The role of women in today's society is to vote for other people to give them things - to vote for the government to steal through threat of violence on their behalf - regardless of the cost to society at large or the massive damage that will result from spending today all the wealth of all their tomorrows.

And to drive the kids soccer practice.

Clearly, the first part of the answer is contextual - it spells out what women are doing and why. The second part merely acknowledges that women do other things too - lest the scope be too narrow.

Lott's fundamental premise is that in every state, and in the Federal government, deficits were year-to-year and not increasing until after the women got the vote. If the debt had gone up in each case at the same time, then the cause might be any factor that affected all the governments - devaluation of the currency, war, or some other form of economic hardship.

But that's not what happened. In none of the 48 states or the Federal government did debt begin to grow until women got the vote. If women had gotten the vote all at one time, one might again argue that some externality was the actual cause.

But women got the vote over a period of 50 years. In each case, when a state accorded women the vote, deficits began to rise. In no state where women were not allowed to vote did deficits rise. What are the odds that the same pattern would repeat itself 49 times, not only in the affirmative (states where women voted ran deficits) but in the negative as well (states that did not allow women to vote did not see soaring debt)?

Here's where I challenge those who disagree to offer their own explanations. Anyone? Can anyone offer an explanation for this pattern that occurred 49 times over a period of 50 years in each state and the Federal government?

Women vote -> deficits.
Women don't vote -> no deficits.

If there's another explanation, it shouldn't be hard to dig it out. So instead of trying to come up with insults, why don't the women here come up with contravening facts? Unless there are none? And if there are none, why don't they simply admit that women are the reason America is running deficits and has accrued nearly $18 trillion in debt and approximately $211 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next 50 years?

Women typically receive welfare at twice the rate of men. Female Demoncraps outnumber female Republicraps 5 to 3. In case you weren't aware of it, welfare is a perennial Demoncrap priority - even welfare for criminal aliens. It is the party of women who push for welfare and welfare is destroying America.

Here's another source of FACTS to stiff the pot: http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/29/t...

"For more than a decade, women have been more likely than men to favor an active role for government. And recent surveys show that higher percentages of women than men say that government should do more for the poor, children and the elderly.

In the October 2011 survey, nearly half of the public (48%) favored a smaller government that provides fewer services, while 41% preferred a bigger government with more services. While 45% of women preferred a bigger government with more services, fewer men agreed (36%). That was in line with the gender differences on this issue dating back to at least 2000."

Like big, intrusive, expensive government? Thank a woman.

MiJo, they're just unhappy because it's a fact that the women's vote is destroying America. That's why they run away from the fact and make excuses.

I have presented lots of information but the best the critics have to offer is name-calling and disapproval. Apparently you're not supposed to mention some facts. Unfortunately, we'll all pay the price.

I'd bet you have never actually met OA.

Can you ever get anything right?

Well, if you have a Federal government like Jefferson envisioned, the first thing you do is wipe out all government welfare of every kind. The next thing you do is end the wars and recall the troops. Then you slash about 90% of government, because Jefferson never intended the Commerce Clause to be a vehicle for empowering the Federal Government to do anything but lubricate commerce between the states and mediate disputes.

But let's not leave Kalifornia just yet. Suppose Kalifornians (the Country's most populous state) passed legislation that completely gutted the government - or, for the sake of a starker hypothetical, turned every square meter of Kalifornia land radioactively toxic for the next 200,000 years. Should those same people be able to move to a new neighborhood - yours, for instance, where they would now outnumber you, and vote for the same ecological disaster in their new home? How would you feel about them spraying your town with plutonium?

And that's the point about cesspools and migration. Kalifornia is a slow-motion disaster. It got that way primarily through socialist voting patterns. Now the state is crumbling and the rats are leaving the ship. They're going places like Idaho (which had a population of about 1 million) and they're taking their socialist pipe dreams with them. Now Idaho is pushing 2 million, and the increase is largely due to the influx of "Californicators" (a term that has been in use in Idaho for more than 30 years - used to read it on the Fearless Ferris signs).

So what's your solution? Just let the invaders come in and vote your home into a slag heap?

Perhaps a more realistic scenario is the influx of criminal aliens. What if they crossed the border and all came to your neighborhood and, following the Obozo agenda, they all got to vote, and the first thing they agreed on was that Spanish was the new official language in your town… and it just got worse from there. Vote all you want - you're outnumbered. What do you do then? Run away?

So when you read the John Lott paper, what part of it did you find inaccurate? Because when I read it tonight, I was pretty surprised by the facts in it and it seems to me that babmib might be right about the fact that women have made our economic mess. At least the deficit part of it. What is your answer?

What do you think about the principle that people shouldn't be able to use government to take money away from other people and give it to themselves? bambib seems to be saying that's what women do. Is she right? (Or he? I'm confused.)

How do you deal with the fact that the majority votes to take away your stuff for their own use? If I got it, that's what bambib seems to be saying. It does not seem to be about groups so much as it is about the biggest group just stealing from everyone else for their own use. What do you do about that?

You'll need more than that if you're looking for your brain cell.

When have you ever known TV advertising to suggest LESS lurid content than is actually in the film? ;-)

I like the idea of more localized control.

Okay… so if we were to do away with the Federal government, women would not vote in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina or Virginia, right? Each of those states voted AGAINST the 19th Amendment, and applying the idea of local control, women would not have the vote in those states.

Just to make sure we're on the same page.

And there'd be no welfare state imposed by the Feral Government, so if a state, like say, Kalifornia wanted to let women vote, and they all voted for welfare and it bankrupted the state, then Kalforinians would suffer - but not Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia.

There'd have to be some way to keep the crap from rolling across borders, though, wouldn't there? I mean, Kalfornia has gone from paradise to cesspool, and a lot of the people who MADE it a cesspool are bubbling over into Nevada, Oregon and Idaho. Should those states be able to tell Kalifornians, "You made your cesspool - now sleep in it"?

What do you think?

Actually, that's rather disingenuous. You have to know that the majority of the majority (that would be the majority of women) are firmly IN FAVOR OF THE WELFARE STATE. They created it. So your solution amounts to asking the people raping us (women) to please, please, please stop raping America?

It's going to take a crash and a reset of the role of women in society. Men thought they would be rational. Men were wrong. Men will know better next time - after the societal collapse and reset.

Tutti Frutti.

I've already posted evidence on this page once.

Having trouble reading?