13

A photo that says it all

Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 5 months ago to Pics
509 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A friend posted this on FB. I HAD to share it. Enjoy!

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 8.
  • Posted by $ GMudd 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am super torn because I CAN see where you are coming from but I do not see your proposed fix nor how to institute said fix other than get mad about the state that our country is in (which is easy to do) No I am not an emotionally-charged-defender-of-women I am someone who is trying to compile a rational idea of how you propose to fix the "problem" that exists in our country.
    Yes we slid downhill after women got the right to vote BUT that is because in all honesty (do not take this the wrong way ladies) women have been so suppressed for such a long period of time that they found security and they do not want to give it up. NOW women are increasingly becoming more open minded. Mark my words there will be an increase in freethinking women who cross party lines over the next 50 years. The numbers you have presented will CHANGE (ugh I hate that word ever since that ... I digress).

    ALSO who is in the office? Who has been in the office? It has been men for many years. They may have been elected by women seeking security but they are still phallus bearing individuals that make the ultimate decisions.

    KUDOS TO YOU! You can find and diagnose the problem! whooptidoo! Now give me a solution that wont boggle my mind!

    BTW when I joined my wife in Holy matrimony she and I now share financial responsibility, so if I PAY TAXES it counts for her too, and vice versa. Dont head down the road of saying a stay at home mom doesn't have a job or you will start a losing battle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    again you blithely ignore large groups of men who vote the same way. don't worry your pretty head over them B
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I already know he's hostile to women. I didn't say he was sexist. Narrow minded. Keeping women in the camp if evil liberal uninformed voters/members of society. That's like saying every LGBTS (not sure if I have inadvertently left any group off. If so, my apologies.), is a screaming liberal vegetarian. It's stupid. And that the women here are getting lumped into said category is really absurd. He knows nothing about me or any other woman here. I have not gone off judging his diatribes, only to say after getting thoroughly exhausted with his misogynistic diatribes, I'm fed up. I have a slow burn. I'm thoroughly annoyed now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I've made it abundantly clear in multiple posts that when I say "women" I am referring to the MAJORITY of women, and not ALL women. To be more clear, I'm referring to the MAJORITY of AMERICAN women who VOTE.

    Based on that clear definition of the term in context, WOMEN are destroying America faster and more effectively than any other combination of special interests. I am perfectly cognizant that the military-industrial complex is ALSO a suitable target, but its waste pales in comparison to the damages caused by women.

    Once again, I recommend to you John Lott's study on the effect of the female vote on debt. If you can come up with an alternative hypothesis, I am willing, no EAGER to hear it. But that hypothesis, whatever it may be, must comport with the FACTS.

    My sense is that you are unaware of the facts, haven't read the study, don't really know but one side of the issue (the emotionally-charged defender-of-women side) and hence are not making a rational decision, not by reason of defect of intellect, but by paucity of facts.
    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ivers...
    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashT...

    Finally, "labels" are necessary all meaningful discussions. Nouns are in fact labels. Try to have a discussion about anything that doesn't make use of nouns. Of course, there are trivial counterexamples. I leave you with one:

    "Mmmmpfh", she said.
    "Uh-oh", he said.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hiraghm: Once you accept the facts, and understand that women are systematically looting you (assuming you work for a living), and using the money for monstrosities like Obamacare and every other federal freebie giveaway program, once you internalize the facts, and think in terms of a long line of bitches reaching into YOUR pocket to steal YOUR money and spend it on themselves… would your feelings be hostile (or are you married and used to it, or divorced and assume that's what all women do)?

    The people who don't hate what the majority of women in this Country have done either don't understand it, or are somehow profiting from it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Even bearing in mind that research shows that the average male is 5 times more knowledgeable about economics than the average woman?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But here's the thing: You're paying taxes. But something close to 45% of people do NOT pay taxes. And yet they vote. I'd be willing to bet $1000 right here and now that the majority of non-taxpayers are in the party of women - the Democrat party. They're the majority. They determine how YOUR tax money gets spent.

    In effect, the Democratic Republic where only landowners voted was far closer to "the taxpayer gets to decide how his taxes are spent" than what we have today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ GMudd 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My primary problem again is that you are labeling the problem. I guess my main problem is I hate when people try to label me thus I avoid labeling others. Yep some women, my wife included, made the decision to vote not for the individual who is now in the white house. It just bugs me that you would think that the problem rests upon the shoulders of the voters who made those choices alone. There are many other people and institutions that should have much of the blame placed on their shoulders. I for one will do my part when I have reached the age where I have the ability to make a larger impact. Until then I will expand my mind and my horizons. I think I reacted in such a hostile way because your previous comments tended to go on an all out attack of a gender. I have to wonder if you are married or divorced, assumptions would make me look worse than I do already?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ GMudd 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well Bambi, up until the last paragraph I have found our common ground. I apologize for coming off so angry with my first comments it just felt as though you were placing too much blame
    "How about we only allow people who pay taxes to vote on how to spend those taxes?"
    I completely agree.
    Although I have only paid around $10,000 in taxes this year not a lot compared to many here It bugs the heck out of me that someone can vote to receive my 10k without ever having to put a penny in the pot!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    check your premises. just look at what we tolerate in here hiraghm. and with all your testing of that...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, non mouch, watch it; only politically correct people are allowed to be offensive here (like everywhere else).

    Calling BB sexist is simply inaccurate and wrong.

    He's a misogynist.

    "One might say I discriminate against women because they are stupid, greedy, self-centered, blind and ignorant enough"

    I would support discriminating against women as a group, or anyone as a group, as being an individual's God-given right.
    But he's hostile toward women, something entirely different.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find your use of the term "birther" offensive.

    Article 2, section 1, clause 5, one must be a *natural born citizen* to be President. Natural born. Not "native born". Not "naturalized".

    The only definition of "natural born citizen" that makes any sense in the context of the document and of the time, and the purpose of saying "natural born citizen" rather than simply "citizen" is Vattel's. That is, a citizen born of citizen parents.

    As Obama's father, on his own birth certificate, was a British subject, he's not qualified to be President.

    What I really find offensive is some feminist defining "real man" for me, and presuming to tell everyone what kind of men I would consider "brothers".

    A "real woman" doesn't worry about what men do or think; she does her own thing and doesn't blame her failures on her sex or on society.

    khalling, I told you this place had PC.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "How about we require people to demonstrate some knowledge of the topics being voted on before they are allowed to vote?"

    I've advocated this kind of a poll test for a long time now. You have to be able to identify candidates, the office for which they are running, and the party with which they are affiliated. You have to pick among multiple choice answers as to what a given issue is. Pass, and you get to vote for that candidate/issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    NON mooch, watch it BB. what about all those men I posted about. whatcha doin with them? for all we know, as a collective they represent a larger percentage than women. of course, you would have to include the 44% of women who vote the way you like. that's a chunk of numbers BB
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the voting thing will never solve the problem. as long as people can vote in goodies at others' expense, your system will fail.
    start with and maintain:
    "When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." VoS


    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Is it more "narrow-minded" to point out the FACT that female voting patterns have put us $17 trillion in debt, facing $211 trillion in unfunded mandates and borrowing 25 cents for every Federal dollars spent, or to refuse to acknowledge the FACTS and instead launch an ad hominem attack?

    Tell us, Mooch.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sexist. Hmm. To the casual a-critical observer that might seem accurate. But sexism is discrimination against women on the basis of sex. I admit to bias against women based on their record. One might say I discriminate against women because they are stupid, greedy, self-centered, blind and ignorant enough (as a group) to destroy America. But that's not discrimination on the basis that they're women. It's not discrimination because they're female. It's discrimination on the basis that they're destroying America (through their stupid, greedy, self-centered, blind and ignorant choices). The failings of women have led us to disaster. Men only made one mistake of equivalent magnitude - they allowed women to vote.

    Finally, as I've said, not all women fall into the categories above. The majority do. If you're one of the minority who doesn't fit, you should be just as incensed as I that your stupid, greedy, self-centered, blind and ignorant "sisters" are destroying America.

    If you don't get that, maybe you belong to the majority.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BambiB 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How about we only allow people who pay taxes to vote on how to spend those taxes? Or how about allowing them one vote per every $1000 in taxes they pay?

    How about we require people to demonstrate some knowledge of the topics being voted on before they are allowed to vote? If you cannot even name the candidates, should you be allowed to vote? If you don't even know what a bond is, should you be allowed to vote on whether one should be approved?

    Do you think people should due elected and policy determined by voters who have no idea who they are voting for or against, or what the policies they're approving/disapproving mean?

    The fact remains that until women got the vote, deficits were resolved on an annual basis. Since women got the vote, deficits have NOT been resolved and have grown out of control. The cause and effect is well established. It's not merely a correlation. Women (as a group) lack the foresight to decide on long term policy. Their only interest is "what can I take and how fast can I take it."
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo