RJL, Helly, Don Curton, and Casca NAIL IT
|
Monday, April 15, 2013
12 comments:
-
Juice said...
-
Well, of course it is *your* choice as you have so many times pointed out. ;p
-
4/15/13, 12:14 PM
-
iri said...
-
Slam dunk of course but I'll bet Mrs. RKoF got on a plane to go someplace about an hour ago.
-
4/15/13, 12:30 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
OK Let's argue:
I'll cede you the 19th is the major contributor to the nanny state, but without Bullmoose (a third party...ahem), we'd have no Wilson, and without Wilson *spit* we'd have no 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th Amendments. And we just might have stayed out of WW1, part of which involvement was Wilson's opium dream to build a "New World Order" via the League of Nations and all the spawn of that. One could argue the 19th might have come along later, but later is better than sooner in this case.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick -
4/15/13, 12:47 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
The missing 13th Amendment comes to mind. - drummermanrick
-
4/15/13, 1:18 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
The Amendment I would add-
All legislation expires 1n 10 years. -
4/15/13, 1:42 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
RJL
I sure feel proud that I nailed this question; I'm highly honored to be in this company. When i first responded I was going to mention this story, but didn't feel it right at that moment, but here it is: about a month ago I was having lunch with a Pakistani native, now American citizen, who now is a underground missionary to his place of birth. He asked me what I thought was wrong with the country (USA) now; besides agreeing that there were powerful forces behind the election of Obama, we both agreed women voters was the genesis of so many problems in our country; here is the kicker--his wife was sitting with us and she fully agreed, as well; I do believe my wife would agree, too, but I'm afraid to ask! -
4/15/13, 1:42 PM
-
Helly said...
-
***SLAPS KNEE***
Rodge, I can read you like a book. Which speaks very well for your writing. Your blogging has developed into art, because it reveals you with clarity. That takes courage.
It doesn't matter that you are a phobic goof. You carry on with honesty and distinction. I applaud that. But enough about you; let's talk about female voters.
We can be certain that women are more concerned about personal security than men, but own fewer guns. Another great Chemist once said, "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."
Women already have too much stuff to carry around. If I'm walking 6 miles down the beach, the water bottle is coming with me and the Glock is staying home. Apple Computer saw through this issue long ago, and made billions selling lighter, rounder, feminized iPhones. Maybe someday gun manufacturers will seize the vast market for lighter, rounder, feminized guns. But since men are eagerly consuming everything they can presently ship, there is no incentive to innovate.
Let's hope that gun culture in America expands to the point where handguns are as common as cell phones in handbags. Then we won't see polls reflecting women's neglect of the associated civil rights issues. And you'll need to find something else to gripe about.
-
4/15/13, 2:28 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I guess I know too many solid conservative women but I still go back to a proper education. And by proper I mean a through understanding of our Founding and our Constitution. These men(yeah I know) were phenomenal students of history. They put in place a system of government, never before or since, rivaled.
Yes, the nurturing facet of females will cause them to look to security but real security is for every individual pursuing their own path, their own happiness. This is simply not being taught instead our pols drone on about a war on women and all the related horseshit.
I contend the choices(?) that are on the table as far as what's available to single women wouldn't even be on the table with a well educated and grounded voting populace.
Why did things work so well in the 40s and 50s before the NEA really kicked into high gear?
I won't abide a culture that believes 1/2 of the participants' input is an impedance.
Women's suffrage is not the reason women today vote more for REgressives(that is single women).
If you educate(?) children to believe these outlandish and proven failures of REgressives, than why can't you believe the opposite?
MM -
4/15/13, 2:52 PM
-
Steve in Greensboro said...
-
Married women voted for Romney over Obama 53-46, unmarried women voted for Obama over Romney 67-31, so it is dependency on government, not solely gender.
Everybody votes their self-interest, even we right-thinking men. If you are dependent on government, you are going to vote for more of it, and progressive politicians are going to do everything they can to make you dependent. The 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act were necessary and sufficient for the collapse in that they took the economic leash off of government; the 19th amendment just accelerated it. -
4/15/13, 3:53 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I think this has already happened. Someone already went back in time and prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from passing. Thank God.
GrinfilledCelt -
4/15/13, 4:17 PM
-
sbkilb said...
-
I often thought as a compromise that the family should have had the vote. A traditional family (have to be specific with the LGBT fad that is going on) of four gets four votes with one adult casting those votes. Single people, too bad. Haven't figured out how to handle widows and widowers yet, but anyway. I figure this policy would have promoted the building block of civilization which is the family. This also gives voice to the children who are not represented at all and whose future we are mortgaging to hell with our deficit spending.
-
4/15/13, 5:43 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I've been saying this for years. People laugh. I pretend I'm joking.
-
4/16/13, 2:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)