Tag Archives: Democrat

Can recreational sex turn a selfish, irresponsible man into a marriage-minded provider?

Man helping a woman with proper handgun marksmanship
Man helping a woman with proper handgun marksmanship

An article from the American Thinker answers the question that vexes many men. As you read this excerpt below, ask yourself if it is a man or a woman writing this.

First of all, liberal women seem to be having an awful lot of sex these days. They are losing their virginity early, and working their way through as many “alpha males” as possible, but all the while they insist that a stream of recreational-sex relationships is somehow a path to lifelong married love. Can you turn a man who wants nothing more than recreational sex into the perfect husband, simply by invoking the magical power of vagina?

Liberal women think that you can:

On the one hand, liberal women believe wholeheartedly in the idiotic social construct they call, “sexual liberation.”  They pride themselves on losing their virginity, as though that “accomplishment” had ever been above the challenge-scale of an alley cat in heat.

These liberal women I’ve known, having given away their female V-card over and over and over again, all the while scour their host of intimate “trial runs” searching for that mythical, Hollywood-construct, Mr. Right.  This Mr. Right guy, for whom they are searching, is known to them up front as even more sexually-liberated than they, but this little factoid seems not to register in their liberated little heads as they frantically search for the equally mythical family home with the white picket fence, which somehow never gets hit by any of life’s roving tornadoes.  One can almost hear them say in unison, “And they all lived happily ever after.”

I think it’s one of the deepest mysteries of the world why women think that a man who has lots and lots of recreational sex is somehow marriage material. When I think of men who are qualified for marriage, I think of men who have studied hard subjects, gotten marketable skills, worked and worked, saved and saved, and shown that they can be faithful in marriage by exhibiting self-control in the courtship. But liberal women think that all of this reasoning is junk, and you must just jump right into sex to see if the relationship will “work out” or to find out what you “like”. Recreational sex, they insist, is a superior way of finding a husband. Discussing who will do what in an actual marriage and what the actual marriage is for is apparently ineffective.

More:

Evidently, the liberal woman is capable of the most severe form of psychological denial known to humankind.  Certain that one of the men with whom she has copulated without strings will suddenly morph into a faithfully monogamous creature the minute she can convince one of them to say “I do” in front of a few witnesses, the liberal woman marches blindly down the aisle towards near-certain, adulterous doom.  Yet, no amount of honest reason can dissuade liberal women from this self-destructive, moral myopia.

What other term but “morally schizoid” could possibly describe this blatantly contradictory tendency among liberal women?

Having spent their youth casually throwing their own sexual morality to the winds of fairytale “liberation,” these liberal women still steadfastly cling to the faithfully monogamous ideal for that sometime-later moment when they actually do desire all the traditional things — the husband, the kids, the white picket fence — those pesky female-nature embedded longings, which coincidentally ensure the continuation of the human race.

But these liberal women somehow — in perfect schizoid manner — convince themselves that once married, they will be the gratuitous beneficiaries of the monogamous respect they still desire, but have never once demanded or deserved.  Intuitively, women know that strict monogamy provides the only real security for themselves and their own offspring.  Yet, they continue themselves to spurn the demands of monogamy until the very last minute, believing that fidelity springs forth naturally in miraculous profusion among all “married” humans.  Such pure poppycock can only be explained as a mental disorder.

I think women need to ask themselves questions honestly and rationally:

  • can recreational sex make an unemployed man get a job?
  • can recreational sex make a violent man be courteous and respectful?
  • can recreational sex make an atheist turn into a Christian?
  • can recreational sex make a male slut stay faithful?
  • can recreational sex make wastefulness turn into frugality?
  • can recreational sex make laziness turn into diligence?
  • can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?

Marriages last because both partners have prepared themselves for self-sacrifice, rational discussions, problem solving and cooperation.

Previously, I provided the male perspective on liberal women’s poor decision-making about men and marriage. Read the article from the American Thinker (written by a woman), then read mine.

Does Planned Parenthood provide prenatal care and mammograms to women?

How many abortions does Planned Parenthood perform?
How many abortions does Planned Parenthood perform?

(Source)

A new video put out by Live Action takes a look at the claim that Democrats make that Planned Parenthood provides prenatal care to pregnant women.

But that’s not all – what about the claim made by Democrats that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms to women?

Life Site News explains the myth and the reality.

Excerpt:

The day before hundreds of pro-life activists prepared to flood Planned Parenthood’s offices with requests to schedule a mammogram, the organization issued a statement admitting that they do not offer the cancer screening procedure at any of their facilities.

The calls were placed today as part of “Call Planned Parenthood to Schedule Your Imaginary Mammogram Day” – an event organized by pro-life activists in response to President Obama’s statement during the presidential debate Tuesday that the abortion organization offers mammograms.

“There are millions of women all across the country, who rely on Planned Parenthood for, not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings,” the president had said, repeating a claim he had made earlier this summer in an interview with Glamour magazine.

But Obama isn’t the only one.

The notion that Planned Parenthood offers mammograms is one of the most enduring myths about the abortion giant. The claim is regularly trotted out by pro-abortion politicians eager to defend taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, but wary of invoking its controversial status as the country’s leading provider of abortions.

Not only does Planned Parenthood not provide mammograms, but the abortions they perform have been linked to the epidemic of breast cancer that is afflicting women today.

What about the claim that only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does is doing abortions?

False:

Practically every defender of the organization, fighting to preserve its federal funding, reverts to the 3 percent figure. How could you possibly, they ask, defund a group that devotes itself overwhelmingly to uncontroversial procedures and services for women?

[…]The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business. The group performs about 330,000 abortions a year, or roughly 30 percent of all the abortions in the country. By its own accounting in its 2013–2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). The group does more breast exams and provides more breast-care services (490,000), but not by that much.

The 3 percent figure is derived by counting abortion as just another service like much less consequential services. So abortion is considered a service no different than a pregnancy test (1.1 million), even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be procured from the local drugstore for less than $10.

By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test, and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.

Such cracked reasoning could be used to obscure the purpose of any organization. The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business. Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood want to use its health services as leverage to preserve its abortions, as if you can’t get one without the other. Of course, this is nonsense. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides free or low-cost breast- and cervical-cancer screenings — without aborting babies. State health departments provide free cancer screenings — without aborting babies. Community health centers provide a range of medical services — without aborting babies.

I think it’s a good idea to be able to respond to Planned Parenthood’s rhetoric. These are the people who kill babies, and we have to be able to respond to their false claims. When a majority of people learn the truth about the baby killing business, it will stop.

Trump reveals that he was lying to his gullible supporters all along

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

Surprise, Trump cultists! You’ve been had by a con man.

Let’s get right to the details, thanks to this article from the Daily Wire:

So, you’re suckers.

Yes, you conservatives who keep waiting for Donald Trump to turn into Ronald Reagan, who hope to unify behind him thinking that he’ll surround himself with good people and that they will guide him to all the best decisions. Yes, you conservatives who bought into the Trumpian nonsense that he would blow up the system and change things in politics. In the last 24 hours Trump has indeed pivoted – directly against all of his supposedly conservative positions. Here are four examples:

[…]Trump Won’t Be Self-Funding. Remember that time Trump said he’d self-fund, unlike his rivals? Even as donors signal that they won’t be opening their pocketbooks for Trump, Trump announced that he won’t self-fund his campaign. “I’ll be putting up money,” he said, “but won’t be completely self-funding.” Instead, Trump said he would build a “world-class finance organization.” So all that talk about how people who take donations are being bribed to shill for donors – yeah, all that was patented Trump garbage.

Trump Hires A Former Goldman Sachs Fundraiser Who Managed Money For George Soros.Remember that time Donald Trump suggested that Ted Cruz was in the pocket of Goldman Sachs (“I know the guys at Goldman Sachs, they have total, total control over him”)? Remember Snaggletooth The Trumper™ who told Ted Cruz that Cruz should be wearing his “Goldman jacket”? Now Trump has hired Steve Mnuchin, chairman and CEO of Dune Capital Management LP and former Goldman Sachs partner, to head up his fundraising team. Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management LLC. Yes, that Soros. George Soros. Mnuchin also donated thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton, among other Democrats; since 1998, he’s donated twice as much money to Democrats as Republicans.

[…]So this is the new general election Trump. He looks just as dishonest and scheming as the old Trump, just with a fresh leftist taste sure to please the most ardent Bernie Sanders supporters. Conservative Trump voters – this is your Great Hope.

The article also mentions that Trump is open to raising the minimum wage, and that his tax plan and border security plan are just an opening statement, subject to negotiations. Two more minor things that don’t matter, right?

Elsewhere, at Conservative Review:

We’ve experienced this rodeo show for decades.

The media picks our nominee – whether it’s for president, Senate, or governor.  That lucky individual has never fought a single battle for conservatives on a single issue in his entire life and has even carried water for the other side on some critically important issues.  Yet, he ran as a conservative in the primary and railed against the Democrats.  The media, whether local or national, anointed this individual and helped him run a dehumanization campaign against his opponent.  Not surprisingly, that man wins the primary and the other man – irrespective of his lifelong reputation – is left with the image of a dirt bag in the minds of most voters by the end of the election.

[…]Just within the first 24 hours of becoming the presumptive nominee, Trump has floated Portman and Kasich as potential VP candidates, echoed the worst of the liberal talking points on minimum wage, and walked back his promise to self-fund his campaign – one of his most appealing taking points of the campaign.

Portman and Kasich are leftist establishment Republicans. You might remember that Portman embraced gay marriage and Kasich is opposed to protecting religious liberty from lawsuits and punishments by gay activists. Surprise! That’s who Trump is, too. A New York liberal pretending to be a Republican for his gullible TV-watching followers.

Trump supporters have never looked into Trump’s past positions, his political contributions, his bankruptcies, etc. They learned about Trump by watching him laugh and joke on their televisions. And their hatred for other candidates like Walker and Cruz isn’t based on any knowledge of Walker and Cruz – it’s just repeating the sound bites about Walker and Cruz uttered by Trump, and dutifully played over and over again by the mainstream media.

Here is what Trump would say if he were honest: “Believe me! I’m a liberal Democrat pretending to be a Republican! I can tell you that!” Just imagine that line spoken in Trump’s charismatic voice, over and over, Trump supporters. Maybe then you’ll realize what your laziness and ignorance cost us.

Related posts

 

Will Trump cultists apologize for their laziness and ignorance, as Trump reverts to leftism?

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

Here is the latest from The Hill.

Excerpt:

In a reversal, Donald Trump expressed openness to raising the federal minimum wage during an interview on Wednesday.

“I’m looking at that, I’m very different from most Republicans,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee told CNN Wednesday about the prospect of increasing wages.

“You have to have something you can live on. But what I ‘m really looking to do is get people great jobs so they make much more money than that, much more money than the $15.”

The federal minimum wage is $7.25, but labor groups have been pushing for it to be raised to $15.

During a November debate, Trump voiced opposition to raising the minimum wage.

“I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is,” he said during the debate.

Who expected Trump to be a leftist on economic issues? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together, that’s who.  You could tell from his record, from his political donations, and other indicators that the man was a Democrat on economic issues. Everyone who did their homework on the candidates knew that. We all knew that he wanted to raise taxes on the most productive people, that he wanted to raise minimum wage, that he didn’t want to reform the entitlements that are bankrupting the country, he thinks using eminent domain to take private property to benefit big business is a great idea, he wanted to increase agricultural subsidies, and so on. Conservatives reject Trump, and continue to reject Trump, because Trump takes the wrong positions on economic issues.

Here is Dr. Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University, explaining what economists across the ideological spectrum agree on.

He writes:

The recent debate over the stimulus bill has lead some observers to think that economists are hopelessly divided on issues of public policy. That is true regarding business cycle theory and, specifically, the virtues or defects of Keynesian economics. But it is not true more broadly.

My favorite textbook covers business cycle theory toward the end of the book (the last four chapters) precisely because that theory is controversial. I believe it is better to introduce students to economics with topics about which there is more of a professional consensus. In chapter two of the book, I include a table of propositions to which most economists subscribe, based on various polls of the profession. Here is the list, together with the percentage of economists who agree:

  1. A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93%)
  2. Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93%)
  3. Flexible and floating exchange rates offer an effective international monetary arrangement. (90%)
  4. Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy. (90%)
  5. The United States should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries. (90%)
  6. The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies. (85%)
  7. Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises. (85%)
  8. If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)
  9. The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged. (85%)
  10. Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value. (84%)
  11. A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy. (83%)
  12. A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers. (79%)
  13. The government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a “negative income tax.” (79%)
  14. Effluent taxes and marketable pollution permits represent a better approach to pollution control than imposition of pollution ceilings. (78%)

If we could get the American public to endorse all these propositions, I am sure their leaders would quickly follow, and public policy would be much improved. That is why economics education is so important.

The ones in bold are the ones that Trump denies.

A person cannot be a conservative and a supporter of Donald Trump – the two are mutually exclusive. Conservatives are people who do understand basic economics, and Trump supporters are people who do not understand basic economics. There is no overlap.

A friend of mine who is being asked by Trump supporters why she will not support Trump posted this article from the American Thinker.

It says:

[…]I am not over the Constitution, although apparently many are, because they have thrown in with a man who never mentions it and often runs afoul of it.  Donald Trump was born “over” the Constitution and still is.  He’s never been concerned with it.  New York values don’t intersect with the Constitution.  No, I am not over the idea of liberty, and thus I’m not quite over the fact that the Republican nominee is a man totally unfamiliar with this concept and a man who never ever looks at increased liberty as the answer for out of control government. Ever.

[…]When crony capitalism is destroying our free market, does Donald want to stop government from picking winners and losers? NO! He doubles down on ethanol subsidies.  He obfuscates the issue of eminent domain.  And he rails against trade, not even considering the obvious conclusion that the big stick of tariffs is centralized planning and government picking winners and losers on steroids.

[…]Trump is the establishment.  His big check to party boss and establishment poster child Mitch McConnell has barely even cleared yet — a donation he followed up by insulting on Twitter those stupid Kentuckians who were willing to forgo McConnell’s crony gravy train to his home state in favor of a principled man like Matt Bevin.  Trump brags he has been giving to Republicans lately, but these donations are to establishment Republicans running against outsiders!

[…]Alexander Hamilton said “if we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  He was right.  Many of you haven not heeded that lesson.  I have, and I am proudly not over the nomination of big government New York liberal Donald J Trump.

In order to support Trump, conservatives would have to value insults and clowning above the Constitution and economics. We’re not willing to do that – although apparently many others are.

Democrat Governor of Virginia decides to allow 206,000 convicted felons to vote

Which states allow felons to vote?
Which states allow felons to vote? (before this decision of course)

Hans sent me a post he wrote from Liberty Unyielding about a story from Virginia.

It says:

Democratic “Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia will use his executive power on Friday to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons, circumventing his Republican-run legislature. The action will overturn a Civil War-era provision in the state’s Constitution,” reported the New York Times earlier today. “The sweeping order, in a swing state that could play a role in deciding the November presidential election, will enable all felons who have served their prison time and finished parole to register to vote. Most are African-Americans, a core constituency of Democrats, Mr. McAuliffe’s political party.” Even murderers and rapists are now allowed to vote.

Naturally, convicted criminals vote almost entirely for Democrats, since Democrats are soft on criminals.

Consider this study reported in the Washington Examiner:

A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release.

“Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,”said the authoritative study in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

The authors, professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, found that in some states, felons register Democratic by more than six-to-one. In New York, for example, 61.5 percent of convicts are Democrats, just 9 percent Republican. They also cited a study that found 73 percent of convicts who turn out for presidential elections would vote Democrat.

I would imagine that most criminals who have not yet been caught also vote Democrat. That’s the point of this action by the Democrat governor – to get more votes cast for Democrats.

More from Hans’ article:

Gov. McAuliffe’s action also allows felons to “serve on juries.” Do we really need violent felons, perjurers, and thieves serving on juries? And voting on ballot initiatives in Virginia that make law? Is lawmaking a function to be performed by law breakers? Or by law-abiding people?

Good Lord. And to think that Virginia used to be a conservative state.