Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

RAILhead · Oct 8, 2007, 01:47 PM

I don't know if anyone's posted this or not -- though I'm SURE someone has, rather that spout erroneous commentary -- but her "no women voting" comes from a study that was done. The findings were that single women tend to vote more liberal, especially single mothers. This trend was tied to these women liking the potential support of government programs.

Conversely, when women got married, their voting tended to become more conservative and less desiring of government intervention/aid -- the family unit was now providing security.

Last, when women divorced, they tended to go back to more liberal voting patterns.

SO, the study she was referring to was outlining how a large percentage of studied women seemed to allow their voting record to be based upon government assistance/support/stability. THUS, Coulter makes the comment about how if women weren't so fickle and didn't run to the government for help (which is what liberals do in her opinion: seek and want more government aid), they would be more apt to vote conservatively. This was summed-up in her saying that if women weren't allowed to vote, then we wouldn't have such a liberal problem, etc., etc.

peeb · Oct 8, 2007, 01:55 PM

Right, but arguing that because a group of people don't vote the way she wants them too they should be disenfranchised is quite scary, isn't it?

Chongo · Oct 8, 2007, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Right, but arguing that because a group of people don't vote the way she wants them too they should be disenfranchised is quite scary, isn't it?

Amazing that she is talking about disenfranchising herself. At one time you had to be a landowner as well as male to vote. I can go one better. When you sign up for government assistance, you sign a waiver giving up your right to vote until you come off whatever program you are on.

ironknee · Oct 8, 2007, 02:11 PM

let's be real, ann is not that hot....but the current press person for bush is hot...what's her name?

ironknee · Oct 8, 2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Right, but arguing that because a group of people don't vote the way she wants them too they should be disenfranchised is quite scary, isn't it?

i agree especially since she is a woman as well...smells like self hating

peeb · Oct 8, 2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Amazing that she is talking about disenfranchising herself. At one time you had to be a landowner as well as male to vote. I can go one better. When you sign up for government assistance, you sign a waiver giving up your right to vote until you come off whatever program you are on.

Why? That would disenfranchise almost everyone. People who children attend public schools, who drive on public road, who benefit from public policing, get public subsidies of the food they buy through ag subsidies etc etc. Who would actually be able to vote in your system, and why would you propose a thing like that?

Chongo · Oct 8, 2007, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Why? That would disenfranchise almost everyone. People who children attend public schools, who drive on public road, who benefit from public policing, get public subsidies of the food they buy through ag subsidies etc etc. Who would actually be able to vote in your system, and why would you propose a thing like that?

Since when are roads built by fuel taxes an assistance program? I am talking about section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, you know, welfare. Everything you listed (except AG subsidies) are funded though local property taxes and those who buy municipal/county bonds and are not assistance programs. The left has a vested interest in keeping people on welfare, it's their power base.

Liberals measure compassion by how many people are on welfare, conservatives and libertarians measure compassion by how many people no longer need welfare. (Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life)

peeb · 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Since when are roads built by fuel taxes an assistance program? I am talking about section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, you know, welfare. Everything you listed (except AG subsidies) are funded though local property taxes and those who buy municipal/county bonds and are not assistance programs. The left has a vested interest in keeping people on welfare, it's their power base.

You see, what's frustrating about talking to you is your astounding level of ignorance. Freeways are paid for by federal dollars, and are just as much a public assistance program as food stamps. It just assists a different group of people. What you have done is take all the government programs that benefit people who you think are likely to vote a different way to you, and separated them out from the government programs that you think benefit people who are more likely to vote the way you want.
That's not just dumb, it's pernicious.

Doofy · Oct 8, 2007, 03:05 PM

Chongo, meet the village idiot. Village idiot, meet Chongo.

RAILhead · Oct 8, 2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Right, but arguing that because a group of people don't vote the way she wants them too they should be disenfranchised is quite scary, isn't it?

Well, seeing as she doesn't hold a position of power that can lead to any form of governmental change -- any more the the Lib's Michael Moore -- it's only "scary" if you allow yourself to be scared by other peoples' opinions and "scandalous" comments.

So no, it's not scary to me. My tinfoil is built of sturdier stuff.

Shaddim · Oct 8, 2007, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

You see, what's frustrating about talking to you is your astounding level of ignorance.

This is where the discussion falls apart.

Why can't you play well with others?

Chongo · Oct 8, 2007, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

You see, what's frustrating about talking to you is your astounding level of ignorance. Freeways are paid for by federal dollars, and are just as much a public assistance program as food stamps. It just assists a different group of people. What you have done is take all the government programs that benefit people who you think are likely to vote a different way to you, and separated them out from the government programs that you think benefit people who are more likely to vote the way you want.
That's not just dumb, it's pernicious.

If people were receiving "gas stamps" I would agree that it was public assistance.
It's only pernicious if you think people who are public assistance are monomaniacal and vote that way.

Federal gas taxes are collected to pay for roads (as are state and municipal taxes) and are an Article I, section 8 responsibility of Congress.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads

You can't deliver the mail without roads.

BTW in Arizona the only roads coming though here paid with Federal dollars in the last 50 years is the interstate. We built our entire freeway system with state and city money.

BadKosh · Oct 8, 2007, 09:17 PM

Most ignorant statement I've seen in print THIS YEAR:

"Freeways are paid for by federal dollars, and are just as much a public assistance program as food stamps. It just assists a different group of people."

So, we had to fill out paperwork to use them, and only get to use a certain amount of them based on income? One I Make more money I can't use the roads anymore? LOL

Doofy · Oct 8, 2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Most ignorant statement I've seen in print THIS YEAR:

"Freeways are paid for by federal dollars, and are just as much a public assistance program as food stamps. It just assists a different group of people."

So, we had to fill out paperwork to use them, and only get to use a certain amount of them based on income? One I Make more money I can't use the roads anymore? LOL

Get a Jeep. Then you won't need roads.

subego · Oct 8, 2007, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

I love country music

Now I get it. I was like, tree-notes?

Classy.

goMac · Oct 8, 2007, 09:56 PM

I read the topic of this thread as "Help me out Ann Coulter."

I was like "Really, it can't be that hard..."

subego · Oct 9, 2007, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I was like "Really, it can't be that hard..."

The way people are talking in this thread, apparently, that's what she said.

RAILhead · Oct 9, 2007, 08:49 AM

One should also point out that Coulter didn't say she's starting a movement to end women voting -- or "disenfranchise" as someone put it -- females.

Let's try and keep those knee-jerk talking-point recitations to a minimum.

Chongo · Oct 9, 2007, 11:38 AM

I just wonder how many woman vote for a candidate based on his/her looks rather that what they stand for? ( John Kennedy for example) Some say women tend to vote with their hearts and not with their heads.

Doofy · Oct 9, 2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Chongo

I just wonder how many woman vote for a candidate based on his/her looks rather that what they stand for? ( John Kennedy for example) Some say women tend to vote with their hearts and not with their heads.

Blair almost certainly got in on the "nice hair" ticket.

Then again, if they were all chicks running for office I'd be voting for the cutest one too. Just so happens she'd probably be a Republican/Tory, since really hot women are almost always right wingers (as has been proven in this very thread).

besson3c · Oct 9, 2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Chongo

I just wonder how many woman vote for a candidate based on his/her looks rather that what they stand for? ( John Kennedy for example) Some say women tend to vote with their hearts and not with their heads.

I say those people are making a sexist remark. While there are some women that do this, there are obviously men that do this too (and many of them at that). It is futile trying to paint with a jumbo sized brush like this.

besson3c · Oct 9, 2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Blair almost certainly got in on the "nice hair" ticket.

Then again, if they were all chicks running for office I'd be voting for the cutest one too. Just so happens she'd probably be a Republican/Tory, since really hot women are almost always right wingers (as has been proven in this very thread).

Speaking of jumbo sized brushes...

Doofy · Oct 9, 2007, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Speaking of jumbo sized brushes...

Straight up - I lost track of the amount of women who told me they were voting for Blair because they liked his smile back in 1997.

besson3c · Oct 9, 2007, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Straight up - I lost track of the amount of women who told me they were voting for Blair because they liked his smile back in 1997.

So?

Sorry, I'm just a little to rational/scientific minded to accept conventional wisdom or empirical evidence as truth in general, nothing personal involving you...

peeb · Oct 9, 2007, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Most ignorant statement I've seen in print THIS YEAR:

"Freeways are paid for by federal dollars, and are just as much a public assistance program as food stamps. It just assists a different group of people."

So, we had to fill out paperwork to use them, and only get to use a certain amount of them based on income? One I Make more money I can't use the roads anymore? LOL

So you want to divide benefits from the government into two type, those you get automatically, and those you have to fill out a form to get? Doesn't that sounds like a really dumb way to divide government services?
Corporate tax breaks and food stamps are both types of government welfare that need specific applications for and you get a certain amount that is related to income. Access to socialized transport systems like roads, and environmental protection, and foreign wars are automatic. What is the point in separating these out in this way?

Graviton · Oct 11, 2007, 03:44 AM

She's one of those people who are impossible to parody. Like Fred Phelps.

Chuckit · Oct 11, 2007, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

So you want to divide benefits from the government into two type, those you get automatically, and those you have to fill out a form to get? Doesn't that sounds like a really dumb way to divide government services?

It sounded to me like he was distinguishing between services for the public and services for certain people.

Face Ache · Oct 11, 2007, 03:56 AM

Coulter says Jews need to be perfected.

Doofy · Oct 11, 2007, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Coulter says Jews need to be perfected.

Interesting. I suppose you posted that comment on that blog so your forces would all register here at the NN and help you out, eh?

Weak.

And typical leftist tactics - strength in numbers to offset the pussification you all suffer from.

Face Ache · Oct 11, 2007, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Interesting. I suppose you posted that comment on that blog so your forces would all register here at the NN and help you out, eh?

I didn't do that. Hmm.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And typical leftist tactics - strength in numbers to offset the pussification you all suffer from.

I'm "hard left". You wear lycra, yeah?

Wiskedjak · Oct 11, 2007, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Interesting. I suppose you posted that comment on that blog so your forces would all register here at the NN and help you out, eh?

Weak.

And typical leftist tactics - strength in numbers to offset the pussification you all suffer from.

And what do you call the tactic of stating an assumption as a factual conclusion?

Face Ache · Oct 11, 2007, 08:10 AM

Conservatism?

Wiskedjak · Oct 11, 2007, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Conservatism?

Actually, I would disagree. I would say that both conservatives and liberals are guilty of it. I would also say that that both are guilty of what Doofy accused you of and that both are guilty of doing what Doofy did, which was to attack the messenger rather than the message.

Face Ache · Oct 11, 2007, 08:38 AM

Uh, I was joking.

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter wants to convert the Jews...

Wiskedjak · Oct 11, 2007, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Uh, I was joking.

I know, but others would have assumed it and not be joking.

Face Ache · Oct 11, 2007, 08:45 AM

If people want to take me seriously they do so at their own peril.

BACK ON TOPIC...

Chuckit · Oct 11, 2007, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Interesting. I suppose you posted that comment on that blog so your forces would all register here at the NN and help you out, eh?

His forces? MacNN has more readers than your average blog.

Face Ache · 10:52 PM

According to the Drudge Report:

MASTERMIND OF FIRST TWIN TOWERS ATTACK CLAIMS HE HAS CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY
Thu Oct 11 2007 13:19:11 ET

Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, claims he converted from Islam to Christianity, Scott Pelley reports in a story that brings viewers inside the secretive "Supermax" prison where he is being held.

So if an Islamofascist terrorist can convert to the One True Religion, I'd imagine the Jews could at least try.

I'm not versed on this whole god, devil, prophet, miracle thing. Maybe you can help. This terrorist dude is going to Jesus Heaven now, right?

Meanwhile...

Miracles ain't what they used to be.

Wiskedjak · Oct 13, 2007, 06:46 PM

Well, for all her wrongs, at least she's not anti-Semitic

oh, wait
Coulter's anti-Semitic comment too dangerous to ignore - Los Angeles Times

dcmacdaddy · Oct 13, 2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Face Ache

According to the Drudge Report:

So if an Islamofascist terrorist can convert to the One True Religion, I'd imagine the Jews could at least try.

I'm not versed on this whole god, devil, prophet, miracle thing. Maybe you can help. This terrorist dude is going to Jesus Heaven now, right?

Meanwhile...

Miracles ain't what they used to be.

Hey, don't be dissin' my man, Benedict. He's got the One True God on his side.

(I was in Rome this past week and attended his weekly public audience: Up close--the pope-mobile was about six feet way from me--he really looks like Anthony Hopkins cum Hannibal Lecter, especially when he smiles. It is CREEPY.)

Face Ache · Oct 13, 2007, 11:40 PM

Ain't dissin' no Pope - it's just a funny photo.

I only know one guy who's met the (last) Pope - a Jewish doctor.

I'm guessing a Catholic somewhere missed out.

Monique · Oct 22, 2007, 01:30 PM

She is a hateful ugly woman. 60 years she would have been a nazi female guard at a concentration camp where she would have had dogs torn away a pregnant woman because she was Jewish.

I do not understand why you guys think a pack of bones is attractive. There is a huge canyon between bone type hateful Coulter and being way fat. You take women like Julianne Phillips, Cecilia Bartoli, Diana Krall; they are very beautiful and do not have to be a pack of bones and hateful.

Anyway conservative women hate sex.

Shaddim · Oct 22, 2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

She is a hateful ugly woman. 60 years she would have been a nazi female guard at a concentration camp where she would have had dogs torn away a pregnant woman because she was Jewish.

I do not understand why you guys think a pack of bones is attractive. There is a huge canyon between bone type hateful Coulter and being way fat. You take women like Julianne Phillips, Cecilia Bartoli, Diana Krall; they are very beautiful and do not have to be a pack of bones and hateful.

Anyway conservative women hate sex.

Out of curiosity, is "Monique" a joke account that someone else on the forum uses to get a laugh?

lpkmckenna · Oct 22, 2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Anyway conservative women hate sex.

You know she used to date the publisher of Penthouse, right?

besson3c · Oct 22, 2007, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

You know she used to date the publisher of Penthouse, right?

Not surprising. Coulter is playing us all, and we are falling for it.

Railroader · Oct 22, 2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Anyway conservative women hate sex.

REALLY?!?!

My wife must be some deep closeted ultra left-wing radical low IQ socialist hippy who walks and talks like a evangelical ultra right-wing radical high IQ Republican!

Railroader · Oct 22, 2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Face Ache

So if an Islamofascist terrorist can convert to the One True Religion, I'd imagine the Jews could at least try.

I'm not versed on this whole god, devil, prophet, miracle thing. Maybe you can help. This terrorist dude is going to Jesus Heaven now, right?

If true...

Awesome, praise God for turning this man's heart.

I truly hope he has converted. I hope it isn't fake or a publicity stunt. Although, if I remember correctly, Muslims have integrated into cultures and acted like they adopted the other religions before and then creating an uprising of Islam.

lpkmckenna · Oct 22, 2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Although, if I remember correctly, Muslims have integrated into cultures and acted like they adopted the other religions before and then creating an uprising of Islam.

I suspect you remember incorrectly.

Railroader · Oct 22, 2007, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I suspect you remember incorrectly.

Perhaps.

Well, any Muslims want to comment on whether or not the Koran allows Muslims to adopt local cultures contrary to Islamic beliefs in an effort to convert the locals?

Chongo · Oct 22, 2007, 07:43 PM

If he did convert, he will have a fatwa on his head