Quiz: Who said the following?
I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should’ve never turned this over to women. … And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.
And this probably was the reason that they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen. …
Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.
Was it:
Some dude on The Spearhead?
A regular guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News?
Well, yeah, you guessed it: it’s door number three. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Tea Party activist and founder of the group Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), said all of the above, and quite a lot of other outrageously misogynistic things, in a talk this March, and which is available on YouTube. Yet Hannity, who serves on the board of Peterson’s group, had him back on his show earlier this month, for an appearance during which Peterson described “liberal Democrat women” as “whores.” Raw Story, which discovered Peterson’s unlisted video on YouTube, offers many more delightful misogyny nuggets from Peterson.
Here’s the video of Peterson’s talk. The stuff about women and voting starts at about 8:30 in. But I suggest you watch the whole thing from the start; it’s a virtual smorgasbord of misogyny, seasoned with a bunch of stuff he simply made up about Sandra Fluke’s famous congressional testimony on birth control.
It would be nice if this sort of stuff was confined to the fringes of the manosphere, but alas, it’s everywhere.
Cool!
Its interesting to watch how Canadians and Americans flow across the border over time.
I really can’t say what my geneology is, my family tends to fracture a lot. What I do know is that the family name is far more prevalent in the States, I’ve never met anyone here eith it that wasn’t directly related to me.
While we’re at it, why don’t you tell us how much one dollar could buy in the time of the poll tax. What was the typical wage of the working poor?
The amount it was worth is irrelevant. The point was to show that you were a taxpayer and therefore had the right to vote. Remember that I said it was for people who did not own land, they already paid taxes. And it makes sense.
You couldn’t go to a Microsoft shareholder’s meeting and demand to vote your shares if you were not a shareholder so why should some person who never paid tax have any say in electing a government that would tax other people.
John, I’m beginning to question if you can read, because I *did* tell you what it was worth in the days of poll taxes.
So either you can’t read, or that was sarcasm because oh look, you can’t read, I was replying to pillowinhell.
Please cite why in the fuck you think you have to pay taxes to vote (note, you better account for the fact that poor people get money back when they file, they aren’t *paying* anything) — because the cost of voting is damned relevant when you can’t afford it.
I’m not going to dignify the analogy between the right to vote and corporate boards with a response, maybe if you think about it you’ll figure out why that’s complete bullshit.
Actually, its entirely relevant. Fourteen dollars is a lot of money to the poor. And for Black people in particular, who were typically paid far less than their white counter parts.
A nation doesn’t just run on tax money. It relies on the work of the individual people who make up the nation. Every person who lives there contributes to the nation.
And as much as the corporations wish, a nations constitution is not nor should be based on business law. Were it so, there would be no need to have lawyers who specifically study constitutional law. So your stockholder analogy does not hold water.
Argenti, it seems your constitution is worshipped in much the same way as the Bible. Including picking out the parts that serve your own needs best and ignoring the other parts, including the spirit in which the whole thing was written.
haha sounds like something a newfie would write
The US Constitution is whatever the US Supreme Court says it is. This is how they used the 9th amendment in such a convoluted manner in Roe v Wade.
It wasn’t necessary anyway because States like NY etc had already legalised abortion.
John, ok, now I’m sure you don’t get how US law works — Roe vs Ward was a supreme court case, heard because she lived in a state that didn’t allow abortion, and she wanted one — wtf the other states do has literally no bearing on whether SCOTUS takes a case or not.
And “haha sounds like something a newfie would write” more like a non-American, which pillowinhell already said ze is.
*Roe vs Wade, goddamned I know how to type, I swear! (I quit coffee recently, I’m gonna blame that!)
A nation doesn’t just run on tax money. It relies on the work of the individual people who make up the nation. Every person who lives there contributes to the nation.
What does it run on? Pennies from heaven? And btw, I’d have to disagree on the everyone contributes something thing. 1/2 of the bottom peoplein the US don’t even pay a penny in income tax and take a lot more out than they put in.
Oh look, he really can’t read.
Let me spell it out for you…
Yes I know the constitution is what the courts say. I was refering to the fact that, in general, Americans have this crazy tendency of picking and choosing which parts of the constitution is the “real” constitution in their eyes. It invariably follows that those parts are to their benefit. It also invariably follows that they ignore all the other parts of constitutional law they don’t like. They discount the law, they fail to understand the framing of the law and they have no idea as to the historical context in which those laws were written. Much like the Bible. You can find plenty of places in the Bible, that blatently state that women aren’t worth shit. And there are many other places in which men were told to values their wives and daughters. And that quote about men being christlike to their wives and women deferring to their husbands as unto God…yeah. That’s been totally twisted around.
John, here’s a hint, until AntZ perfects that VR woman, all the money in the world won’t get anything done if all the employees stay home/protest.
@pillowinhell, you forgot the obsession with TEH GAY! while ignoring the verses in the same chapter about, for example, my poly/cotton blend shirt.
Yeah and that same population is also mostly working. Which means they are producing goods and services which the businesses can sell as they please. And businesses pay taxes. Well, at least the smaller ones. And guess what, that means the goverment is making money.
Many people who don’t work for money volunteer. And they also produce goods and services.
Hahaha! Well at least I’ve made my point.
Hmm good thing I’m not religious eh!
Also, the 9th Amendment — “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” — yeah that pretty clearly leaves open “oh, there might be other rights we didn’t explicitly list”
But Roe was decided under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment anyways.
Argenti-I’m well aware of what Supreme Court decisions mean. The whole case was based on lies anyway.Norma Leah McCorvey lied about being raped and today is an anti abortion lesbian. And if she really wanted an abortion she could have gone to where it was legal. The lawyers who took her case was just using her to get the Texas law struck down.
I should also note that the poor do pay taxes. On the commodities and services they buy, just like everyone else.
“Hmm good thing I’m not religious eh!” — that depends? I’m not either anymore, but the New Testament specifically says that the Old Testament’s laws don’t apply to Christians, they just decide that those laws apply to everyone when it suits them. So in theory there should be Christians out there who haven’t any issue with TEH GAY! because those laws don’t apply to them. I’m *really* simplifying here, but it’s frikken’ weird that they decide certain bits of Jewish law apply to them.
I don’t want to derail this into religion though, that’ll probably go nowhere good real fast.
And you have incontravertible proof that she lied about being raped, or is the only proof needed is what’s between her legs?
Also very sad. Do you know Stephen Woodworth MP tried opening up the abortion debate here? The conservative party whip essentially told him to shut the fuck up in parliment. Yet American women are still fighting to be seen as human beings with full human rights. Scarlet, maybe you wanna miove up here? Come back to Canada, I’ll buy you a Timmies.
Argenti-I’m well aware what the 9th amendment means although all of this may be new to you.Roe v Wade was decided on privacy. This whole abortion thing is really irrelevant today because abortion pills are used and anyone with any sense would have the chemical abortion within the time period which is like 50 days from the start of the last period.
You have said that you think MRAs criticize feminists more for what they don’t say than what they do. It seems like your posters can’t shut up about us despite the fact that this is, presumably, one guy who thinks women shouldn’t be able to vote. Take Sandra, for instance:
Never mind the fact that male feminists earn less than antifeminists, we’re the ones who are intellectually (and biologically?) inferior. I guess she uses more some arbitrary measurements than how valuable one’s talents are to others. That, or she’s just hysterical.
I should also note that the poor do pay taxes. On the commodities and services they buy, just like everyone else
Like everyone else does so perhaps that’s why the poll tax was abolished many years ago when these new taxes were established that didn’t exist in the past. However, the poor are generally a drain on society and no amount of arguing will ever change that.
Then why can’t you even cite the correct Amendment?
She initally lied to attempt to obtain an abortion legally in Texas, and told SCOTUS as much, so nice try, but no, that had no bearing in the decision (though MRAs, note that banning abortion probably does make false accusations more likely, if being raped makes the abortion legal)
Don’t know, don’t care, it’s an ad hominem and those are still fallacies.
You know she tried before she found a lawyer right?
And back to how you don’t get how this works, because that’s usually why a lawyer takes a case all the way to SCOTUS.
So yes, a woman in Texas seeking abortion under Texas abortion law found out that was only legal if she’d been raped, so she said she was, that didn’t work, so she sought the abortion elsewhere, that didn’t work, so she found a lawyer to plead that the state law was unconstitutional…yeah that’s generally about how SCOTUS cases go.
Or should the states that wanted to keep anti-miscegenation laws have been allowed to do so? (Loving v. Virginia for reference)
1) Citations needed.
2) Wealth is at best uncorrelated, at worst inversely correlated, with individual worth.
@pillowinhell “And you have incontravertible proof that she lied about being raped, or is the only proof needed is what’s between her legs?” — point noted, but she admitted it in the SCOTUS case
Uh John, you do relize a womans cycle can run from 28 days to 40 days? And that we don’t instantly know when conception has occured? Or how about the wait time until your appointment with a clini? Plus the one to three day waiting period after her conselling before she can take the treatment?
And aren’t you required to make a seperate appointment for an ultrasound in certain states.
Yeah, its totally irrelavant to have the goverment dictate which medical procedures you can have and in what time frame. Completely irrelavant when you factor in that this is a lifechanging and expensive event you’re in for nine months.
So how about those taxes eh? You aren’t just moiving goalposts here, your switching stadiums. No rebuttal on taxes?