Most Men’s Rights Activists who wish women didn’t have the right to vote are savvy enough not to say so outright. Instead, they make up fairy tales about how men’s right to vote (at least here in the US) is contingent on men signing up for the draft.
This isn’t actually true — when the draft was abolished in 1973, men weren’t suddenly stripped of their voting rights. And while it is true that young men in the US have been required to register for the draft since 1980, there is no draft, nor will there be one at any point in the forseeable future, making registration about as much of a burden as signing a pledge that you won’t sprout wings and fly to the moon.
But not every anti-suffragette resorts to this sort of sophistry. Take, for example, the Alt-Rightster and woman-voting-opposer Axel Mckibbin.
In a recent post on his blog The Anti-puritan, McKibbin argues that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’re a bunch of lazy, emotional, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational cowards who will bring Western civilization crashing down around us if they aren’t stripped of their power, and soon.
In a post with the lovely title “Why women can’t be trusted with voting, free speech, national budgets, or power,” Mckibbin sets forth his case against women.
It’s not a very original one. He starts off by contrasting the rational, data-driven approach he thinks men bring to complicated problems with the emotional, irrational “feminine method.” As he sees it,
Men argue or accommodate information they don’t like, women stifle upsetting discussion with emotional tyranny and censorship, or simply bury their heads in the sand.
This wouldn’t be much of a problem if women had no power whatsoever, but for some silly reason men gave women the vote — and the world has been going down the toilet ever since.
[S]ince women have achieved the right to vote, power has shifted from the masculine to the feminine, and thus, from logic to tantrums, from debate to censorship.
Tantrums, huh? I guess he’s right. I’ve never seen men throwing tantrums when people disagree with them.
Oh wait.
Ok, ok, ladies! Don’t throw a fit about this! Let’s just assume that fellow is an outlier, and move on.
Like the rational, data-driven dude he is, McKibbin then throws out a free-associational list of all the things he thinks the ladies are doing wrongly and badly and femininely. Naturally, he provides no evidence for any of his assertions.
It is not a coincidence that the most challenging academic disciplines and hazardous jobs are male dominated. Women are psychologically, not just physically, weaker than men. They choose the easy road in everything. They censor rather than debate honestly in women’s studies departments. They chose easy majors that pay less. They chose easy low paying jobs rather than dangerous/difficult high paying ones. They lie about wage gaps rather than take responsibility and do difficult work.
Then, without even a pause for a paragraph break, he essentially accuses women of being a bunch of lying false rape accusers.
They believe that regret constitutes rape when they could instead take responsibility for their sexual choices.
And then, again without a pause, he offers what is either a weird, out-of-place dig at Hillary Clinton … or a suggestion that all the women of the world routinely mishandle top-secret material.
The screw up classified emails rather than do a minimum of ass-covering. They hate white men who they disagree with rather than Muslims who rape them.
Dude, I’m pretty sure women do hate Muslims — and Christians, and Hindus, and atheists — who rape them. They’re just a little less likely to blame all Muslims (or Christians, or Hindus, or atheists) for the actions of some Muslims, or Christians or, well, you know the rest.
Whenever a female is given a choice, she will choose the cowardly, dishonest, low agency method rather than the courageous, honest, high agency masculine method.
Yes, this is an actual sentence a human being wrote.
She would rather have handouts than balanced budgets for her children’s futures. She would rather censor than be upset. She would rather falsely accuse men of rape than take responsibility for her sexual choices when drunk.
And he’s back on that false accusation thing.
She would rather get divorced than work through the rough patches. She would rather vote stupidly for Bernie than understand economics. She would rather have a 15 dollar minimum wage than a job.
Uh, maybe because raising the minimum wage won’t actually cost us jobs?
She would rather vote for the wage increase than study the issues.
Or maybe she already studied the issue?
She would rather have alimony and child-support than a lasting marriage.
Or perhaps she would simply like to get out of a miserable marriage. And would like the father of her children to continue to pay some of the costs of raising them.
As I have said in other places, democracy is the ethnic form of government of white males. It is designed for high agency individuals of relatively equal capacity and relatively high intelligence. It simply does not work for low agency people.
Ah, racism. It’s about time you showed up. It wouldn’t be a true alt-right rant without some racism to go with all this misogyny.
To a male the state is a series of threats, to a female a series of benefits. Women cannot be drafted (yet), they are arrested at much lower rates, and given shorter sentences for the same crimes.
Hey, he managed to work the non-existent draft into the equation!
Men are arrested much more often than women, it’s true; they also commit many more crimes. The best way to reduce the number of men arrested for bullshit charges? Get the cops to stop racial profiling. And end the war on drugs.
Women do tend to get somewhat shorter sentences for the same crimes. This is partly because the men committing the same crimes tend to have longer criminal records. It’s also because some male judges are more likely to treat women more leniently. Female judges tend to be more egalitarian in their sentencing.
Despite men being victims of domestic violence, only women have state-supported domestic violence shelters.
Most shelters get only a small portion of their funding from the government. Many if not most also provide shelter for men in the form of hotel vouchers. There’s nothing stopping Men’s Rights activists from building shelters for men. Aside from the fact that they’re Men’s Rights activists, and MRAs don’t actually do crap for men.
Only men can be successfully prosecuted for raping women, despite the fact that women also rape men. Women get preferential treatment and custody in family courts. Men are essentially guilty until proven innocent in affirmative consent states.
None of this is true. Women are prosecuted — successfully — for rape. It doesn’t happen a lot, but it happens, and will almost certainly happen more in the future.
While more women than men get custody, that’s not the result of bias. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it’s because that’s what the divorcing parents agree to out of court. When men do go to court to ask for custody they often get it.
“Affirmative consent” laws apply to colleges, not criminal law, and they actually go a long way to clearing up anxieties about consent between partners. If you get an enthusiastic “yes” from a partner who is’t wasted before having sex, well, you know you have consent.
Men are taxed at higher rates.
If they earn more, yes.
Women receive benefits that men don’t. Since only women get custody, only women qualify for welfare. Even WIC means Women Infant Children program.
WIC is designed to provide assistance so poor kids don’t starve to death. Despite the name, WIC provides food vouchers and nutrition classes to men responsible for kids getting fed. True, it doesn’t provide cis men with the same benefits it provides pregnant and breastfeeding women, but that’s because cis men do not get pregnant.
The state treats males as disposable in war, letting them die homeless on the streets while paying females with five baby daddies to get pregnant at the taxpayer expense and receive food stamps.
Yes, it’s terrible that the government provides minimal assistance to keep babies and young children from starving. A quick Google search would have told you that men and women without children can also get food stamps.
It attacks marriage and men with alimony and child-support. The state is nothing but threats for men and benefits for women.
You know, rich women can end up paying alimony just like rich men. Fathers raising kids are entitled to child support from their exes, just as mothers are. And again, child support is designed to support children.
This is why women cannot be trusted with national budgets. Even if a woman possesses the courage to engage with uncomfortable facts she still has a disincentive to defend her national interest.
Er, what? Is it somehow in our national interest to let kids starve?
Combine with low agency she works to destroy her society, letting in rapugees, voting for handouts, creating guilty until innocent rape laws, censoring males in the workplace, filing bogus sexual harassment charges, and on and on. Here, low agency and incentives make her nothing but a threat to civilization.
Or at least to that portion of civilization that thinks it’s hilarious to make awful sexist jokes at work.
Her right to vote is a right to destroy other’s rights with redistribution, censorship, and false rape accusations, to bring in hostile raping refugees while attacking the conservative men who defend her as racists, even though Islam is not a race!
Yeah, it’s just a big coincidence that so many of the people the alt-right hate tend to be black or brown.
She will get a Muslim America in the bargain for her efforts. Women will never take equal responsibility, have equal agency, or be equally courageous. Strip them of power before they destroy civilization.
Honestly, the biggest threat to civilization right now is named Donald Trump, and women are a good deal more likely to vote against him than men.
I say, let’s keep women’s suffrage, at least for now.
I very much despise politicians who – with every educational and professional opportunity to understand the role of national debt better than most of us voters (I don’t mean they necessarily do understand it better, but they sure as hell have the chance to and their job means they have no excuse not to take that chance) – then deliberately use the ploy of pretending that a national budget works just like a household budget (i.e. fucking lying) in order to persuade people, including the relatively poor and vulnerable, that they have to “tighten their belts” and accept austerity.
And it works, it works very well indeed. Most of us are so used to worrying about our own spending, we spend so many of our waking hours worrying about it, that the language they use slots right into our existing mental pathways so seamlessly it takes a significant mental effort to realise that they’re actually pulling a fast one. And very few of us, in terms of the population as a whole, have the language to unpack their lies and show how the wool is being pulled.
Gosh, funny the way the 1% love austerity – for everybody else. While avoiding tax and stashing their money offshore via tax havens, of course.
Let’s talk about household budgets. How many households do you know that operate on a balanced budget? Most households in the US carry incredible levels of debt in comparison with their revenue, in the form of a mortgage, or student loans, and do not hesitate to take out more debt to invest in their futures, such as in the form of a car loan.
Households take out debt because it makes more economic sense to buy a house on debt today and have a house from today forward, than to save up the money to pay cash for it in the future. This makes especial sense due to inflation, since if they saved up they would be paying in future dollars and paying more money for less house than if they borrow the money today.
The problem with the analogy is that nobody who advocates for balanced budgets bothers to mention this. People say, Oh, my budget is balanced because I make all my loan payments! That sleight-of-hand only works because households only take out massive loans every couple of years, but each year a household buys a car or house on debt they definitely do not have a balanced budget.
@sparkalipoo, et al – That could very well be where I heard it. I listen to *a lot* of podcasts and audiobooks – keeping half of my mind occupied while I do chores is pretty much the only way that I can avoid getting distracted and hopping from thing to thing.
@Mrex,
PoM said most of what I would have said, better than I could have. WWTH’s point on the damage austerity budgets cause is also good reading. I do want to expand on their comments a little.
(@PoM, WWTH, & Alan, thank you for joining in! I love you guys. And I’m going to get nitpicky)
The single most important thing to remember about national debt is that nations usually borrow money by issuing bonds. A bond is a promise to make a one time cash payout at a specific future time. “If you give me $50 today, I’ll give you $100* dollars 25 years from now,” for instance. You don’t make interest payments along the way because the interest is baked in to the price. The difference between the price someone paid for the bond and the payout they get is the interest..
That means all of this is not technically accurate:
You very much do have to pay each part of the debt in full as soon as it’s due. The crisis in Europe has shown as that lenders are not flexible about this and will flip out at the mere idea that they might not get paid on time. However, they were right about this:
The important point is that this:
is not how it works. You can’t save money by paying off bonds early. We pay them when they’re due, whether or not we continue to borrow money by issuing new bonds.
When we talk about “the national debt,” we mean the total value of all the bonds they’ve issued but not paid out yet. The closest equivalent, for a government, to making interest payments without paying down your balance, is to sell bonds today and use the money to pay off the bonds we sold in the past. The total debt doesn’t change, we just owe it to different people. However, using bonds to pay for bonds is very different, because we get to negotiate a new interest rate every time; it’s like a rolling annual refinancing*.
That’s why reducing America’s overall debt is not very important right now*. We can’t do anything about the interest rates of the bonds we’ve already sold, but as each set of bonds comes due, we can pay them by borrowing money at 0%**, so even if the total debt stays the same the cost of being in debt will fall sharply.
————————————–
*This automatic refinancing is also part of how things got so bad in Europe.
**@PoM,
Really? I guess I should look at the stats, which I have not in a while. I thought interest rates were about 0% inflation-adjusted, but had never fallen below -1% real interest.
@ Orion
That was all really interesting. You probably know that the concept of ‘national debt’ was created in England to pay for the Navy. The amount the bonds raised was staggering. Something like the equivalent of all government income previously (you’ll probably know better than I the actual figures)
Austerity only even works for household budgets in a very limited sense. It still usually makes way more fiscal sense to increase revenue if that’s possible.
Can’t say I know much at all about English financial history, actually.
Thank you for all the thoughtful replies, guys. I am cetainly learning things and having fun. 🙂
@WWTH
“The problem with balancing budgets is that austerity increases poverty, …”
We still need to eventually balance the budget, and it’ll hurt more the longer we wait. We can’t be in the red forever; eventually we won’t be able to pay for our debts.
I’ve always wondered if austerity would increase poverty as much if conservatives kept their dirty fingers off of programs that benefit the poor? It’s not like we *have* to target programs that benefit the poor. In fact, the US already spends very little helping the poor, unless we include Social Security and Medicare in with “welfare”.
BTW, very high debt loads (+90% GDP) can hurt the economy, leading to poverty, which then leads to reduced demand, and so on and so on. Since you agree that debt will eventually become high enough to be problematic, I’m wondering how high you believe is “too high”? 🙂
We’ve been above the 90% mentioned at the start of the last paragraph for several years.
” Creditors are content to just collect the interest.”
Or, we could be doing something else with all that interest, like helping out the poor. Which was my point. 🙂
The question asked was how a balanced budget could help out the common man? One answer is that it would allow us to focus on paying off debt, and freeing up the money we’re spending on interest. Another answer is that debt, whether personal or federal, can cause anxiety. Many people (especially Christians) were taught that debt is slavery as children. And etc.
” The big difference between a government and a household is that a government is immortal, a household is made of humans who only have so many years of earning money and paying down debts in them so a creditor finds it necessary to make sure the debts are paid.
Heh, how very American of you to believe that the US is immortal and will continue to grow. 😉 Name one country that hasn’t eventually collapsed, or one culture that hasn’t eventually disappeared into the sands of time? 🙂
Our government is nothing but a system of systems designed to keep our bodies (another system of systems) out of chaos for a moment. Neither government nor our bodies are isolated, and therefore neither are perfectly stable. Entropy is inevitable, and I’d rather not help it along. 😉
@POM
” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how state debt (or any debt) operates. We are already “paying off the ones we have.” We don’t have to “start” doing that. Just like with a car loan, the payments started the month after the loan was taken out.”
Ok, this is completely fair considering how I worded/explained things. I meant that we would start making progress paying off the loans we already have if we stopped taking out new ones. I didn’t mean that we literally wouldn’t be making payments until we stopped taking out new ones.
Let’s put it this way;
You have a loan with a $100 dollar balance, but you’re short on cash, so you take out another $50 loan. Now you have a total of $150 to pay back, and assuming that you cannot increase your income*, it will be harder to pay back the original loan because you will have less money to do so.
” Additionally, in an economic environment of inflation, money is worth more now than it will be in the future so debt is advantageous.”
As you said, this only applies if we’re borrowing to make an investment in something that will financially pay for itself in the future. This is not what we’re doing. Because we can’t balance our budget, we’re forced to borrow money just to keep the lights on.
Even with inflation, a loan is still a loan and not a gift. Inflation will not erase the loan, and our loans will still need to be paid back, even if they’re worth less. My point still stands.
Again,
“The shameful thing about American debt is not that it exists, or how much of it there is, but that we are not spending it on useful shit like infrastructure or educating our young.
The reason why we can’t spend money on useful shit like education and infrastructure is because we can’t even mange to get ‘revenues in’ to equal ‘expenses out.’ (ie. A balanced budget ). Deficit spending (ie. running in the red) is useful during a recession, but not so much out of one.
” Furthermore, there is exactly zero chance that a state that controls its own currency will default on its debt … unless that state is the United States and chooses to do so deliberately. There’s no actual economic reason for that to ever happen.”
Why? Because we can print out more money? Please don’t tell me ‘because we can print out more money’ because I would really dislike it if I had to use a wheelbarrow to haul enough money to buy bread. 😉
Inflation hurts the poor and vulnerable, you know. 🙂
” No, we don’t. Every corporation in world operates in continual, rolling debt, because operating on debt is intelligent. … The entire financial sector is a spinning top made out of debt. There’s not any reason to stop and pay off your debt, ever, and good economic reasons to keep the debt wheel turning.”
To be fair, I believe that I only said that we should focus on paying off our long term loans that are draining us of interest, not that our government should never carry any kind of debt of any kind ever. (A government carrying no debt is impossible anyway). For example, I really enjoy getting my income tax refunded, even if I never get any interest for my
conveniencekindness towards the feds. 😉But let’s unpack this paragraph a little more;
A. Carrying debt is smart for corporations because it isn’t profitable for them to keep large amounts of cash on hand to cover expenses. In contrast, the federal government can lock up 6% of the world’s gold supply and call it a day. Because it’s the fed, and just like a government differs from individuals in major ways, a government also differs from corporations in major ways.
B. Every corporation most definitely balances it’s budgets, and any that don’t will eventually go bankrupt. This is always true. No company consistently operates in the red. None.
@opposablethumbs
” then deliberately use the ploy of pretending that a national budget works just like a household budget (i.e. fucking lying) in order to persuade people, including the relatively poor and vulnerable, that they have to “tighten their belts” and accept austerity.”
A national budget may not work like a household budget, but that doesn’t mean that no principles hold the same. The federal government can hold very high debt loads compared to an individual, but there is still a limit on how much it can do so consequence free.
Federal or household, a loan is still a loan.
@POM
” Most households in the US carry incredible levels of debt in comparison with their revenue, in the form of a mortgage, or student loans, and do not hesitate to take out more debt to invest in their futures, such as in the form of a car loan.”
A. I would hesitate to use the average US household as an example of fiscal responsiblility. Many Americans could not pass a financial literacy test if their lives depended on it. For some inexplicable reason financial literacy was not taught in American schools, or in many American homes, for many years. Luckily this is starting to change.
B. A home is an investment because it gains value (equity), so it makes sense to take out debt now to gain more equity later. An education is an investment because it gains you an increase in pay, so it makes sense to take out debt now so that you have more years at higher pay.
In contrast, a car does not gain value, it actually depreciates in value. In a sense, we “consume” our cars worth, by driving it, and by simply owning it. Because a car does not gain value, it is not an investment, although in the US it’s probably a necessity. And this is why every financial advisor I’ve ever seen is staunchly against taking out car loans.
US households have a lot of debt in mortgages and student loans, but we also have tons of consumer and medical debt. Yes, this is a very bad thing . Using debt for day to day living (or day to day running of the government) is not sustainable.
@ Orion
“The single most important thing to remember about national debt is that nations usually borrow money by issuing bonds.”
Interesting. Question;
Who’s paying the interest on my mature savings bonds? 🙂
Anyway, this is an interesting point, and it certainly changes my argument. However, it doesn’t disprove my point that debt is accumulative, and without balancing the budget, which will accumulate more debt. It doesn’t change my point that the billions that we will spend on I test of those future debts will be billions that we won’t have to spend on something else.
Again, thanks for all the thoughtful replies, guys.
*Yes, the government can raise taxes/revenues, but there are limits on doing so. Not the least of which is that Americans hate taxes almost as a rule.
>>>NOT EVEN REMOTELY AN ECONOMIST<<<
I’d even argue that, at least in our current financial system, well-managed debt is beneficial in that (1) it increases your credit rating (2) depending on where your debt it placed, how things are structured, and (to some extent) luck, you may come out ahead (if, for instance, that which you incurred debt for increases in value enough to offset or overcome the cost + fees/interest + [cost of ownership – cost of equivalent service or amenities], if the costs of contracted or ad hoc equivalent service would be greater than the initial cost + fees/interest + cost of ownership for even a depreciating asset, or if the debt (*sigh* + fees, interest, etc) that is incurred < subsequent increase in income or return.
>>>NOT EVEN REMOTELY AN ECONOMIST<<<
I mean, if that holds true at an individual and household level, you’d think that even fiscal conservatives could allow that much for governments. The problem might be that it can be difficult (at least in the US) to get politicians to go to the mat for potentially debt-incurring investments that have (at least estimated) quantifiable but more difficult to convey benefits – you know, like infrastructure improvements, educational, and childhood nutrition programs.
It’s true about the credit ratings! If you don’t get a credit card, buy a car outright, and so on, you can make it well into what most people would consider a responsible adult life without even having a credit score, and then you’re hosed.
Because it turns out they’re not rating “are you responsible with money,” but rather “can lenders make money off of you.” We love you, capitalism.
It’s 0% interest atm, so no one.
That’s one way that it can work, but bonds come in many flavors. Savings bonds and term T-bills are not the only types of bonds in the world, and bonds that pay monthly interest both exist and comprise a huge percentage of American state debt. Inflation-protected Treasuries are especially delightful – they pay interest twice a year, and you can buy them staggered so that you get interest payments monthly, and the interest is inflation-adjusted due to the principal also being inflation-adjusted.
It used to be that when you, as an ordinary citizen, bought a bond (not a savings bond, the normal kind), it came with small physical coupons attached to it, with dates on them. You took each coupon to your bank when the date came up, and the bank would exchange it for your interest payment. When the bond matured, you got your principal back in full.
It’s true that I generalized a bit there and wasn’t 100% accurate, but I don’t really need to be because the Treasury doesn’t issue a single T-bill at a time and then deal with it before issuing another. T-bills go in and out in such enormous numbers that, averaged out, they behave in a substantially similar way to a consumer loan.
Incidentally, municipal debt is almost always in the form of interest-paying bonds. The interest on these is actually exempt from federal taxes, in order to encourage people to loan money to cities that need the cash. Helpful investment tip if you think municipal debt is a relatively safe investment (which it isn’t always).
We’re fully capable of balancing the budget by raising taxes and increasing revenue. We just choose not to do that. It’s a matter of “won’t,” not a matter of “can’t.”
Deflation would hurt them a lot more. This is an easy either/or choice. Do you know what kind of agony the poor suffer when deflation takes hold? It is literally fatal to many of them.
It is an investment on an economic level. By spending the money on the car, you are able to increase your probability of gaining and retaining employment, thereby increasing your income in the long run. If the increase in income exceeds the car payment, you are, overall, better off buying the car on debt than you would be by remaining carless. You can reasonably expect to come out ahead and be financially better-off with the car than you would if you saved your money. That’s what makes it an investment.
And this is why “economics” and “finances” are actually different fields with different perspectives. One looks at the overall picture of the person’s cash flow, sees that “car = more income” and says that it’s a worthwhile investment if the expected increase in income exceeds the car payment. The other looks at just the car as though it exists in a vacuum and sees “car = depreciation of value” without noticing that the car might be more than paying for itself through its utility, and says it’s not an investment.
OMG no. They carry debt because they are using it to leverage deals, and to finance money-making ventures today rather than tomorrow to maximize their overall income, and to smooth over short-term fluctuations in revenues. “Keeping cash on hand” is not actually something corporations do on the regular. Corporations put their money to work. Their money is constantly working for them. If they have cash in the bank, something is wrong.
The “households balance their budgets and states should do that, too” analogy is such a gross oversimplification it’s pathetic. If you want to make the analogy work, you have to include that one of the household’s parents makes 10x what the other one does, but doesn’t want to put all of that into the shared income and who threatens to move away if pressured to contribute fully. You have to include that Grandma’s retirement fund was repeatedly raided to send everyone to college and put a down-payment on the house, and now the parents are bitching about how epically unfair it is that they need to pay that back and how Grandma should just get used to the idea that she’s not going to get the retirement she saved for, because they and the kids are more important than she is. You have to include the mortgage, the car payments, and the credit card debt being used to pay for Grandma’s medication (due to her retirement fund being raided earlier).
In other words, you have to assume that the hypothetical household is under the same constraints and limitations as the American government. Then the analogy sort of works. Otherwise it is dumb and should be smothered.
@Brony Social Justice Cenobite
I feel like there’s an issue with most people where they are comfortable with how someone else has a problem but really not comfortable at all with being criticized or being self critical, so it’s really easy for atheists to criticize religious people for being irrational or illogical but harder for them to look at themselves and see how they are being illogical or irrational and that compounds with the issue that some atheists have where they see religion as the source of all the bad things about human nature.
My extended family is all atheists and some of my relatives talk about religion in an extremely derogatory and ablest way (saying that Catholics must be mentally ill because they cross themselves when they entire church) and as someone who does have a mental illness, hearing them talk about moderate Christians doing things that are harmless as “crazy” (and therefor lesser), makes me feel like they see me as lesser for having a mental illness and like I’m not welcome in atheism.
A space alpaca
Not sure if it’s been said but one of the reasons the us is supposed to have a stature of limitations on all laws is to encourage confessions years later so cases can be put to rest and crimes solved. It has a lot of nasty side effects but that is use ally the reason behind it. Now why rapes have such a short one idk. That also varies by state and has a lot more issues because of that.
opposablethumbs, yeah, the current economic paradigm is totally sustainable.
The soon-to-be 20 trillions official debt is just a right-wing lie and taxing the 1% can pay for it all, Greece has the world´s fastest economic growth.
I usually laugh at the muh free murket and muh socalesm types who actually believes Obama is a socialist but at least they make some valid points.
It is only a question of time before there is another 2008-like crash, this time it will be too much on the US economy (US won´t be alone), what then?
For one thing, there are so many differences between the economies of Greece and the US that I no one who makes that comparison can ever be taken seriously.
For another thing, the 2008 crash had nothing to do with the national debt.
You’re going to have to do a lot better than regurgitate right wing talking points if you want to sell us on you being a moderate who just happens to think our opinions are just ridiculous and going way too far.
Anyone who pretends that the debt of a country that controls its currency can be meaningfully compared with the debt of a country that does not is not someone who needs to be speaking in adult company.
The affirmative consent law is just another in a long line of lesbian feminist man hating laws. Feminists and the religious have reported that the law is designed to make men either terrified of sex with women and/or to force men into marriage if they want sex. What kind of dumb ass man gets married anymore? That’s just another institution destroyed by feminists. How could you possibly prove consent at every stage unless you recorded the entirety of the sex act before, during and after – which is likely ILLEGAL IN ITSELF? All women can’t be this stupid?
Love him or hate him, Ghomeshi walked because the accusers colluded, lied and withheld evidence. And feminists want to modify the justice system to allow women to collude, lie and withhold evidence? WHAT THE FUCK?!
Stop using the fraudulent lesbian feminist inspired rape statistics! If a woman goes to a cop to report a rape and there’s no evidence that a rape occurred – it’s just as likely that that was a false rape claim as it was a guilty guy going free. Women lie, cheat and manipulate all the time. Everybody knows that. How do women possibly think they should be believed by default or that a guy not being charged with rape in the face of no evidence a guilty guy going free? The cops don’t go after most women who (a) provably falsely report a rape or (b) accuse some guy of rape with zero evidence – BUT THEY SHOULD! Only a lesbian feminist or a complete whack job would think that women should be believed over men by default. That’s not only insane – IT’S SEXIST AND OPEN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN!
Isn’t cute when you don’t even need to poke a troll to cause a huge meltdown?
I can see the rage spittle flacks from here.
ARGLE BARGLE BELIEVING RAPE VICTIMS IS A LESBIAN FEMINIST CONSPIRACY!!!!
Two questions:
1. What are the other laws the lesbian man-hating feminists passed?
2. You think that requiring all involved parties to consent to sex is man hate?
edit: to slay the blockquote monster
“Two questions:
1. What are the other laws the lesbian man-hating feminists passed?
2. You think that requiring all involved parties to consent to sex is man hate?”
1. VAWA. Another law pushed by man-hating lesbian feminists to make men guilty by default. How can a man be convicted of hitting a woman when there’s no proof the bruise or cut was put there by him!? That’s insane! Shouldn’t there be some evidence to indicate it was the accused that left the mark, bruise or cut? Women bruise pretty damn easy! I’m guessing by now, tens of thousands of men’s lives have been ruined by false accusations of domestic abuse and/or rape by rejected women. Don’t make me dig up quotes by prominent lesbian man hating feminists calling for men to be castrated, beaten and/or mass murdered and/or imprisoned by lesbian man hating feminists.
2. That’s not what I said – but you go ahead and pretend that’s what I said. Failed attempt at twisting what I said – which was HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A MAN TO PROVE THAT CONSENT WAS GIVEN AT EACH STAGE? IT IS LUDICROUS TO MAKE A LAW EVEN REMOTELY THIS MAN HATING!
College girl hires man to beat her in exchange for sex AND THEN FILES FALSE RAPE CLAIM!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVHsddWgvEI
False rape stories like this are ALL OVER THE INTERNET NOW! ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO FIND COUNTLESS STORIES SUCH AS THIS IS TO GOOGLE “FALSE RAPE”. Because these stories are supposedly hurting “survivors” women’s groups are having great success in blocking these false rape stories from being released to the press – SO WHAT YOU’LL FIND ON THE INTERNET IS A SMALL FRACTION OF THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF FALSE RAPE CASES!
DO ANY OF YOU HAVE SONS THAT YOU DON’T AUTOMATICALLY HATE OR THAT LIVED? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! MOVE TO NORTH KOREA ALREADY!
“Jamie,” “James,” “Jamie” again, “Jason.”
Here’s a “J” word for you: Just go away, Aris.
The rate of false rape claims is much higher than the reported 2%, I don’t know where people get that bullshit statistic from. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, so it’s not the business of those accused of rape to prove that the didn’t rape, it’s on the person making the positive claim, i.e. “the victims.”
1. I knew that Jason’s answer would be the VAWA act before I even read it. Never mind that it helps male abuse victims too!
2. Anecdotes on the internet =/= evidence that false rape or DV claims are rampant.