Do you think if two black women had gone to England and learned how to make scones and clotted cream, then came back and started a business selling it, that social media would have destroyed them for "appropriating" British culture?  There's never been anything wrong with learning a culture's dishes, then going elsewhere to cook and sell them.  This is a problem of social media being used by people with an agenda (chip on their shoulder) to arbitrarily victimize targets.  Mob mentality in cyberspace because white people are hated.

No matter what we do with SS, we MUST get the economy thriving again.

And the Left did everything in its power to prevent that for the previous 8 years and are still doing it with a very pro-business president in office.

Because government dependency.

Jim (who I firmly believe is a closet liberal)

<Pulls off white glove, slaps Little Joe across the face with it.>

"Sir, my good name has been impugned! I challenge you to a duel! Send around your seconds."

Every time this is brought up the democrats go wild and start foaming at the mouth.

Of course they do. They wouldn't be able to buy votes if they didn't have other peoples money to give to others.

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.