musterion
Well-known member
Somebody needs to give 'em the boot.
Should voting be mandatory?
- Thread starter shagster01
- Start date
Somebody needs to give 'em the boot.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Why would i return to what i was never part of to begin with? I rarely watch tv at all period.
But ill take this post as a "yes, im currently single" as your answer.
From high school on, most women tend to just stay there in their mentality, and in particular when it comes to social aspects of relationships and enmity.
You see, those women aren't made to 'woman up' as men are to 'man up'- rather, they are infantilized and simply remain :wave2:
truthjourney
New member
You love and admire women so much that you can't possibly stop talking about them.
You love and admire women so much that you can't possibly stop talking about them.
I talk about it when it's relevant, and unfortunately it's relevant with many things even though it goes ignored. Hillary went and duped young women with Youtube channels into encouraging other females by inviting them to dinners and shows.
Many grown women aren't so different- all you have to do is flatter them or give them something and it's game- their influence is typically not of their own, but of another. You think Hillary would even be where she's at without Bill?
Ultimately, men are the one's who influence, and women are either not smart enough- or are deceitful enough- to pretend otherwise. Even right down to women's rights, they didn't fight for them. They demanded them and men gave it to them.
But as it stands, not even the Bible can tell you the error of the so called illusion of 'equality'
[MENTION=7233]Ktoyou[/MENTION] is a feminist by title. She mastered the art of misdirection whenever accountability comes knocking, so [MENTION=13987]Angel4Truth[/MENTION] is good to fall in line and follow the example.
She's also an extreme Right winger, which is basically cognitive dissonance at it's height :chuckle:
She's also an extreme Right winger, which is basically cognitive dissonance at it's height :chuckle:
Only an obtuse mental midget with the intelligence of a codfish would write this. :jolly:
A right-wing feminist, I see.:dunce:
Or it's plain reality and your hair dyed, post high school self is showing :idunno:
Is this where you deny that you had straight up declared you are a feminist? :chuckle:
No further exhibits needed if you're attempting to produce an air tight case that you lack an argument or any real understanding of history.
That's because the worried man is a misogynistic dolt who can only see the woman through the man or as an extension. Instead, he should see two people united in a common purpose, both of whom are as entitled as he is to the same rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution.
He probably doesn't realize she's fought and planted, etc. right along side the other fellow (as per my last unrebutted) because he isn't married. And with that attitude it's no wonder.
You're like a Klansman caught mid-lynch, in robes, declaring himself free of bigotry. No, you simply like funny clothes and ropes and the guy you have half way up into the air is just the most expedient way to use them.
No one is going to believe that. Least of all the guy with the rope around his neck.
Last edited:
Why not a law that only women can vote?
May as well be, judging by how this election has been completely offset by mere claims and politically unimportant complaints by them. You'd rather have an insanely manipulative president who has every intention of pushing men aside for women than admit the nonsense.
It's misogynistic to see that it's unfair for a married man to have two votes?
You bring up the Constitution like it's relevant here- I'm talking about the world of common sense when men expanded the nation and owned everything. Your argument is stupid and built on pure blind bias.
Pointless to argue with someone with nothing but platitudes; even more so when they're not even on a point
It's misogynistic to only see the woman through or as an extension of the man. So yes.
And that's not helping you.
Common sense is one thing. The ignorance you're parading like a virtue is another and your avoidance of answers on the point is getting stale as it is circular. Men and women expanded the nation, as I've already noted twice and the fact that men owned nearly everything, the inequity in law, the failure of government to protect the unalienable rights of women, is what I'm addressing.
Not demonstrably, unlike your own. My part offers an answer to the declarative, history blind bias that moves you. You argue from a sort of invincible ignorance, circumventing argument with declaration and posture. Worse, you're willfully ignorant, as even a doofi with no education beyond the ability to read and the knowledge of how to use Google, coupled with an honest inclination, would upend the apple cart of his own bias with even a cursory search on the topic.
For instance, your male frontier settler, expanding the American empire. In point of fact and as I've noted previously, women went west, raised children as they farmed along side their mate, fought the native populations there over land and struggled beside the men you glorify at their expense. In point of fact, a great deal of the West saw unprecedented opportunities for women given the need for bodies in that frontier. Women had real business opportunity and often took it, in the form of hotels and restaurants, though some were also muleskinners and gold miners. Women even made inroads into medicine in the West as the need for physicians overwhelmed bias.
That's just what I've been thinking. Your cliches in lieu of reason are telling, but not worth listening too beyond mockery if that's all you have.
As to mandatory voting, I vote nay. Voting is a responsibility for responsible persons. If anything, I'd restrict it to those who can demonstrate an objectively verifiable appreciation of the government in its parts. The need isn't for voters, but for informed ones.
Last edited:
It's misogynistic to see that it's unfair for a married man to have two votes?
You bring up the Constitution like it's relevant here- I'm talking about the world of common sense when men expanded the nation and owned everything. Your argument is stupid and built on pure blind bias.
Pointless to argue with someone with nothing but platitudes; even more so when they're not even on a point