It's June 4th!

[AmazonTania]

see, i didnt need to assume anything. I waited and found this nugget of retard. Only a conservative would see women not voting as a good thing.

Show me where I said women voting was not a good thing.

the idea you "understand" why and how you explained it shows how you did.

Either show me where I said women voting isn't a good thing or just admit you created another strawman.

Your excuse women didnt do as much back in teh day is weak and pathetic. We where stupid and less " evolved" back then. We the people should have been from the get-go but it wasn't.

You're not doing a sufficient job of showing how much 'smarter' and more 'evolved' than your ancestors. Men owned businesses. Women did not. Men fought in battle. Women did not. Men worked outside the home. Women did not. Men were involved in political matters. Women were not. Men were involved in the Government. Women were not.

Women were not involved in anything at all. But sure, I often take investing advice from someone who has no idea what he or she is talking about. I'll even let them vote on financial regulations, because I want to show how much I respect someone who is un-knowledgeable.

 

[Plasmaball]

Show me where I said women voting was not a good thing.

the idea you "understand" why and how you explained it shows how you did.

Either show me where I said women voting isn't a good thing or just admit you created another strawman.

Your excuse women didnt do as much back in teh day is weak and pathetic. We where stupid and less " evolved" back then. We the people should have been from the get-go but it wasn't.

You're not doing a sufficient job of showing how much 'smarter' and more 'evolved' than your ancestors. Men owned businesses. Women did not. Men fought in battle. Women did not. Men worked outside the home. Women did not. Men were involved in political matters. Women were not. Men were involved in the Government. Women were not.

Women were not involved in anything at all. But sure, I often take investing advice from someone who has no idea what he or she is talking about. I'll even let them vote on financial regulations, because I want to show how much I respect someone who is un-knowledgeable.

oh stop it, you are playing the literal " show me the exact word" game because thats all you have.

I'm bored already with you.

 

[AmazonTania]

the idea you "understand" why and how you explained it shows how you did.

Either show me where I said women voting isn't a good thing or just admit you created another strawman.

Your excuse women didnt do as much back in teh day is weak and pathetic. We where stupid and less " evolved" back then. We the people should have been from the get-go but it wasn't.

You're not doing a sufficient job of showing how much 'smarter' and more 'evolved' than your ancestors. Men owned businesses. Women did not. Men fought in battle. Women did not. Men worked outside the home. Women did not. Men were involved in political matters. Women were not. Men were involved in the Government. Women were not.

Women were not involved in anything at all. But sure, I often take investing advice from someone who has no idea what he or she is talking about. I'll even let them vote on financial regulations, because I want to show how much I respect someone who is un-knowledgeable.

oh stop it, you are playing the literal " show me the exact word" game because thats all you have.

I'm bored already with you.

I didn't ask for the exact word. I asked you to show me where I said it, or at least something like it. You could not, because it was never said, nor implied.

Just in case you didn't get it (or were simply skimming through), I'll clarify. Back then, there were all types of voting restrictions on all sorts of people, not just women. This was done to ensure quality electorate decisions. I said I 'understood' this because it makes absolutely zero sense to have someone vote in your elections who are not heavily involved in your society, are not economically in-tuned, or can barely speak the language.

Again, does it make sense to keep women from voting now? Of course not, because women play an active role in today's society, but they've played that role simply because they were able to show they are capable of doing all the same things men can do. Not simply because they've earned the right to vote.

 

[Plasmaball]

it was done back in the day because of power,class, and nothing more. There is no good excuse for it no matter how hard you attempt to spew one out.
It was vastly unamerican and never should have been in place period.

Your slippery slope about allowing children to vote is absurd and retarded.

 

[Pogo]

The basis upon the efficiency and competence of the electorate.



Then end voter discrimination now and let children vote in our elections.



I am not an American citizen. I don't vote, nor do I wish to. That might change considering even dead people are allowed to vote in your elections.

So you're a dead person? That explains a lot too.

Again literacy is not your strong suit.

But ir figures you're not from here, considering your lack of Clue about how we do things.

Not very well, one would gather.

But it's a simple misconception: you've got the concept of citizen voting confused with the concept of shareholder voting. A shareholder has a stake in the corporation, and therefore a vote, by virtue of his or her investment. A citizen has a stake in the country, and therefor a vote, by simple virtue of his or her existence. The latter needs no investment.

I never made such comparison, even then your analogy is a very bad one. You should probably take the time to learn corporate finance before making this mistake again. Shareholders only vote on two things: BOD (Board of Directors) and matters regarding corporate policy. That's it. Board of Directors formulates the plans, and Share Holders vote on it. These plans effect the solvency of the solvency of the nation. Contrary, your vote, does nothing.

What makes you think your stake in your country makes you capable of how others should run their business? Or how other people should live? Or which strategy the military should take? Simply because you have an ignorant opinion? Absolutely absurd.

Now you're conflating and inserting all sorts of crap I never brought up. Apparently lucidity isn't your strong suit. Perhaps English isn't even your first language, or so it would seem.

As far as literacy and lack thereof, you're the wag who just suggested you might vote on the basis that "dead people can vote". Therefore one must assume from your reasoning that you are, in fact, dead (and surely the avatar does little to dispel that suggestion). Yet you don't seem to get that, being a non-citizen, you can't vote even if you want to, dead or alive.

As I and others have said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[AmazonTania]

it was done back in the day because of power,class, and nothing more. There is no good excuse for it no matter how hard you attempt to spew one out.
It was vastly unamerican and never should have been in place period.

Your slippery slope about allowing children to vote is absurd and retarded.

Explain why it is wrong to keep women from voting, but not children.

 

[AmazonTania]

So you're a dead person? That explains a lot too.

Again literacy is not your strong suit.



Not very well, one would gather.

But it's a simple misconception: you've got the concept of citizen voting confused with the concept of shareholder voting. A shareholder has a stake in the corporation, and therefore a vote, by virtue of his or her investment. A citizen has a stake in the country, and therefor a vote, by simple virtue of his or her existence. The latter needs no investment.

I never made such comparison, even then your analogy is a very bad one. You should probably take the time to learn corporate finance before making this mistake again. Shareholders only vote on two things: BOD (Board of Directors) and matters regarding corporate policy. That's it. Board of Directors formulates the plans, and Share Holders vote on it. These plans effect the solvency of the solvency of the nation. Contrary, your vote, does nothing.

What makes you think your stake in your country makes you capable of how others should run their business? Or how other people should live? Or which strategy the military should take? Simply because you have an ignorant opinion? Absolutely absurd.

Now you're conflating and inserting all sorts of crap I never brought up. Apparently lucidity isn't your strong suit. Perhaps English isn't even your first language, or so it would seem.

You're the one who said you had a stake in your country, and, you should be given a vote. I am point out your fallacy. If you are not part of the military, nor a business owner, educator, doctor, financier, or part of any other professional category, then you certainly do not have a stake in any of these industries. Or do you somehow believe that the country is just one collective society where everyone acts as one?

As far as literacy and lack thereof, you're the wag who just suggested you might vote on the basis that "dead people can vote". Therefore one must assume from your reasoning that you are, in fact, dead (and surely the avatar does litt le to dispel that suggestion). Yet you don't seem to get that, being a non-citizen, you can't vote even if you want to, dead or alive.

The purpose of the gest was to point out voter fraud. It was a clever and witty attempt to get you to think. Perhaps it was too subtle for you.

As I and others have said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The problem with clueless individuals is that they've somehow convinced themselves that others are clueless.

 

[Pogo]

Again literacy is not your strong suit.



Not very well, one would gather.



I never made such comparison, even then your analogy is a very bad one. You should probably take the time to learn corporate finance before making this mistake again. Shareholders only vote on two things: BOD (Board of Directors) and matters regarding corporate policy. That's it. Board of Directors formulates the plans, and Share Holders vote on it. These plans effect the solvency of the solvency of the nation. Contrary, your vote, does nothing.

What makes you think your stake in your country makes you capable of how others should run their business? Or how other people should live? Or which strategy the military should take? Simply because you have an ignorant opinion? Absolutely absurd.

Now you're conflating and inserting all sorts of crap I never brought up. Apparently lucidity isn't your strong suit. Perhaps English isn't even your first language, or so it would seem.

You're the one who said you had a stake in your country, and, you should be given a vote. I am point out your fallacy. If you are not part of the military, nor a business owner, educator, doctor, financier, or part of any other professional category, then you certainly do not have a stake in any of these industries. Or do you somehow believe that the country is just one collective society where everyone acts as one?

As far as literacy and lack thereof, you're the wag who just suggested you might vote on the basis that "dead people can vote". Therefore one must assume from your reasoning that you are, in fact, dead (and surely the avatar does litt le to dispel that suggestion). Yet you don't seem to get that, being a non-citizen, you can't vote even if you want to, dead or alive.

The purpose of the gest was to point out voter fraud. It was a clever and witty attempt to get you to think. Perhaps it was too subtle for you.

As I and others have said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The problem with clueless individuals is that they've somehow convinced themselves that others are clueless.

Actually the problem with the clueless is that they believe themselves to be "clever and witty". Once again, citizen voting has nothing to do with industrial voting. Not on this planet.

Now if your assessment is that you personally are not smart enough to vote, and that you are a woman, therefore women are not smart enough to vote, then as the saying apparently goes "I am point out your fallacy", oh literate one: Hasty Generalization. Because believe me, most women are far more qualified than you've demonstrated yourself to be here.

 

[AmazonTania]

Now you're conflating and inserting all sorts of crap I never brought up. Apparently lucidity isn't your strong suit. Perhaps English isn't even your first language, or so it would seem.

You're the one who said you had a stake in your country, and, you should be given a vote. I am point out your fallacy. If you are not part of the military, nor a business owner, educator, doctor, financier, or part of any other professional category, then you certainly do not have a stake in any of these industries. Or do you somehow believe that the country is just one collective society where everyone acts as one?



The purpose of the gest was to point out voter fraud. It was a clever and witty attempt to get you to think. Perhaps it was too subtle for you.

As I and others have said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The problem with clueless individuals is that they've somehow convinced themselves that others are clueless.

Actually the problem with the clueless is that they believe themselves to be "clever and witty". Once again, citizen voting has nothing to do with industrial voting. Not on this planet.

I never said it did. I'll try my best to simplify so you can understand. You, as a citizen, vote for your elected officials. Elected officials who campaign on a particular platform to engage particular policy. These policies can effect a wide array of industries. Policies which can effect ordinary individuals, from Health Care, to Banking, to which wars you currently fight in, to how ordinary citizens lives their lives.

Do you understand now?

Now if your assessment is that you personally are not smart enough to vote, and that you are a woman, therefore women are not smart enough to vote, then as the saying apparently goes "I am point out your fallacy", oh literate one: Hasty Generalization. Because believe me, most women are far more qualified than you've demonstrated yourself to be here.

Sure. They're more qualified than I am. All they've managed to do was have a pulse and make a comment about some bureaucrats hair. I'm certainly glad we've substituted effective electorate with American Idol: Political Edition.

 

[rightwinger]

Women today benefit from the battles fought in previous generations. You think "I did it on my own" and you did from today's perspective.

Women are still being discriminated against, in more ways than one. I did it on my own, despite all the roadblocks in my way, which were specifically designed to protect me from such discrimination.

My boss specifically goes out of his way NOT to hire women. Lily Ledbetter did everything it could to prevent me from being where I am. If I didn't have a distinguishable record, I probably would have been hired at all, as there would have been no incentive for my boss to take a chance on me.

But you never would have been given a shot if women before you didn't prove they could exist in a mans world

These women proved it by actually showing it. Not by crying in the streets and protesting.

Too bad you missed the Womens Liberation movement....you would have enjoyed it

It was much more than the bra-burning ridiculed by conservatives. Women did take to the streets, they used the media, they used the courts and they used the legislature

Affirmative action laws were passed, companies were pressured to hire women not just in blue collar positions but in executive positions. Universities were pressured to provide access to all career fields for women and not channel them to "womens majors"
Many of the first women to take these positions failed miserably and their failure was celebrated by conservatives. But slowly, women started to take hold and show they could do a mans job. Doctors, lawyers, corporate executives, politicians, police, truck drivers, construction workers, even the military.....all became open to women

You, however, could have done it on your own