Jump to content

Santorum 2012?


Recommended Posts

Not really...

Remember...The difference between Ms.Palin and a pit bull,in her own words...Is lipstick!

Do you mean that pit bulls have had or will have operation to change their gender?

It would take a woefully uninformed person or one who oozes hatred for conservatives to call the mother of several children a "tranny".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortunately for you, the facts are not in your favour.

From Freakonomics:

That's what we call an inconvenient truth! :lol:

Get back to us when you find a journal article that says women voters are looking for a father or husband, whatever it was you originally argued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Unfortunately for you, the facts are not in your favour.

From Freakonomics:

That's what we call an inconvenient truth! :lol:

You'll have to excuse me if I don't find one study, regarding what happened years ago, as relevant for the rest of time - look at the debt that's been accumulated by the U.S. in the past decade - it sure hasn't been due to women voting. :rolleyes: Furthemore, the study you linked to doesn't say what you want it to.

So lets's take a look at what your study says: per capita real state government spending, which had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting, doubled during the next 11 years. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting in national elections and 19 additional state elections.

Without even looking at what the government was spending money on in the 11 years mentioned, at the time women began voting, spending was down from what it had been. So it had been higher. How much higher? Had it ever been as high as it was when women started voting? If so, who was responsible back then? You can't take a low and make comparisons as if it was the norm. Secondly, it says spending doubled during the next 11 years. So the money that was spent before women started voting has to be attributed to men, right? So if it doubled, half the spending is attributable to men and the other half to women. Men are still responsible for as much spending as women, using the 'logic' you are presenting. So men spend in areas that they think are important and women do in areas they think are important.

But bottom line. None of this pertains to the "Daddy/good husband" mindset.

And fyi - women do have more of a tendency to be liberal because they care more about the state not dictating what they can do regarding their bodies, because they care less about gays getting married and more about equal rights, and they are more likely to be concerned about the less privileged et al. So. You learned something today. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to excuse me if I don't find one study, regarding what happened years ago, as relevant for the rest of time - look at the debt that's been accumulated by the U.S. in the past decade - it sure hasn't been due to women voting. :rolleyes: Furthemore, the study you linked to doesn't say what you want it to.

So lets's take a look at what your study says: per capita real state government spending, which had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting, doubled during the next 11 years. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting in national elections and 19 additional state elections.

Without even looking at what the government was spending money on in the 11 years mentioned, at the time women began voting, spending was down from what it had been. So it had been higher. How much higher? Had it ever been as high as it was when women started voting? If so, who was responsible back then? You can't take a low and make comparisons as if it was the norm. Secondly, it says spending doubled during the next 11 years. So the money that was spent before women started voting has to be attributed to men, right? So if it doubled, half the spending is attributable to men and the other half to women. Men are still responsible for as much spending as women, using the 'logic' you are presenting. So men spend in areas that they think are important and women do in areas they think are important.

But bottom line. None of this pertains to the "Daddy/good husband" mindset.

And fyi - women do have more of a tendency to be liberal because they care more about the state not dictating what they can do regarding their bodies, because they care less about gays getting married and more about equal rights, and they are more likely to be concerned about the less privileged et al. So. You learned something today. :)

Not to mention, unlike the Wikipedia author, the author of the actual article doesn't say suffrage "led to" increased spending, rather they say it "coincided" with increased spending. Of course, I imagine prohibition, two world wars, and the depression probably had a lot to do with changing attitudes towards government spending as well. While female voters likely encouraged some of the increased spending, it's impossible to say that they're the cause or even to say how much of that increased spending is related to their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's impossible to say that they're the cause or even to say how much of that increased spending is related to their vote.

All you have to do is examine the budgets of the previous years prior to women voting. Budgets were flat, or barely increasing. I guess it's just a coincidence that the exact time women started voting, government started expanding into new areas, and new programs, and spending increased significantly. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is examine the budgets of the previous years prior to women voting. Budgets were flat, or barely increasing. I guess it's just a coincidence that the exact time women started voting, government started expanding into new areas, and new programs, and spending increased significantly. :rolleyes:

So you're saying that women should not be allowed to vote?

That citizenship and the right to vote should be restricted to people who only hold the same spending criteria as you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* ...I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse, or if you're drunk, or what.

I offered my opinion on the way the candidates deliver their message, not an opinion about who I support.

Kimmy, sobre or otherwise, I understood perfectly that you wouldn't vote for Santorum. It was your "Dad factor" comment that struck me.

I reckon that many women (sorry to be sexist) view the State as the "good husband" that they don't have/can't find. They choose their politicians according to such criteria.

No doubt most women see Harper as "reliable" but he also seems boring and stubborn if not pig-headed.

As to Santorum (and Harper), I'm reminded of the comment that some male politicians make women think of their ex-husband, and why they left them.

----

In short, democratic leadership politics in the 21st century is a harsh, unforgiving business. Many voters (women and men) choose leaders according to such perceptions as the "Dad factor". To succeed, a politician must contend with such images.

Women are less likely than men to want the state telling them what they can or can't do regarding things like abortion.
But women want the State to pay for the abortion, and they want the State to assume responsibility for the decision. Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think costs the state more - birth control - or providing for a child?
In the past, it was a family that assumed the cost of raising a child, even an unwanted one. By "family", I include related people other than the biological parents. And however decided, it invariably meant a man earning money while hectored by a woman.

Nowadays, we have the State assuming these costs. And as a US Senator once said (and I paraphrase), "If the government takes over the role of the family, there will not be enough money on the planet to pay the government budget."

In short, no government can accomplish what a woman nagging a man can accomplish.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But women want the State to pay for the abortion, and they want the State to assume responsibility for the decision.

Having the State pay for an abortion is not the same thing as the State telling them what to do.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telling them what to do? I said that the State also assumes responsibilty for the decision. That's something else.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what the person you are quoting has stated rather than whatever is rattling around in your own head?

IOW, re-read AW's quote and respond to it rather than the straw man you have created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that the State also assumes responsibilty for the decision. That's something else.

Yes - it is something else.

It is something else for a man, who can bang whoever he wants with impunity, to complain about "paying" for a woman's right to the same thing.

It is something else when the state funds vasectomies and Viagra.

It is something else for men to complain about "paying" for women's health care; as if women aren't paying a high price already.

The price is pretty steep to put up with misogynists like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

I should pull a Shady and wish their right to democracy away. :lol:

Poof! ;)

Now only people who agree with me can vote! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon that many women (sorry to be sexist) view the State as the "good husband" that they don't have/can't find. They choose their politicians according to such criteria.
You speak for women voters do you? You know that for a fact that this is the criteria they use? Do you have any evidence to support this? Perhaps a study of women that shows this being their most important criteria.

I find your opinions on this to be horribly condescending to women voters. It's as though you think they're not smart enough to vote "properly", rather they just pick the political figures that will be the best "provider". You seem to think that the place for a woman is to find that provider, as though they don't or can't provide for themselves, and that they do this through political institutions.

Your position is possibly one of the most misogynistic things I've read on this forum in a long time when you unpack it.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I reckon that many women (sorry to be sexist) view the State as the "good husband" that they don't have/can't find. They choose their politicians according to such criteria.

Good Lord. "Sexist" doesn't begin to cover it. <_<

But women want the State to pay for the abortion, and they want the State to assume responsibility for the decision.

Why shouldn't the state pay for their health care needs same as it pays for men's? And they don't want the state to "assume the responsibility," they want the state to in effect protect them from others dictating what they can't or can't do. That's hardly a "dad/good husband" thing - protecting one's rights is what a Democratic government should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

In the past, it was a family that assumed the cost of raising a child, even an unwanted one. By "family", I include related people other than the biological parents. And however decided, it invariably meant a man earning money while hectored by a woman.

Nowadays, we have the State assuming these costs. And as a US Senator once said (and I paraphrase), "If the government takes over the role of the family, there will not be enough money on the planet to pay the government budget."

In short, no government can accomplish what a woman nagging a man can accomplish.

The men need to be held accountable by law - it's not the responsibility of the woman to "nag" the man into supporting his child/children. If a man shirks his responsibility, then it is the man wanting the state to provide for his child. Putting that 'fault' on the woman is ludicrous. Furthermore, it's not the responsibility of "related people other than the biological parents" to provide for the child - they didn't create it. Do you think "other relatives" should be held responsible for their other debts, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

All you have to do is examine the budgets of the previous years prior to women voting. Budgets were flat, or barely increasing. I guess it's just a coincidence that the exact time women started voting, government started expanding into new areas, and new programs, and spending increased significantly. :rolleyes:

Budgets were flat or barely increasing ten years prior. What about all of the many, many years prior to that? Also, what about all the years following the 11 years mentioned in the study?

Here's another thought. Women getting the vote was a sign of changes in society - which could be why the government started expanding into new areas and new programs. To hear you tell it, women getting the vote suddenly changed everything - in a government consisting entirely of males. Such powerful influence they had - and immediately upon getting the vote! - in a male dominated government.

Somehow I don't think so.

But again. Women are not responsible for excess government spending - you just see what they feel is important as unimportant/unnecessary, so you proclaim that it's "excess" spending. <_<

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are failing to differentiate between a fetus and a baby. Happens all the time to prolifers.

And you're ignoring science.

Never happens to those that respect the right of a woman to control her own body.

Women do have control over their own body. It's the body of the unborn baby that's in question. You know, the one that also has a beating heart, and every organ that the body of the woman posesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are failing to differentiate between a fetus and a baby. Happens all the time to prolifers.

Never happens to those that respect the right of a woman to control her own body.

No, you are purposely making such a distinction to rationalize the right of such control over the the right to life, even after late term viability. That's OK, but not many are fooled by such rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, the one that also has a beating heart, and every organ that the body of the woman posesses.

that's a fetus.

Cheney and Shady, how many adopted children do you each have? If they are hard to count, a rough estimate will do.

It must be disheartening to be a prolifer in Canada, where the govt has steadfastly refused to sway from the position that reproductive health is a womens health issue and none of your f**king business..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...