"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0208220454.536a04f6 at posting.google.com...
> >"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:sHP89.57545$eb.4329739 at news2.west.cox.net...> >>
> >> All of her [OhSojourner's] other points are just as stupid
> >> as the one about "widening gap between rich and poor".
> >
> >Yeah, that's a common bit of misdirection often used
> >by left-wing polemicists. Defining a "widening gap" as
> >the problem makes the very problem the leftie makes
> >such noise about unsolvable by definition -- unless
> >equal misery is the leftie's goal.
>> Well, what I meant was, comparing how we lived 100 years ago to the
> way things are now. In many places, one practically *needs* a car to
> get anywhere, including to work. That's the way many cities are
> designed these days.
You claim to be "one who has always been naturally interested in productive
discourse leading to eventual solutions of problems", blame the world's ills
on a "widening gap between rich and poor", then switch to "one practically
*needs* a car to get anywhere, including to work"?
Not only have you not defined your position--you're switching the original
thesis.
What, pray tell, does an income gap have to do with needing a car? Or are
you defining the "rich" as those with a car and the poor as those who take
the bus );
>> >> John Lott proved once and for all that it's women
> >> voters like her who can't possibly understand the
> >> first thing about economics who caused government
> >> spending to skyrocket from 2% to 42% of each
> >> wage dollar in the first place.
> >
> >No he didn't. I suggest you read John Lott's study
> >again, John Knight. A much more easily argued
> >inference from Mr. Lott's study is that women know
> >plenty about economics (compared to men!),
> >certainly enough to know that when enfranchised,
> >women can -- as a class -- spend other people's
> >money with abandon.
> >
> >> The quickest way to fix all the ills of society she
> >> [OhSojourner] refers to (and she's missing 95% of
> >>the most important ones) is to repeal the 19th Amendment
> >http://christianparty.net/lottonsuffrage.pdf> >
> >Now you're ranting. And wrong. Re-read your US history,
> >bub. Many of those "ills" began in the Progressive Era
> >of US politics which occurred well before the 19th
> >Amendment to the US Constitution was passed.
>> Aha. *Somebody* comes close to "getting it". What "My Manifesto,
> Dammit!" was basically calling for was a return to earlier, simpler
> times; describing the way living conditions were like in older towns
> and European cities. I just decided to blame society's "ills" on
> another New Thing That Happened In the 20th Century, showing how easy
> to put the blame on One Thing Only instead of examining ALL of the
> events that happened over the past 100 years. (Although I did stop
> short of suggesting that cars be banned or only used in emergencies.)
>> (It is actually similar in philosophy to the ideas of New Urbanist
> James Howard Kunstler, author of "The Geography of Nowhere").
Your thesis is completely confused.
All you've *really* done is unload a bunch of expletives. What is it about
the current discussion that you can't seem to pay attention to it? Too much
math? Did the addition and subtraction get to you? Does it get confusing
for you when someone says "rate" or "average"?
Does all this frustrate you to the point that the only thing left in your
empty female "mind" are words like "Racist sexist white supremacist
bluster", "Anti-semitic slurs", "Statistics statistics statistics", "More
statistics", "paranoid racist/anti-semitic namecalling", "More juvenile
namecalling", "on a par with the mindset of callow, ill-mannered
7th-graders", "Disturbing rants tinged", "small helping of bilious hatred",
"More statistics", "prejudice and bigotry", "Etc.", "hate-filled diatribes",
"ranting", "ranting", "ranting" "problems in the world", "least favorite
birth group".
Not only have you failed to address even one point that's been made, but you
mischaracterized the posts, and it appears that the only reason you stopped
is that you ran out of expletives.
Forget the miserable performance of American 12th grade girls in TIMSS for a
second and tell us what exactly is it that makes you believe that women are
more intelligent than men? How do you measure that difference? What
standard do you use? How much better do you think the economy would be if
only you more intelligent females ran it? Numbers, please--how would you
calculate how that superior female intellect could be applied to *improve*
something?
John Knight
