to destruction through their short-sighted voting patterns - not whether you're a welfare slut or I'm a misogynist.

When someone adduces relevant facts, I don't really care whether they're male, female, transgendered, Democrat, Nazi, Republican, Libertarian, white, black, red, yellow, purple, lutheran, catholic, satanist, agnostic, atheist. A fact is a fact, regardless of who introduces it. If you have issue with any facts I've presented, fire away, but in case you haven't noticed, I've given links for source material (haven't noticed anyone else doing that) so if you have issues with what I've presented, you can go direct to the source, read the material yourself and draw your own conclusions. That's a level of transparency I don't see most places - even here, where people tend to be a little smarter than the average bear.