Vastator
Platinum Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 22,590
- 10,170
- 950
Anyone who doesn’t personally press coin into your palm to support your furtherance. In other words, “the taxpayer”. Women receive more in benefits from taxes, than they contribute. So just like the argument against letting welfare queens vote... It’s insane to let non contributors to the coffers have a say in how funds are allocated.Who is the unwilling party? You?Of course you don’t...When “your potential” is only realized at the expense of an unwilling party... how much of “that potential” was ever yours to begin with?I have no idea what you're asking.Don’t simply “tell” me. Show me. Start with something we all value. Just to begin on “neutral ground”. Start with say... Our children...Yes, Vastator, when society severely limits the potential of half its population, that is "bad." We are much better off now.Kinda my point....the old days weren't all that bad for women...were they?
Our founding fathers were well aware of this. And even forewarned us that once the public found out it could gift itself from the public coffers... the gig would be over. They were right. Women in large have replaced reliance on their own good judgment, for reliance on the state. They can now vote themselves security at the expense of all men; rather than earn the security of a good man, based on their own ability, and merit. All the while pursuing personal enrichment, while their own children are treated as an afterthought.