Universal Voter Registration
Is this what’s behind the Democrats’ boldness in defying the American public? Do they believe that, once Universal Voter Registration is rammed firmly in place, they’ll be unbeatable?
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
A friend of mine once observed that he did not want someone who could not find their way to the court house voting. That’s a pretty low bar that makes lots of sense.
Do they believe that, once Universal Voter Registration is rammed firmly in place, they’ll be unbeatable?
I think they are throwing their entire wish list against the wall and seeing what will stick. It is a power grab, but I wouldn’t call it a cunning plan.
UVR will give them an edge but it won’t make them unbeatable. Note the spate of Dem leaders bailing on the next election.
If either of our political parties were to blatantly rig, or steal national elections wholesale, I believe that the wheels would come off our political system. The perpetrators would be swept from power by the majority who value government legitimacy. Our heritage of freedom is too strong, even today’s complacent U.S. citizens will not stand for rule without representation for very long. Our military and freedom loving Americans would not quietly support a tyrannical regime that would not honor honest elections since it would be diametrically opposed to our Constitution. As Sam Houston said in the 1850 ” A nation divided against itself cannot stand”. He was proven correct.
Stark, I agree with you, but that won’t stop them from trying. Even though it’s unconstitutional, in my opinion.
Huxley, I agree with your comment also. I seem to sense a certain desperation on the part of the democrats, as if they realize that the public is catching on.
Look, when Pilosi was questioned about why the deliberations over blending the House and Senate versions of the Health Care Reform Bill were not being held in view of the public as Obama promised they would be–broadcast for all to see on C-SPAN–a promise to the American public Obama made on at least 8 separate occasions during the campaign, she laughed and said that “a lot of things were said during the campaign,” going on to deliver the huge, utterly shameless, bald-faced lie that, “There has never been a more open process for any legislation.”
With amoral Democrats in power having the effrontery to tell such bald faced lies, and in doing so showing their utter contempt for the voters, there is nothing that I think this crew would stop at and, for people like this, rigging the upcoming elections will be done without a second thought, or a lost minute of sleep.
Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes
AG McKenna says he’ll argue the case himself if the high court accepts
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413917_vote06.html
disparate outcomes i think is the reason.. ie racism
Under the Washington law at issue, citizens convicted of a felony lose the right to vote until they are released from custody and off of Department of Corrections supervision. The 2-1 ruling by a Circuit Court of Appeals panel put those restrictions in doubt, with the majority finding that the state restrictions unfairly penalize minorities.
Maybe I’m hopelessly naive, but just because someone’s name is on the voter rolls doesn’t mean they will actually come out and vote, right? I thought that senior citizens, for example, were a fairly reliable segment of the voting population, for example, and young voters, not so much. So even though lists may be flooded with the names of welfare recipients and criminals etc., don’t they actually have to show up and sign in to vote? I do, in my little corner of the world.
I’m sure someone will set me straight about how easy it is to perpetrate massive fraud in voting precincts but I’m just not clear on how that happens in the real world. It seems to me that notoriously unreliable people (such as convicted criminals) who are not likely to register themselves to vote are not likely to actually get out there and actually cast a vote either. What am I missing?
For my money, convicted felons should lose the right to vote, permanently. I can see no reason why we should solicit the judgment of those who have so clearly indicated their lack of such.
And as I’m in a particularly curmudgeonly mood (coming up on a landmark birthday!), I’ll confess that sometimes I don’t see why welfare recipients should be allowed to vote either, for the same reason. Those who don’t pay taxes – and a forteriori those who live off of others’ taxes – should have no say in how taxes are spent.
If this thing goes through…
God help us.
If this thing goes through, then the time for talking is over and the time for killing tyrants has arrived.
I’m sure someone will set me straight about how easy it is to perpetrate massive fraud in voting precincts but I’m just not clear on how that happens in the real world.
Me neither. Voting fraud can work in close elections — I’m mighty suspicious of Al Franken’s come-from-behind victory in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race — but massive fraud in the hundreds of thousands range strikes me as a difficult and risky undertaking.
UVR might be a better bet combined with a big GOTV (Get Out the Vote) effort, assuming the Dems had the money and/or volunteers to round up busloads of people from the slums and projects and take them to the polls.
huxley Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Maybe I’m just cynical (I am), but the reason unpopular Democrats are retiring is so that other, less unpopular Democrats can take their place and have a chance at winning.
Other than blatant Democratic opportunism, I can’t for the life of me understand why picture ID isn’t a requirement for voting.
I would be willing to trade picture ID for UVR.
NYC Chooses New Voting Machines
January 6, 2010
The New York City Board of Elections voted Tuesday to buy the Election Systems and Software electronic voting machines as a way to improve how the city counts votes and to speed up lines at polling places.
Six voted in favor of ES&S; one voted in favor of the Dominion system, and two abstained.
The changes were needed to put the city and state in compliance with federal regulations that were approved after the controversy that surrounded the 2000 presidential election.
New York State is the only place in the nation that has yet to comply with these regulations, which were laid out in the Help America Vote Act.
‘It’s Not the People Who Vote that Count; It’s the People Who Count the Votes’ Stalin
sorry, here is the actual quote… from Boris Bazhanov (stalins secretary)…
You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this – who will count the votes, and how.
Universal voter registration is a guarantee of stolen elections, especially coupled with “early voting” and no-questions-asked access to absentee ballots. No need for volunteers to meet quotas of registrations — now they’ll be meeting quotas of ballots!
It goes counter to the zeitgeist, but we need to seriously restrict the ease of voting. No early voting, no absentee voting for anyone still inside the country, photo-ID required at the polling place… Making it easier to vote also makes it easier to vote fraudulently; making people MORE confident that elections are fair and accurate is critical to not seeing a complete breakdown of our political system.
You’d also have to get rid of most forms of absentee balloting. You can be sure that any attempt at that will be turned into a way to PRIMARILY block ballots from servicemen overseas, while leaving sunbird double-voters untouched.
If they grant immunity to the illegal immigrants, they don’t need this. But get everyone hooked on gov’t programs, have a cowered minority paying taxes for the majority…that would swing things permanently. Oh wait…
Stark,
You are way too sanguine. America, in general, no longer has the nerve for a fight. They will take their serfdom sitting down as long as there are Ipods and video games.
Not until those sorts of things are taken away will they voice the slightest peep. By them it will be so too late it’s not even funny.
Americ is in the ninth inning. We need a miracle.
CV:
I’m sure someone will set me straight about how easy it is to perpetrate massive fraud in voting precincts but I’m just not clear on how that happens in the real world
Chicago 1960: “With a little help from some friends,” Mayor Daley made sure that Kennedy took Illinois.
TX Democratic Senatorial primary 1948 and other years.
Control of the voting rolls, control of the ballot boxes, lack of ID verification for voting…
Voters on the voting rolls dont have to vote. Crooked election officials have a ready made list to cast votes from. When they count the votes, legit and fraud- they point to the list of people on the rolls who supposedly showed up- the numbers match up and and voila!- “no fraud”.
Thats why the ACORN attempts to register the Dallas Cowboys out of state mattered and thats how dead people get to vote.
Universal Voter Registration, add “the Secretary of State Project” (a well-funded Democrat effort to elect Democrat Secretaries of State in important states), amnesty for illegals, the Ninth Circuit just ruled that Washington State has to allow felons to vote contravening Washington State Law (this will be challenged), WA State has switched to all mail in or absentee ballots, and wasn’t there a ruling that they couldn’t de-fund ACORN? I wouldn’t think of accusing anyone of election fraud — oh wait, that’s how our governor got elected!
John Fund’s Stealing Elections is available in paperback, and Encounter has a new broadside: “How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections” I haven’t seen one of their broadsides yet, but this one sounds worthwhile.
Mr. Frank Says:
huxley Says:
I agree 100% with both of the above two statements.
CV–If I remember correctly, in just one of a series of curious incidents in the very obviously stolen Senatorial race that resulted in comedian Al Franken winning by some 312 votes in Minnesota, they discovered around 1,000 votes a few days after the voting that had, somehow, been forgotten and, thus, uncounted–the majority, of course, for Franken.
Then, there was the SOROS funded project ot get Democrats elected to all of the Secretary of State positions in each State, because it is the Secretaries of State that rule on election controversies–as the Democratic Secretary of State of Minnesota ruled in Franken’s favor in this critical election that gave the Democrats their 60 vote Senate majority.
Re the picture ID for voting comments, it has become a litmus test for me of sorts, there is no logical argument to not support it, therefore, anyone who opposes it is blatantly perpetrating voter fraud.
On the topic at hand, this combined with blanket amnesty for all comers and promises of free stuff for all, is all part of the plan as I have commented on here before. Lets see how well it fly’s.
For those questioning how they could actually get the newly registered masses to vote, well, what do you think the bulk of the ‘stimulus package’ was for? Why do you think that most of the spending was never slated to begin before 2010. It wouldn’t take much to buy a vote in the barrio.
What, me cynical??
Buster
Oh boy. Here we go again. I am going to get killed, but someone has to say this (yet again):
1) If you did not pay taxes within the last year, you should not be able to vote.
2) If you are the recipient of government largesse, such as welfare or unemployment comp, you should not be able to vote.
3) If you do not own property, you should not be able to vote.
And finally, the one that is going to get me beat up . . .
4) If you are female, you should not be able to vote unless you are married and your husband consents.
Yikes! (Dodges heavy glass objects)
Listen, if we could accomplish this, we would remove about 80% of Democrat voters. They would never win another election.
Oh well. Someone had to say it. I guess I might as well be the one.
MikeLL, you had me up to the suffrage comment, that one is going little over the line, I know lots of civilian and military women who fit the bill, we should probably leave gender out of it to be safe 🙂
“1) If you did not pay taxes within the last year, you should not be able to vote.”
Very true I think – Taxes are (even by the dems idea) a form of patriotic service. If you can’t even be arsed to do that, well screw you. Even people fully on Welfare should have to pay them in same way I do even if their gross pay comes from the govt. I suspect they would even note that they really were payed more.
“2) If you are the recipient of government largesse, such as welfare or unemployment comp, you should not be able to vote.”
Unemployment isn’t govt largess, neither is Social Security. Both are things you pay for either directly out of your paycheck or indirectly by your employer having to pay it to the govt instead of you. Both are dependent on how much *you* have put into the systems and both would get more to you if it was privatized. Unemployment for sure – I can tell you from experience watching that deadline where you didn’t put enough in to cover all the other crap they pull that money from is not a good feeling.
If you are not on a system that you payed for in advance (SS or Unemployment – it isn’t the actual recipients of that who originally payed in that are dragging the system into the gutter, it is all the siphoning off for other social programs) then I very much agree – goes back to that not paying taxes thing. I will buy your argument on Unemployment if I was given the choice of keeping that money or letting the govt handle it, but as such not so much.
Further you can’t become reliant on unemployment, it really doesn’t last very long at all. Especially when we find unemployment lasting many months or even into years now.
“3) If you do not own property, you should not be able to vote.”
I disagree with this one more than any (we will get to that in a moment). Ownage of property tends to have little to do with anything any more. Too many in Apartments that you contractually all but own it. It ends up being more a matter of what happens when you die than anything else – even more so when we consider the speculative 100+% house loans (who violate what you suggest *more* than a renter ever could do).
If land ownership meant what it did even 20 years ago, maybe but not now. This would have to be done with sweeping reforms about what “own property” means (I assume you mean “property == land” as we all own some things we call “property”, my TV is property).
“4) If you are female, you should not be able to vote unless you are married and your husband consents.”
Sadly the only reason why haven’t seen Males swoon and vote on how attracted they are to the candidate is that we have not had a hot female run. I suspect that a decent portion of Palin’s popularity was based on this. I do not disagree with what you say here exactly, just that I do not see males as being any better. My guess is in the next decade or two that this will be irrelevant. Plus females have really been put into those same harsh conditions so that is not much of an issue now – indeed, the stay at home male is getting to be a bad thing in many places. It is ultimately the “stay at home” thing that causes the issues – real life is fungible in that environment.
Other than Unemployment (and to a lesser extent Social Security) I agree with your ideas of why those classes are bad voters, I just do not think those criteria have produced those classes of people for a good while.
The truly scay thing is how they don’t even try to hide it anymore. If the Democrats pull this off I guess we’ll need to make election fraud a capital offense.
Maybe I’m a pessimist. But it is my belief that everything the democrats are trying to do is clear as a bell. And I also believe the end result of what governments around the world are trying to do – U.N. inclusive – is clear as a bell.
The only questions that remain are what do we do about it, and how far are people going to let it go before it is halted, and turned around.
The global warming secret papers, if you will, have already lived their lives. Most know nothing about it, and never will. People with otherwise reasonable intelligence. It was a single bubble that rose to the surface, popped, and went away. The tune whistled by those perpetrating the myth has not changed. Over time, global warming has been changing into climate change, with the underlying message intact. Man made, truth be damned. The winner lies the loudest and the longest.
“2) If you are the recipient of government largesse, such as welfare or unemployment comp, you should not be able to vote.”
“3) If you do not own property, you should not be able to vote.
And finally, the one that is going to get me beat up . . .
4) If you are female, you should not be able to vote unless you are married and your husband consents.”
While I might be easily persuaded that welfare should disqualify a would-be voter, the idea that unemployment compensation should is needlessly elitist and ignorant. It’s already been mentioned that people pay into this system, somehow, before they receive it. But just as important, sometimes, people lose their jobs through no fault of their own. They weren’t irresponsible, they weren’t lazy and they didn’t make bad choices. Yes, it actually does happen.
I’d love to hear how accepting unemployment compensation immediately disqualifies an individual; Is it some sort of character defect? Enlighten me.
Property? Right now, while too many people signed mortgages they couldn’t afford, knowing it could get bad, you want to penalize the people that said, “Let’s just rent for now, until we can afford better.” So, they should be excluded? Why? Enlighten me.
As for number 4, well, all I have to say is Mysogeny: Hard to spell, easy to practice.
Huxley says: “massive fraud in the hundreds of thousands range strikes me as a difficult and risky undertaking.”
Well, I don’t know. When was the last time these wizards stopped at difficult and risky?
As for acting desperate–I’ve never thought they’re acting desperate. They’re acting determined, they’re acting like they’re in the middle of a revolution and they know it, giving no quarter.
This will get uglier before it’s over. I can’t see any way around it. Even Huxley now says it’s looking like a power grab, and if I remember correctly it wasn’t too long ago that he said he didn’t think they could try such a thing. Or maybe he said he didn’t think they’d be able to pull it off. . . . I’m with him on the second, but I don’t know of any reason to suppose they aren’t gearing up to try.
Take at look at this little gem,”America Rising,” a prime example of anti-Obama & Co. agitprop that deserves to get maximum circulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs
I’ve said before that nothing Obama and the Democrats have done surprises me, because I believe that they mean to stay in power permanently.
But that’s not entirely correct. There have been two things that took my breath away, because I didn’t see them coming. The first was Obama’s announcement, within days of his inauguration, that the White House would take over the census.
The second is universal voter registration. I’ve been expecting a push for legalizing illegal aliens, but if they can get UVR through, they won’t have to bother with that.
Would this semi-ponzi scheme be constitutional ?
Isn’t all precedent for the US that the states do it ?
The importance of women to Democrat success can be seen in the approval ratings in Nevada for Harry Reid. Overall, his ratings are in the 30’s, but a majority of women approve of his performance. One can only surmise that women are more likely to feel vulnerable and more likely to favor a nanny state. An exception to this is married women with children. Perhaps they have a longer time horizon.
The irony of this is it is men who are more beat up in the current recession, and it is boys who are victimized by the educational system. What used to be normal boy behavior has been redefined as deviant behavior.
Just shows how rare true misogyny is that I haven’t seen the like of Mike LL’s comment in forty years. Disgraceful.
It will be cherry-picked by leftist observers and used against this blog.
I just reconsidered. I HAVE seen the like of Mike LL’s comment recently, but only from the proponents of Sharia law.
br549: I agree that the burying of Climategate means that most people will never learn the truth. I’ve been amazed at how little the revelations seems to matter, but I guess that’s the function of the MSM these days—to cover the truth.
I’m sure someone will set me straight about how easy it is to perpetrate massive fraud in voting precincts but I’m just not clear on how that happens in the real world. It seems to me that notoriously unreliable people (such as convicted criminals) who are not likely to register themselves to vote are not likely to actually get out there and actually cast a vote either.
Nor can you trust them to vote just the way you want—that’s why you have your team of “fixers” go around to the polling places and cast votes in their names. Hence the “no ID” laws the democraps push.
If that still didn’t do it, votes are cast in more of those names after the fact to put your guy over the top.
Think of all those registered names of people who likely won’t vote, and duplicate names as “place holders” for votes in case their guy needs the votes after the fact.
For an organized and monolithic group like ACORN that is willing to aid and abet tax fraud and child prostitution, this is no problem….
MikeLL – Please clarify why you believe in #4. That one makes no sense. Unless you are all the despicable things that declaration makes many of us think of you. Be a man and explain yourself. I dare ya.
I don’t see why MikeLL have to explain #4 at all.
We know union, federal imployees, black, Latino, Woman etc by a vast majority vote D(umb) finding a way to exclude them from voting by any mean should be in our interest if that is all to be consider. I won’t say I agree with it strategically. Then again i don’t think my brother should be allow to vote either because he a liberal asshat – but I won’t go around trying to get it enact into lay.
Even Huxley now says it’s looking like a power grab, and if I remember correctly it wasn’t too long ago that he said he didn’t think they could try such a thing.
betsybounds: By power grab I mean stuff like FDR’s packing the Supreme Court or Al Franken’s suspicious election in Minnesota.
I don’t mean military coups, martial law, suspension of the Constitution, gulags, or fascism in Soviet, Nazi, or Chavez flavors as some here are wont to predict.
My impression is that, among other things, Democrats are trying to rewire the whole country as a Chicago-style machine.
But they aren’t going to get very far and much of their work is going to boomerang on them.
The fall of Obama and the Dem leadership in the eyes of American voters this past year has been one of the most remarkable political events I can remember.
The psychology is wrong. The President’s job is to protect and defend the country, i.e., play the same role to the nation that a father/husband does to his family. That naturally plays into feminine psychology, and makes it easy to comingle political support with sexual attraction.
This is one of the problems with the female vote. Greater susceptibility to social pressure is another. Few women have the nerve to give the herd the finger and go their own way. Stampeding the herd therefore delivers the female vote, as we saw in November. A third is that women generally expect (at some level) to be taken care of, and often are; men know perfectly well that they’re on their own. (Call this “flat tire syndrome.”) In this respect, women are like Europeans, whereas men are like Americans. Shit hits the fan, Europeans look to Americans, and women look to men. Americans and men look to…each other, because there’s no one in line behind us. We’re it. We can’t afford to be silly.
Male psychology runs to protecting and defending attractive damsels in distress (from everyone but himself); being protected and defended by one grinds male gears by making them infantile and dependent, which no man likes. (This is where resistance to women leaders comes from, btw.) Men identify with the President; Clint Eastwood would win the male vote in a romp. (This is where men could be stampeded.) Heidi Klum would not. Bed her? Sure. Vote for her? Nope.
Don Corleone: I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.
— The Godfather
Wow….I guess I had better go take my place as damsel in distress because I forgot to do that lately. I’d better be careful or a handsome guy running for office could somehow get my vote because I just need to be taken care of. However, I think I may just vote for whoever my friends are voting for.
“We’re it. We can’t afford to be silly.” – I think you are forgetting that it’s us little damsels who keep you big strong protector guys from doing too many silly things and getting yourselves in too much trouble. Power behind the throne and all that. We just let you think you are in charge.
You know, there is nothing more frightening than a woman who is determined to take care of her family and you are in her way. The Obama administration is making conditions where it will place a lot of families in a very bad spot. He will definitely pay the price for that. He should be frightened. Some women do want to just be taken care of…sucks to be them. I can do better than that. Some men thinking with their privates see women as just damsels and are frightened by the ones who are strong enough to not need them. Once again…sucks to be them.
My husband seems to like having an equal partner to share life with. Maybe some here should try it.
I and a lot of other women do not vote for someone because they will take care of us and are good looking…what a load of crap!!
There, there. Take it easy. No need for a rousing chorus of “I Am Woman.”
I’m speaking in general terms to underlying psychology, stuff deep in the DNA, right alongside the part that codes for women’s determination to take care of their families. (We agree that that exists, right?)
Evolution has been at work for somewhat longer than the feminist movement.
I and a lot of other women do not vote for someone because they will take care of us and are good looking…what a load of crap!!
Please inform Judith Warner of this.
It’s such a novel sensation to be outraged at sexist comments instead of being outraged at feminists pretending to be outraged at comments that aren’t really sexist at all.
But it makes me wonder what kind of company I’ve been keeping on this, my favorite blog.
Nature is sexist.
mizpants: I think this is just a chance for the guys to blow off a little steam. I suspect that most really respect women who can think straight; they are just frustrated by all the touchy feely stuff that many women are attracted to. I know I am.
On the voter registration: I’d love to see someone place an ad for flatscreens or Nexus phones for $25 at a store about 30 miles from an “underprivileged” population center. I bet we’d see enormous lines building days before the sale and that half the people are ones registered by ACORN.
I agree with Mr. Sullivan. Those voting restrictions don’t appear to have any logic to them.
In fact, I’d go a step further: They’re unAmerican.
“If you do not own property, you should not be able to vote.”
Last I heard, we don’t have a feudal system where only the landed gentry get a say in politics. Not to mention, if it were a requirement, only liberals would be allowed to own property. (See Irish Penal laws.)
“If you are female, you should not be able to vote unless you are married and your husband consents.”
Also unAmerican. No conservative worth his salt would suggest that a young Sarah Palin or a (heaven forbid) widowed Sarah Palin shouldn’t be involved in politics. Unless you’re a “conservative” from Saudi Arabia, in which case, go home.
Thank you, expat.
“I’m speaking in general terms to underlying psychology, stuff deep in the DNA, right alongside the part that codes for women’s determination to take care of their families. (We agree that that exists, right?)”
Then you no doubt ALSO agree that women “civilize” men, so that men (as well as other male animals) build dwellings and begin to think in more long-term timelines because they’re raising offspring. Therefore, BACHELORS shouldn’t be allowed to vote. After all, they’ll vote for anyone who promises them free cable and a 4-day workweek for the same pay. 😉
If you think I’m being sexist, I’m actually making fun of the young men who voted for Obama. I was shocked when a friend of mine (a conservative) told me that his 20- and 22-year-old sons voted for him because, basically, he seemed young and cool. (BTW they both own property.)
Well then…for gosh sakes Occam’s Beard…let us know when you’re just yanking our chain a little bit! It does not change the fact that you were being positively neanderthal. :p
I do agree that we are wired in certain ways. Some good and some darned inconvenient. I for one wish that guys would stop viewing the world as if they are in a Tarzan flick. However, that Tarzan was kind of cute…. 😉
JBalconi – I like you!!
Well this is amusing. I must confess that I have, from time to time, thought that everyone would be better off if we women didn’t have the franchise. I vote, I like voting, I wouldn’t want to not vote. I know I have a lot to learn and I mostly like learning it, although I also have a pretty fair bit of confidence in my own intelligence. But I’m not sure that translates into the country’s being better off because women vote–especially when I see who usually gets what is referred to as the “women’s vote.”
I also find that I don’t like many women very much, especially in groups. I hate the “Girls’ Night Out” tripe some women are so in love with, whether it’s in true life or in picture-shows about it. I’m not sure what women think with, but while it doesn’t seem to be their privates, I’m also pretty sure it isn’t their brains. If a man needs a strong woman behind him, as Army Mom suggests (power behind the throne and all that), then that same strong woman would be well-advised not to tell him so over and over again. It takes a particular sort of strength to be strong on the q.t., to just do it and shut t.f. up about it. I don’t need to read about a woman’s strength in the paper to know that it’s there.
I’m a strong woman, but I’ll be damned if I’d like to be strong all on my own. Companionship is fun, and loneliness isn’t, and strength doesn’t really determine that part of it. And I can say for sure that neither my husband nor any of the other men we know prefer weak women. But it doesn’t bother me at all to just know it myself and not talk about it to anyone else.
Then you no doubt ALSO agree that women “civilize” men, so that men (as well as other male animals) build dwellings and begin to think in more long-term timelines because they’re raising offspring.
I absolutely agree with this, 100%. Guys on their own are an embarrassment to all primates. Animal House wasn’t a comedy; it was a documentary.
I should clarify. I wasn’t describing how I think things should be, but rather my observations of how they are, for good or ill, acclaim or opprobrium. How I feel about those observations is irrelevant to their validity (or lack thereof). The ability to separate reason from emotion is a sine qua non in research, as the CRU folks have learnt. I spent many years teaching (or trying to teach) just this skill to graduate students.
The upshot is that I can perfectly well contemplate, calmly discuss – and, given sufficent substantiation, accept – a notion that I personally find distasteful, or even hateful. That I make an assertion doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m pleased about it, just that I think it’s true.
LOL! Yes, my husband often says that if it weren’t for women there would be no civilization. I tend to agree with him, mostly.
This thread brought to mind the scene in Silence of the Lambs where Jodi Foster is called to examine a corpse somewheere in flyover country. The local cops are there playing macho, but when Foster tells them it’s time for her to take care of the victim, they leave without a word. They recognized that she knew what to do.
I tend to agree with him, mostly.
Quite right. You should always defer to your husband. He knows best.
(I am yanking your chain this time! /g)
We wouldn’t have a species without the complementary and overlapping strengths of both genders.
I’m no member of the club that would deny the franchise to women.
On a tangent though, I will say that what is happening to men in divorce is criminal and our country is paying a big price. The second wave of feminism has had unexpectedly destructive consequences. See The Misandry Bubble.
mizpants, army mom, others,
This has been a very fun read.
Misogyny
You say that like it is a bad thing. Oh, come now, take one for the team.
I was trying to figure out how to decimate the Democrat voter base. Is it not the same thing they are trying to do to us, but in reverse? Isn’t turn about fair play? They have been at this for years. If they are going to be so power hungry, why should we play nice?
Obviously, none of those things I mentioned will ever happen. Any politician that even proposes one of them will get booted out of office. And probably rightly so.
But it sure is fun to think about what would happen to Democrats. Although, on the other hand, giving that much power to Repubs would not be a good idea either. Anyway, it is fun to game the scenario. Just look what happened here.
By the way, your Sharia Law suggestion in interesting. You should not give me ideas. How about this: Women can only vote if they are accompanied to the polling station by a male relative.
Uh oh . . . (dodges heavy glass objects again)
If I can’t laugh at this stuff I will go insane.
MikeLL: The man probably has a woman accompanying him anyway. We all know men will get lost and refuse to ask directions without us.
I was trying to figure out how to decimate the Democrat voter base.
Easy. Just deny the franchise to convicted felons. That knocks the props out from under the Dems.
Women can only vote if they are accompanied to the polling station by a male relative.
Nah, too heavy-handed and obvious. Just locate the polls at places that for miles around only offer parallel parking.
That should do it. /g
Occam,
parallel parking
LOL. Hilarious.
Boy, did this thread go off the rails.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
betseybounds, I am on the same page with you on “womyn”s stuff, I can’t deal with “girls night out” crapola, and if the womyn get all “hear me roar” then i run the other way. consequently, most women hate me back.
then again, those same “womyn” get all EEEK when something happens as mundane as the toilet overflowing. i have known womyn who did not know how to use a circuit breaker. then if you are the only girl in the crowd with the know how to do anything about it, they hate you worse then too.
so other women hate you either way, you can’t win.
and yes i can parallel park too 😛
anna, good for you. My wife is much the same, and game at least to try her hand at these things (well, everything except parallel parking).
But to come back to my earlier (semi)serious point, consider the toilet overflowing/ tripped circuit breaker situation. Who exactly do these women think is going to fix these problems? And to go further, if they have a husband/boyfriend and he can’t deal with these problems either, how does she view him?
And to go still further, suppose a man encounters one of these problems, and calls his wife/girlfriend to come sort it out for him. Yow, right?
That was my point. The psychology between the sexes is not symmetric. Not even close.
hahaha occam yes you are very correct. although a man who can’t iron his own shirt is also a major turnoff…
anna, let’s face it: a man who can’t deal with problems generally isn’t considered to be much of a man. Not by women, not by other men, either.
Anna,
LOL! Are you sure you’re not my daughter? Well anyway her name’s also Anna, and she would say a goodly number of the same things you do!
I like to take care of things if I can, I’ve fixed a few things and know from circuit breakers. And when I was learning to drive, parallel parking was part of the test–that goes back a ways, I guess, it’s easy to lose track of the time when everything seems like just a couple of weeks ago!
Occam’s: Although I’m the fix it person in my marriage, my husband gets lots of points for dealing with dead birds. He also gained the respect of a friend’s truly obnoxious rooster by pouring a bucket of water over it. For an aviophobic like me, that is real hero stuff.
expat, fair enough.
Now suppose he’d weirded out, running shrieking from it, and expected you to deal with the problem. Not cool, right?
Anna and Betsybounds,
Agree with you. I never wanted to be a member of the great sisterhood. Took a look at them in Kindergarten and ran the other way to play war with the boys… They might beat you up, but at least they were honest.
How about no man or woman who hasn’t served in the military and no woman who hasn’t given birth shall be allowed to vote. Wasn’t that Robert A. Heinlein’s suggestion? Those who have invested in the future of their “tribe” get to vote. No one else.
I’m not sure if that would work, and frankly I’d be content with “American citizens, with ID, no absentee voting.”
Oh, I can also parallel park and I have an absolute aversion of asking for directions. It drives my husband — who is more reasonable about it — absolutely batty. I’ve informed him that if you stop to ask for directions, the person who gives them can take your spouse in payment. He doesn’t seem to believe me. (Such doubt!)
“I’m sure someone will set me straight about how easy it is to perpetrate massive fraud in voting precincts but I’m just not clear on how that happens in the real world.”
Well, since we have ABSOLUUTELY NO REQUIREMENT to show ID when voting, I would think that, if I wished and since everybody would be registered in universal registration, I could find the names of persons who likely would not be voting (for whatever reason) and could march into the voting station and announce that I am that person and vote in his name. If I was dedicated, I imagine that I could personally cast 20-50 such votes that day t various polling places. If I commanded a force of thousands of ACORN or other such zombies, I suspect that I could have a meaningful effect on the election outcome.
I don’t mean military coups, martial law, suspension of the Constitution, gulags, or fascism in Soviet, Nazi, or Chavez flavors as some here are wont to predict.
of course not.
neither did the germans, the venezuelans the cubans and such… they never do. which is why the power grab works.
i cant sell you can of gnome away, beczuse you dont believe that gnomes exist.
refusal to beleive an extreme out of hand, with no understanding of how it WILL work, creates the EXACT situtioan they want and need.
you have never lived under such a thing..
have you?
i am not talking about visiting, or doing some work for them and such… i mean being a peive of their property…
have you?
let me give you a clue…
they are able to make it so bad, that a person who saw a hole would jump through it and leave their language, money, investments, property, family, wife, children and freinds.
in a hearbeat.
thats the guys your up against…
THATS how ruthless they are..
50 million in russia.. want to know how many escaped? only a hand full.
making getting away from them being worse odds than hitting lotto or the powerball.
that is to be able to get away AFTER THE FACT
requires higher odds than 100 million to one!!!
and that was in the historical past, we have improved prisons and things alot.
now if you saved a dollars worth of gold in 1930, how much is that dollar worth now? (and let me know if your salary kept up)
the table here should give you an idea about how much they have been devaluing the currency since 1970
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-historical-price-of-gold.htm
well that table stops at 2000
if you take a look at how much they printed already
teh dollar in your pocket is only worth about a dime compared to LAST YEAR.
when that spreads out, and no one will buy debt any more…
we either get massive depression
or hyper inflation
there is NO WAY TO AVOID THIS NOW
why?
because no one will believe and prevent it until they are sure
well, when your 100 percent sure your past the event horizon, you lost.
aversion the risk of beionr wrong makes sure that with certainty comes failure
Does having a GPS make me less sexy? I need to know 🙂