| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 2:46:00 PM | So, you thought it was the liberal Democrats or perhaps big spending Republicans… Nope, according to more than a few scholars from some of the most prestigious universities in American, its women voting that did it and that are doing it. The papers are very long so I just put the links in for reference.
In the century since we first allowed women the privilege of voting, that action has produced the unspeakable leviathan that was predicted when the issue of women voting was first debated -- in short the cancerous growth of government through the mechanism of confiscatory,
predatory income and property taxes. Loki Laufeyjarson
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny1999.pdf
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/WkngPprs_51-75/60.Lott.Suffrage.complete.pdf?abstract_id=160530
I’d be interested in hearing what you all think about this, at least those of you that can converse in a courteous manner. Oh yeah, and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t kill the messenger. | |
|
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 3:13:02 PM | I was thinking more along the line that women are more caring and more compassionate than most men but big business makes sense too.
BTW, I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about this on the radio so I did a search on it and to my amazement a lot of articles came up on the topic. He plans to talk about it tomorrow. And before you ask, no, I am not a fan of his. I was curious what others thought about it though. | |
|
| |
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 3:28:21 PM | | The garbageman you may want to buy a dictionary honey the correct spelling is "dumb" not "dum" as you typed it. Women love to spend huh? You obviously know nothing about women. This chick prefers to save for a rainy day. Some men spend more than women do. I've dated a few in the past and my boss is one of those kind of men. Such men have to have several cars and all their toys. The study was such bs it gave me a real laugh. It's primarily men in power so whose doing all the spending? Men! | |
|
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 3:40:36 PM |
Such men have to have several cars and all their toys.
Hang on! Car's don't count as spending. A guys gotta have a few different cars. It's the SHOES that women buy. I bet there's some big cave somewhere with billions and billions of SHOES that the government has been spending billions and trillions on because women in the govenment wanted to make sure they had SHOES for a rainy day! | |
|
| |
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 4:24:21 PM | Googling is not thinking, OPie. I don't subject you to my idle curiosities, do I? Or pretend I'm "doing research" when I'm just poking around? If I did, I would probably, eventually, "quote" by mistake someone like "Loki Laufeyjarson."
Or maybe not. Your quote is typical, in its hyperbole, of the overheated rhetoric of the amateur fulminator, folks who rarely published before the InterWebs came along. I hope I would choose better material. But the source itself? Loki Laufeyjarson is the old, full name of Loki, the Norse god of mischief. You quoted someone's WWWhandle, for goodness's sake! Not scholarship at all! Oops!
Which tells me something about you, at least. You didn't read any scholarship, or you would have quoted it instead of some jerk-off's blog post. Yes/no? Since you're not serious enough even to read your own subject, and because you go out of your way to beg for abuse, aren't you a garden variety, rank and file troll? Stirring people up with inflammatory piffle you don't even care about? That's what trolls do, isn't it?
If so, excellent work!
Cheese!
Vulf  | |
|
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 4:33:18 PM |
How about we compare the economies and quality of life between countries that don't allow women to vote vs those that do?
My first reaction is that this is dangerous thinking.
I hope women realize that our freedoms are fragile. In a depressed economy, in a desperate time...civil liberties could take a back burner to survival.
I think the real problem is that not enough women actually vote. Especially single women, I believe women are taking our freedoms for granted. | |
|
| |
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 5:39:13 PM |
My first reaction is that this is dangerous thinking.
I hope women realize that our freedoms are fragile. In a depressed economy, in a desperate time...civil liberties could take a back burner to survival.
I think the real problem is that not enough women actually vote. Especially single women, I believe women are taking our freedoms for granted.
My point is that if we're making silly statements about how allowing women to vote causes deficits. We should look at the reality that the countries that don't allow women to vote have a tendency to being cesspools.
It's stupid anyway, as was pointed out in a previous post this is joke research. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away government spending is a direct result of women given the vote.
Posted: 5/29/2008 8:47:15 PM |
The study is on goverment spending. Woman are more concerned with security than freedom is what all the studies say. Healthcare, schools, police protection, ect. ect.
Yes, that's pretty much the way I understood it as well. The papers give the rational that women to a far greater extent believe in "safety nets" and these programs are expensive. With each safety- net, the government becomes more intrusive. That intrusion costs even more money. For example, before government sponsored healthcare, the government didn't really care if people smoked. However, as soon as the government is in the healthcare business, then smoking becomes an issue because smokers statistically are in poorer health and they require more than their fair share of healthcare services. Another example is the police and the war on drugs. People that are desperate for drugs will commit crimes to get money for drugs. So the government in an effort to combat drugs has made having large sums of cash money a suspicious thing. They can confiscate it and the person that has his money taken away is obliged to prove it is his legally. The war on drugs also allows the police to confiscate personal property when even small amounts of drugs are found without a judge’s order and again, the person that has lost his property is obliged to prove it was not purchased with drug money. The majority of inmates in the American prison system are there on drug charges and that's expensive. Another example is after 9/11, now everyone and everything is searched that goes into an airport and that's expensive and also intrusive because of the actual search and also because items are often confiscated, again without a court order. All in all, the more security that the government provides, the more the government spends and the more restrictive our society becomes
If I had a nickel for everytime I heard this rant
This is not a rant but I can understand wanting to dismiss it as that because one could take it as being critical of one’s sex and no one likes criticism. The quality of the research was done by some pretty heavy weight academics from Yale and the University of Chicago and the methods of study are first class as you can see by the links to the research papers. Also please note that these research papers were done independent of one another yet they arrived at the same basic conclusions. Anyone with any common sense knows that there are always exceptions within a group. This study just identifies a definite trend of the group but does not brand all women as being the same.
It's not a joke.
You’re right Iconoclast, this is not a joke. However, I can assure you that no one is suggesting or even considering that the vote be taken away from women and frankly that would be impossible to achieve. At best, perhaps a very few, open-minded, smart women will, of their own free, change the way they vote once they become aware of the negative aspect of this trend. | |
|
| Evidence now proves that run away trolls cause cancer and sometimes smell funny.
Posted: 5/29/2008 11:00:02 PM | OPie, your "two" links are to different versions of the same paper, by the same two guys. The bulk of the paper is taken up with rationalizing the many adjustments the authors applied to the data. You haven't found a wellspring of insight, but a couple of tightie-rightie cranks. Two guys!
And, again, you haven't read these things, have you? Not many would, not on purpose. Only a troll invites people to read what he hasn't.
Whack a Troll!
Vulf | |
|
| |
| Evidence now proves that run away trolls cause cancer and sometimes smell funny.
Posted: 5/30/2008 4:57:46 AM | shieldvulf,
the only one apparently that doesn’t read things is you. The topic is the relationship between the female vote and high government spending. I heard about the topic on the radio as a subject that will be discussed today, 5/30/08, on the Rush Limbaugh show so this is a current topic and that, in and of itself, is sufficient to post the topic on the current events thread here in the forums. I did post links to threads that explain the topic as a bonus so that people can read more about it if they wish. How much I have personally researched the topic or my personal expertise on the subject just doesn’t matter. If anything YOU are attempting to HIJACK this thread for an agenda only you are aware. If you would actually like to discuss the topic, have at it. Otherwise, move on.
The links posted are to versions of the same research paper. Both were provided because they show the credentials of the posters and there are differences in that the one is over 1000 pages long and the other is 74 pages long. However, the quote is from another that shares a similar view. The quote that I added I did not write so I gave credit to the person that did and that person listed their name as Loki Laufeyjarson. Who that person is really doesn’t matter in that they wrote it, not me, so they deserve the credit.
In the forum rules, they specifically say in caps and in RED to
DISCUSS THE MESSAGES NOT …THE MESSENGERS
The also say in the forum rules:
There is a problem with trolls on some threads who seize any opportunity to hijack topics and replace them with their own agenda, other than the topic of the OP.
That pretty much describes you, not me. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
.. .I care not what you say about women, I do not fall into any of the typical stereotypes...
Boring!
) is wrong?? 
