Quid pro quo

I don't think Michelle is ugly. I think she is ANGRY.  And I know there have been studies showing that white people mistake black people's facial expressions as more angry than they really are, but I doubt that's the only thing happening in her case.  I believe she is genuinely angry, just from the hateful things she has said like not being proud to be American most of her life.

I don't like to make comments on people's physical appearance that they can't help. Her body is what God gave her, and for physical features alone, I think her face is quite pretty. She could stand to lose some weight but then so could I, so I wouldn't dream of mentioning her fat ass.

But her attitude is deplorable. If she is ugly, that is what shows through. She should read some Thomas Sowell.  Most blacks today in America are better off than blacks in Africa today. As it turns out, if your ancestor was brought here on a slave ship, you lucked out.  Your ancestor certainly didn't luck out, but generations down through time, his great-great grandchildren did. Even inner city blacks have potable water and indoor plumbing, and the majority of blacks in America are not impoverished.  I'm not saying this, Sowell does in his book "Race and Culture" if memory serves, and he is an African American and by that I mean a black who grew up here whose ancestors came on slave ships. So if you think I'm saying something racist, take it up with Thomas Sowell. Blacks in America have steadily improved their lot over time, and we have abolished slavery, while in many other parts of the world, including Africa, slavery still exists. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17/this-map-shows-where-the-worlds-30-million-slaves-live-there-are-60000-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.faf659987f93)

If you ended up as a U.S. citizen, no matter how horribly your ancestors were brought here, you could appreciate the freedom and the plenty this country offers you TODAY, because if you don't, why don't you emigrate back to Africa?  Don't want to live in a shack with starving babies covered in flies?  Thought not.

But I do think the right to vote should be restricted to those over 30.

YES YES!  I have been thinking this for a long time.  If this country is wise enough to require a president to be at least 35, then it recognizes a certain amount of wisdom comes with life experience, so why are we allowing very young people with no life experience to vote the president in? I'd make an exception for anyone who has served in the military.

I don't think anyone who doesn't pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

I agree with this also.  It's another reason I favor a tax system that taxes everyone, even the very poor, even if the tax they pay is only one penny.  EVERYONE should shoulder some responsibility and have some skin in the game as Anthony says, no matter how little.

I don't want to speak for Rush, but I think what SHE is referring to is the inherent volatility, and emotional state, and swings of SOME women.
 

Yes I am a she and yes I am serious.  Women vote by a higher margin for things that are destructive to this country, such as left wing socialists (Obama), gun control (anti-second amendment), environmental regulations that destroy the economy and the energy industry in the U.S., they vote against military spending, etc. etc. in other words they vote liberal/progressive by a higher margin than do men, for whatever reason.

Anthony supposes I think they do because of "inherent volatility, and emotional state, and swings of SOME women" but I don't know whether this is the case.  These things (PMS swings) are stereotypical of women and like any stereotype they have more than a little truth at core, but whether they are a liability in making political decisions, I don't think they necessarily are.  I myself certainly fit the stereotype, with mood swings all over the map in a single day. Yet I vote with a cool head after careful logical analysis of the facts. So I would disagree with a man saying I should not have the vote because I am more moody than a man.

What I think is more relevant is that women in general, throughout history, have not been the main breadwinners; men have.  By biology or by culture, men's overriding concern has always been, can he support and protect his family?  This leaves men much more knowledgeable and concerned about caring for a thriving economy, and with a greater innate understanding of the need to maintain access to physical resources and to project strength to potential enemies.

Women on the other hand have a better sense of empathy.  I think it comes from the need to get inside the head of helpless infants, and it transfers to anyone. This isn't a bad thing at all. But it does leave them vulnerable to manipulation by those who would use social causes as a means to gain power. Because men tend to think more linearly, they seem better able to predict unintended consequences than women, who often are too focused on current suffering, and unable to look to the long run.

I'll bring up prohibition again as the perfect example. It was women who led the dry movement, because they saw real suffering caused by alcohol, but they completely miscalculated that the consequences of banning alcohol would be even worse.  However, once those terrible consequences came to be, to their credit, it was again women who led the movement to repeal prohibition.  Women had to see for themselves the suffering prohibition had caused before they "got it".  It's just too bad the whole country had to be jerked back and forth in the process by these females, and we are still left with a bad template for dealing with substance abuse.

All of this of course is generalities.  You can't draw a conclusion about any individual.  No, I don't actually think women should be denied the vote just on their gender any more than I think blacks should be denied the vote based on their skin color. I said it was a mistake to give women the vote, I didn't say I would have disagreed with making that mistake. And it would be wrong to deny blacks the vote just because they too vote more liberal.

In an ideal world I would say in order to have the vote, you should be required to have had a job yourself (not your husband) in a field involving basic physical resources, such as farming, energy production, construction, manufacturing, or the military. In other words, a job contributing to the enrichment of the economy or the protection of the country. Paying taxes isn't enough because you can pay tax on your welfare check and it's not the same thing as understanding where that money comes from.  Until you have contributed with your own hands what it takes to keep a society physically alive, you shouldn't qualify to vote, because survival of the nation is really the only thing that matters in the end.  If the nation doesn't survive, there's nothing to vote for anyway.

Sexual harassment charges mean nothing to me these days.  I can't speak to whether he is guilty or innocent in this specific circumstance, but in general, "sexual harassment" has been so weaponized it has lost all meaning.   It's an insult to real victims of sexual assault.

Just like racial "microaggression" it is a new way to transform the most basic and benign human behavior, such as facial expressions, or a compliment, into a comparison with the worst kinds of atrocities.

Asking a woman for a date is equivalent to rape by a stranger in a dark alley.

Crossing the street when you see a black, even if that's not WHY you crossed, is equivalent to horsewhipping a slave pre Civil War. (It was subconscious!!)

This is absolute witch hunt hysteria on so many fronts, and usually (though not always) targeting white males. (Black males if they are conservative or rich.)

Basing racism or sexual harassment on the FEELING of the "victim" rather than the intent of the actor is taking us down a horrific road in which anyone at any time can be accused of a crime for virtually ANY act.

The lynchings will continue, get used to it. The left/media is throwing the biggest political tantrum I've ever seen.

When you hobnob with Richard Branson, you've got to have the coin!

Why do mega rich business people become far left kooks?  Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Branson, Brian Roberts, Igor of Disney, anyone that heads Goldman Sachs, like John Corzine, etc.  Is this just the global, elitist, statist cool thing to do?

I often wonder that. It's such a good question.  I have some theories. You would think since many of them got rich via capitalism that they wouldn't be leftist, but then you have to remember a leftist NEVER intends to live by the rules he makes for everyone else.

Theory number 1:  Like many people their politics is more a result of their background and social circle, not critical thinking, and they are usually urban, so that would lean them Democrat.  Just because they are smart and rich does not necessarily mean they applied the same critical thinking to politics that they applied to their business.

In fact, I have come to believe that BECAUSE celebrities and rich businessmen are so focused on whatever made them rich, they spend their time on that and so have a deficit in other areas.  A person has to apply independent thought and intelligence to politics in order to escape the brainwashing of the media. Maybe these people just can't be bothered.

I think this is a big problem with musicians.  Extremely good musicians dedicate a lot of their days to making their music.  Their music touches our deepest heartstrings.  But when musicians apply a political slant to their songs, because they are genius with music, people believe they are also genius with their lyrics.  Because of the emotional rapture one feels with the melody, one MISTAKENLY believes the lyrics are equally divinely inspired.  I have come to believe that they are NOT. That many musicians, despite their musical talent, are some of the stupidest most ignorant people alive on matters of politics and this is possibly because they are more interested in their music than in learning a lot about other things in the world.

Theory number 2: Situational Acquired Narcissism. Very rich and very famous people over time tend to display symptoms of the personality disorder known as narcissism, but it is not organic so much as a result of their fame. Because everyone else puts them on a pedestal they start to believe it themselves.  Like any narcissist, they then have the false  belief that their ideas are better than others' and that they know better how to run the world than others. This leads directly to economic collectivism in all its forms, because economic collectivism is about a central authority controlling everybody else. Naturally, like all leftists, they put themselves as part of this authority.

Theory number 3: A bit of inborn narcissism, which may be the very reason they were able to become so rich. This means they are skilled at using people for their own gain.  They have no real ideals other than themselves: enriching themselves is their only goal.  So their leftism doesn't really have anything to do with real beliefs in the ideal of leftist utopia.  These people (born narcissists) see others as existing only to benefit themselves and so their supposed leftism is nothing more than manipulation of others for their own purposes. Example, they don't really want to save the planet for all humanity; they are only talking "green" for whatever gain it brings their own pockets.

These people will also align themselves with whatever group they feel will come out on top, always.  Because leftism is always about control, with the leftist on top, they naturally are drawn toward the left. True free market capitalism is a system that respects the intelligence of every individual to manage his own micro-economy.  The narcissist isn't capable of granting anyone else any intelligence or wisdom, so might not be able to grasp this concept.

The hypocrisy we are about to witness from the radical Alt-Left-government-media-complex will be both hysterical, and terrifying.

'Gimp