(10-23-2014 11:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  They fought against suffrage for women all the way up until 1919 and there are still some conservatives agitating against women having the franchise. Just this week, a Fox News celebrity named Kimberly Guilfoyle announced that young women shouldn’t vote because “they don’t get it.” That opinion obviously stems from the fact that young single women overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. (This would be in contrast to many of Fox’s conservative elderly audience who have been found in academic studies to be the most uninformed people in the nation.)

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/23/gops_man...raff_away/

Wrong again, Fit. Also, Salon isn't exactly an unbiased source, so I wouldn't be quoting it. They're pretty far left.

I just SMH at the historical illiteracy of some around here. Indoctrination works, apparently.

(10-23-2014 10:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 10:28 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Interestingly, in 1984, the entire country was the Republican base. [/sarcasm]




Anyone using an electoral map as a basis for anything other than an electoral map lacks higher order thinking skills.

I guess you missed the part where I included the actual ratification of the 19th amendment in a talking point specifically about the ratification of the 19th amendment.

the only reason republicans go down this road is because they need an something to whitewash the fact that historically conservatives were on the wrong side of history.


edit: comparing 1920 to 1984 in the manner that you did represents a massive lack of understanding on the subject matter.

I acknowledge that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln (though most here hate the thought of him), did good things for Civil Rights and such. I also acknowledge that they weren't considered conservatives then. Go back and read the party platforms from the 1860s to the 1930s and they never call themselves conservative.

(10-26-2014 07:01 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I acknowledge that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln (though most here hate the thought of him), did good things for Civil Rights and such. I also acknowledge that they weren't considered conservatives then. Go back and read the party platforms from the 1860s to the 1930s and they never call themselves conservative.

We all should acknowledge how stupid this whole thing is.

The political issues from 1863 are a lifetime away from political issues in 2014. Contexts, situations, realities of the entire world are radically different.

People trying to draw real comparisons of these political ideologies are just being absurd.

Getting back to the original post (sorry but I've been busy) but there is scientific evidence that supports Guilfoyle's point.

In evolutionary biology, it has been established that the females of a species (generally) are responsible for raising the young while the males provide food and protection.

Anthropologically, we have 70,000 years of archeological evidence, that modern homo sapiens were culturally organized in the evolutionary model; ie. female = motherhood; male = provider/protector.

Now about 50 years ago, the modern feminist movement proposed a society in which women were capable of surviving without men. This was their great idea but many women found that it didn't work quite like the sisterhood expected.

Even though they had distanced themselves from males, they still found they needed support and turned instead to the state. Young women today grow up expecting the state to provide for their needs, so as to be able to claim that they are independent. (I am woman, hear me roar.)

Link to scientific evidence

Yea, except that isn't what she said.

Somebody didn't click the link to the scientifically supportive evidence.

(10-27-2014 04:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Getting back to the original post (sorry but I've been busy) but there is scientific evidence that supports Guilfoyle's point.

In evolutionary biology, it has been established that the females of a species (generally) are responsible for raising the young while the males provide food and protection.

Anthropologically, we have 70,000 years of archeological evidence, that modern homo sapiens were culturally organized in the evolutionary model; ie. female = motherhood; male = provider/protector.

Now about 50 years ago, the modern feminist movement proposed a society in which women were capable of surviving without men. This was their great idea but many women found that it didn't work quite like the sisterhood expected.

Even though they had distanced themselves from males, they still found they needed support and turned instead to the state. Young women today grow up expecting the state to provide for their needs, so as to be able to claim that they are independent. (I am woman, hear me roar.)

Link to scientifically supportive evidence

Spoken like a true Republican. Sometimes, they pull back the curtain and let you see the wizard.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-28-2014 12:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 04:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Getting back to the original post (sorry but I've been busy) but there is scientific evidence that supports Guilfoyle's point.

In evolutionary biology, it has been established that the females of a species (generally) are responsible for raising the young while the males provide food and protection.

Anthropologically, we have 70,000 years of archeological evidence, that modern homo sapiens were culturally organized in the evolutionary model; ie. female = motherhood; male = provider/protector.

Now about 50 years ago, the modern feminist movement proposed a society in which women were capable of surviving without men. This was their great idea but many women found that it didn't work quite like the sisterhood expected.

Even though they had distanced themselves from males, they still found they needed support and turned instead to the state. Young women today grow up expecting the state to provide for their needs, so as to be able to claim that they are independent. (I am woman, hear me roar.)

Link to scientifically supportive evidence

Spoken like a true Republican. Sometimes, they pull back the curtain and let you see the wizard.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So you deny the science?

There is nothing scientific about the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

We need to get America back to the way that it use to be.

(10-28-2014 08:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is nothing scientific about the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Based on the evidence, there is no other conclusion that can be reached.

(10-28-2014 08:16 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is nothing scientific about the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Read the study, it's pretty clear and convincing, perhaps even for you.