Poll on women and free speech

[whitehall]

Apparently Obama catered to "the new black panthers", the parents of a freaking traitor and the mullas of Iran and just about every two bit dictator on the planet. He allegedly ate pizza while a Ambassador was being murdered when they ran out of ammunition at Benghazi. He told America that good factory jobs were gone forever while Black unemployment remained at double digits and the GDP never hit 3% in a yearly average so apparently he didn't care about the economy or the welfare of Black kids. He sent about 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels so I guess he cared about Mexico or drugs. What else did he care about? You got me.

 

[Papageorgio]

Opposition that successfully limits diversity and inclusion, as we have seen in the past, operates to prevent free speech. History is full of small groups of people who pretended to speak for the many, giving assurances that everybody was happy with their lot without asking.

Now that there has been an effort to foster diversity and inclusion, more voices are being heard that have been kept silent in the past. It's wonderful to see that people all over the world and of all backgrounds now have an opportunity to speak their minds and they are taking it.

It's not a question of being denied the microphone. It's simply that everyone gets to speak and then has to yield it to the next person.

yes, because a bunch of loser SJW types yelling at a conservative event is letting "everyone speak"

Yeah, and a bunch of loser right-wingers yelling at an open event is letting "everyone speak." If there was an event at which there was time for 20 speakers to take a turn for five minutes, and everyone drew a number out of a bowl, betcha it would be the right-winger who drew number 15 who would bitch and moan that he ought to be allowed to speak first and take more than five minutes. He would throw a completely hissy fit if there were speakers from Planned Parenthood or Black Lives Matter who drew numbers in the one-through-14 range.

BTW: is it possible for right-winger "conservatives" to give a speech that advances their positive ideas for tackling the future, or are they all limited to giving speeches criticizing, and attempting to direct, other groups of people. I'm tired of this "women ought to," "blacks ought to," "gays ought to" crap. Do they have anything positive to offer?

Is it possible for you to write a positive post? Most of your posts attack others that disagree with your outlook and are full of you white males ought to, you Republicans ought to, the Christians ought to and other crap.

Please follow your own advice.

 

[Dick Foster]

I've said it in different threads and it should be obvious but many women think differently despite facts , proof and truth . I have known that for over 65 years Depotoo .

Actually many women don't think at all if you define thinking as using fact, logic and reason to reach a thoughtful conclusion.

Yeah. Right. Now explain monkeys like trump, pence, jordan, frankie graham, jeffress, mcconnell, and the rest of the brainless dickheads. Hint: they are male, exhibit absolutely no tendency to use "fact, logic and reason," and haven't come up with a "thoughtful conclusion" yet. Moreover, some have admitted that they "think" with their genitals. Do these monkeys even have brains?

Well starting with Trump, the top of your list, and his record in office so far it's likely they have more than you.
As I recall Trump's IQ is 153 or something like than which has my little 140 beat all to hell. What's yours?
An IQ test is designed and made to measure ones ability to think and use logic and reason to solve problems. The exact qualities that I addressed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You don't have to be "racist" to recognize demographic reality. Since the immigration reform bill of 1968, an unending tsunami of foreigners have flooded the country.

Lol, that is funny. Hewre are some facts:
1) Immigration in absolute numbers in the second half of the 1800's was comparable to immigration since 160, but as a percentage was much higher back then.

2) the single highest year of immigration was under Reagan, not Democrats.

3) Our best economic performance as a nation, in terms of overall growth and GDP was under periods of high immigration.
Economic Growth Before 1860: Revised Conjectures

An additional conjectural estimate is produced based on recent evidence about manufacturing productivity. The new estimates lower the farm labor forces in the years before 1830 by 10 to 15 percent, while raising the figures for 1840, 1850, and 1860 by 5 to 9 percent. As a consequence the farm work force grew more rapidly than was previously believed, and farm productivity grew more slowly. The impact of the revisions varied by subperiod, and is concentrated almost entirely in the middle 20 years. Because the advance in farm productivity was the major determinant of change in the conjectural estimates of per capita output, that series shows a slower rate of growth as well, especially over the period 1820 to 1840.​

The US industrial production expanded from 1850 to 1915 x19.5 factor over what it was in 1850. While we had high immigration.

4) Wages tend to get repressed if we have too much immigration, agreed, but it tends to even out over time in a democratic process. Right now I think we are going into another tightening of immigration due to the stagnant wages we have seen since 1973 or so.

5) We must have immigration in order to balance the effects of abortion torpedoing our birth rates in the middle class. If we have abortion on demand we have to have immigration in order to have any chance of keeping our public services sustained.

Yes, America has always had immigrants but never on this scale. Is it a coincidence that the very fundamentals of American culture has been absolutely turned on its head in that time span?

It has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the Anglican/Episcopalian churches being targeted for infiltration by Social Marxists who have inverted normal Christian values, and that dragged main stream Protestant denominations down into the amoral mire as well.

Fortunately for the rest of us, those counterfeit denominations are being replaced by Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well starting with Trump, the top of your list, and his record in office so far it's likely they have more than you.
As I recall Trump's IQ is 153 or something like than which has my little 140 beat all to hell. What's yours?
An IQ test is designed and made to measure ones ability to think and use logic and reason to solve problems. The exact qualities that I addressed.

IQs are bullshit, and are not normalized to test very accurately outside of 2 standard deviations. Anything over a 130 is utter wild ass guessing.

 

[impuretrash]

You don't have to be "racist" to recognize demographic reality. Since the immigration reform bill of 1968, an unending tsunami of foreigners have flooded the country.

Lol, that is funny. Hewre are some facts:
1) Immigration in absolute numbers in the second half of the 1800's was comparable to immigration since 160, but as a percentage was much higher back then.

View attachment 290004

2) the single highest year of immigration was under Reagan, not Democrats.

3) Our best economic performance as a nation, in terms of overall growth and GDP was under periods of high immigration.
Economic Growth Before 1860: Revised Conjectures

An additional conjectural estimate is produced based on recent evidence about manufacturing productivity. The new estimates lower the farm labor forces in the years before 1830 by 10 to 15 percent, while raising the figures for 1840, 1850, and 1860 by 5 to 9 percent. As a consequence the farm work force grew more rapidly than was previously believed, and farm productivity grew more slowly. The impact of the revisions varied by subperiod, and is concentrated almost entirely in the middle 20 years. Because the advance in farm productivity was the major determinant of change in the conjectural estimates of per capita output, that series shows a slower rate of growth as well, especially over the period 1820 to 1840.​

The US industrial production expanded from 1850 to 1915 x19.5 factor over what it was in 1850. While we had high immigration.

4) Wages tend to get repressed if we have too much immigration, agreed, but it tends to even out over time in a democratic process. Right now I think we are going into another tightening of immigration due to the stagnant wages we have seen since 1973 or so.

5) We must have immigration in order to balance the effects of abortion torpedoing our birth rates in the middle class. If we have abortion on demand we have to have immigration in order to have any chance of keeping our public services sustained.

Yes, America has always had immigrants but never on this scale. Is it a coincidence that the very fundamentals of American culture has been absolutely turned on its head in that time span?

It has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the Anglican/Episcopalian churches being targeted for infiltration by Social Marxists who have inverted normal Christian values, and that dragged main stream Protestant denominations down into the amoral mire as well.

Fortunately for the rest of us, those counterfeit denominations are being replaced by Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

I don't know how you can rationalize the ridiculous increase in immigration after 1968 as anything other than a planned demographic replacement.

It's right there plain as day on the charts you used to try to prove me wrong. Are you so cowed by the "racism" boogeyman that you will allow this country to be destroyed to prove you're not racist? Are you white? Then you're racist no matter what you do. You should have realized this by now...

What "democratic process"? Nobody ever asked for 3rd world immigrants to displace the majority and only a anti-white psychopath would have voted yes if it had been left to "democratic process"...

 

[Dick Foster]

Well starting with Trump, the top of your list, and his record in office so far it's likely they have more than you.
As I recall Trump's IQ is 153 or something like than which has my little 140 beat all to hell. What's yours?
An IQ test is designed and made to measure ones ability to think and use logic and reason to solve problems. The exact qualities that I addressed.

IQs are bullshit, and are not normalized to test very accurately outside of 2 standard deviations. Anything over a 130 is utter wild ass guessing.

I'm guessing that you have a low score. LOL
As long as it's about 100 you're average.

 

[impuretrash]

Well starting with Trump, the top of your list, and his record in office so far it's likely they have more than you.
As I recall Trump's IQ is 153 or something like than which has my little 140 beat all to hell. What's yours?
An IQ test is designed and made to measure ones ability to think and use logic and reason to solve problems. The exact qualities that I addressed.

IQs are bullshit, and are not normalized to test very accurately outside of 2 standard deviations. Anything over a 130 is utter wild ass guessing.

I'm guessing that you have a low score. LOL
As long as it's about 100 you're average.

People who are in denial about racial differences do not like IQ tests because they provide scientific evidence for uncomfortable truths they'd rather pretend don't exist.

 

[Lysistrata]

Apparently Obama catered to "the new black panthers", the parents of a freaking traitor and the mullas of Iran and just about every two bit dictator on the planet. He allegedly ate pizza while a Ambassador was being murdered when they ran out of ammunition at Benghazi. He told America that good factory jobs were gone forever while Black unemployment remained at double digits and the GDP never hit 3% in a yearly average so apparently he didn't care about the economy or the welfare of Black kids. He sent about 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels so I guess he cared about Mexico or drugs. What else did he care about? You got me.

Even if this nonsense were true, it doesn't explain the deliberate attempts of the current corrupt and filthy administration to destroy our country and our freedom.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know how you can rationalize the ridiculous increase in immigration after 1968 as anything other than a planned demographic replacement.

It's right there plain as day on the charts you used to try to prove me wrong. Are you so cowed by the "racism" boogeyman that you will allow this country to be destroyed to prove you're not racist? Are you white? Then you're racist no matter what you do. You should have realized this by now...

What "democratic process"? Nobody ever asked for 3rd world immigrants to displace the majority and only a anti-white psychopath would have voted yes if it had been left to "democratic process"...

Yeah, ideologues have a problem with facts that get in their way; is that you?

Through the whole last half of the 19th Century 15% of the people who lived in the US were immigrants. That steadily dropped to about 1970 and then started coming back up to where it has been through most of our nations history, but that upsets you...why?

I do think we need to have a constant stream of immigration of about 1 million each year, and I think that should be mostly from India, Latin America and Taiwan, DEFINATELY not Europe, the bunch of commie losers that they are these days.

But consider this my last response to you. I dont have time to dry your tears over exactly NOTHING.

 

[impuretrash]

I don't know how you can rationalize the ridiculous increase in immigration after 1968 as anything other than a planned demographic replacement.

It's right there plain as day on the charts you used to try to prove me wrong. Are you so cowed by the "racism" boogeyman that you will allow this country to be destroyed to prove you're not racist? Are you white? Then you're racist no matter what you do. You should have realized this by now...

What "democratic process"? Nobody ever asked for 3rd world immigrants to displace the majority and only a anti-white psychopath would have voted yes if it had been left to "democratic process"...

Yeah, ideologues have a problem with facts that get in their way; is that you?

Through the whole last half of the 19th Century 15% of the people who lived in the US were immigrants. That steadily dropped to about 1970 and then started coming back up to where it has been through most of our nations history, but that upsets you...why?

I do think we need to have a constant stream of immigration of about 1 million each year, and I think that should be mostly from India, Latin America and Taiwan, DEFINATELY not Europe, the bunch of commie losers that they are these days.

But consider this my last response to you. I dont have time to dry your tears over exactly NOTHING.

You like charts, eh? Here's one for you:

The GOP depends on the white vote to remain viable. We are right now on the verge of a one party system. You are a goddamn saboteur and a traitor.

 

[Lysistrata]

Opposition that successfully limits diversity and inclusion, as we have seen in the past, operates to prevent free speech. History is full of small groups of people who pretended to speak for the many, giving assurances that everybody was happy with their lot without asking.

Now that there has been an effort to foster diversity and inclusion, more voices are being heard that have been kept silent in the past. It's wonderful to see that people all over the world and of all backgrounds now have an opportunity to speak their minds and they are taking it.

It's not a question of being denied the microphone. It's simply that everyone gets to speak and then has to yield it to the next person.

yes, because a bunch of loser SJW types yelling at a conservative event is letting "everyone speak"

Yeah, and a bunch of loser right-wingers yelling at an open event is letting "everyone speak." If there was an event at which there was time for 20 speakers to take a turn for five minutes, and everyone drew a number out of a bowl, betcha it would be the right-winger who drew number 15 who would bitch and moan that he ought to be allowed to speak first and take more than five minutes. He would throw a completely hissy fit if there were speakers from Planned Parenthood or Black Lives Matter who drew numbers in the one-through-14 range.

BTW: is it possible for right-winger "conservatives" to give a speech that advances their positive ideas for tackling the future, or are they all limited to giving speeches criticizing, and attempting to direct, other groups of people. I'm tired of this "women ought to," "blacks ought to," "gays ought to" crap. Do they have anything positive to offer?

Is it possible for you to write a positive post? Most of your posts attack others that disagree with your outlook and are full of you white males ought to, you Republicans ought to, the Christians ought to and other crap.

Please follow your own advice.

I comment about what people say and do. If it's negative, it's negative. The republicans just have an awful party based on a sick authoritarian ideology. The other two groups that you mentioned, white males and Christians, are divided so it is impossible to write about the entire group.

If you look at the impeachment hearings, there are plenty of white men involved on both sides, both as committee members and witnesses. If you read the comments on this board, there is at least one poster who loves evangelicals and has something against Episcopalians, so any mention of "Christian" has to be explained as to whom the writer is referring, as the Christian faith is very splintered.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you look at the impeachment hearings, there are plenty of white men involved on both sides, both as committee members and witnesses. If you read the comments on this board, there is at least one poster who loves evangelicals and has something against Episcopalians, so any mention of "Christian" has to be explained as to whom the writer is referring, as the Christian faith is very splintered.

What do Episcopalians have to do with Christianity any more?

I dont think that Homo Episcopal bishops that are living in adultery subscribe to St Pauls teachings, do you? Read the first chapter of Romans.

 

[Lysistrata]

If you look at the impeachment hearings, there are plenty of white men involved on both sides, both as committee members and witnesses. If you read the comments on this board, there is at least one poster who loves evangelicals and has something against Episcopalians, so any mention of "Christian" has to be explained as to whom the writer is referring, as the Christian faith is very splintered.

What do Episcopalians have to do with Christianity any more?

I dont think that Homo Episcopal bishops that are living in adultery subscribe to St Pauls teachings, do you? Read the first chapter of Romans.

What does anyone have to do with Christianity any more? The evangelicals don't. They would rather follow graham or falwell, who are miles off course.

I do not recognize Paul/Saul as a teacher. He never even met Jesus. I don't care what he wrote. He was just another guy. Christianity has to be stripped down and reconstructed based only on Jesus alone.

 

[danielpalos]

Women Against Free Speech? | RealClearPolitics

Majorities of students polled said they support both free speech and "inclusion and diversity." When asked which is more important, 53 percent said inclusion and diversity, and only 46 percent said free speech.
What I found most striking -- the numbers that stood out for me -- was the difference between men and women. Among men, 61 percent favored free speech. But only 35 percent of women did so. That's a result I certainly hadn't expected.

So ladies, what gives?

should we be glad women don't really believe in equality?

 

[sparky]

The poll question sets up a weird, artificial dichotomy, doesn't it?

per usual....

anecdotally , most women i know never stfu....

~S~

 

[JimBowie1958]

The poll question sets up a weird, artificial dichotomy, doesn't it?

per usual....

anecdotally , most women i know never stfu....

~S~

Wow, lots a bad Karma earned on that one, Sparky! lol

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[martybegan]

Opposition that successfully limits diversity and inclusion, as we have seen in the past, operates to prevent free speech. History is full of small groups of people who pretended to speak for the many, giving assurances that everybody was happy with their lot without asking.

Now that there has been an effort to foster diversity and inclusion, more voices are being heard that have been kept silent in the past. It's wonderful to see that people all over the world and of all backgrounds now have an opportunity to speak their minds and they are taking it.

It's not a question of being denied the microphone. It's simply that everyone gets to speak and then has to yield it to the next person.

yes, because a bunch of loser SJW types yelling at a conservative event is letting "everyone speak"

Yeah, and a bunch of loser right-wingers yelling at an open event is letting "everyone speak." If there was an event at which there was time for 20 speakers to take a turn for five minutes, and everyone drew a number out of a bowl, betcha it would be the right-winger who drew number 15 who would bitch and moan that he ought to be allowed to speak first and take more than five minutes. He would throw a completely hissy fit if there were speakers from Planned Parenthood or Black Lives Matter who drew numbers in the one-through-14 range.

BTW: is it possible for right-winger "conservatives" to give a speech that advances their positive ideas for tackling the future, or are they all limited to giving speeches criticizing, and attempting to direct, other groups of people. I'm tired of this "women ought to," "blacks ought to," "gays ought to" crap. Do they have anything positive to offer?

Is it possible for you to write a positive post? Most of your posts attack others that disagree with your outlook and are full of you white males ought to, you Republicans ought to, the Christians ought to and other crap.

Please follow your own advice.

I comment about what people say and do. If it's negative, it's negative. The republicans just have an awful party based on a sick authoritarian ideology. The other two groups that you mentioned, white males and Christians, are divided so it is impossible to write about the entire group.

If you look at the impeachment hearings, there are plenty of white men involved on both sides, both as committee members and witnesses. If you read the comments on this board, there is at least one poster who loves evangelicals and has something against Episcopalians, so any mention of "Christian" has to be explained as to whom the writer is referring, as the Christian faith is very splintered.

Please show me examples of Republicans being "Authoritarian"

progressives are far more authoritarian, i.e. bake or die, or criminalizing plastic straw use.

 

[Lysistrata]

Opposition that successfully limits diversity and inclusion, as we have seen in the past, operates to prevent free speech. History is full of small groups of people who pretended to speak for the many, giving assurances that everybody was happy with their lot without asking.

Now that there has been an effort to foster diversity and inclusion, more voices are being heard that have been kept silent in the past. It's wonderful to see that people all over the world and of all backgrounds now have an opportunity to speak their minds and they are taking it.

It's not a question of being denied the microphone. It's simply that everyone gets to speak and then has to yield it to the next person.

yes, because a bunch of loser SJW types yelling at a conservative event is letting "everyone speak"

Yeah, and a bunch of loser right-wingers yelling at an open event is letting "everyone speak." If there was an event at which there was time for 20 speakers to take a turn for five minutes, and everyone drew a number out of a bowl, betcha it would be the right-winger who drew number 15 who would bitch and moan that he ought to be allowed to speak first and take more than five minutes. He would throw a completely hissy fit if there were speakers from Planned Parenthood or Black Lives Matter who drew numbers in the one-through-14 range.

BTW: is it possible for right-winger "conservatives" to give a speech that advances their positive ideas for tackling the future, or are they all limited to giving speeches criticizing, and attempting to direct, other groups of people. I'm tired of this "women ought to," "blacks ought to," "gays ought to" crap. Do they have anything positive to offer?

Is it possible for you to write a positive post? Most of your posts attack others that disagree with your outlook and are full of you white males ought to, you Republicans ought to, the Christians ought to and other crap.

Please follow your own advice.

I comment about what people say and do. If it's negative, it's negative. The republicans just have an awful party based on a sick authoritarian ideology. The other two groups that you mentioned, white males and Christians, are divided so it is impossible to write about the entire group.

If you look at the impeachment hearings, there are plenty of white men involved on both sides, both as committee members and witnesses. If you read the comments on this board, there is at least one poster who loves evangelicals and has something against Episcopalians, so any mention of "Christian" has to be explained as to whom the writer is referring, as the Christian faith is very splintered.

Please show me examples of Republicans being "Authoritarian"

progressives are far more authoritarian, i.e. bake or die, or criminalizing plastic straw use.

Funny. The republicans want to control citizens' vaginas, even mandating invasive searches by law of citizens' body cavities and regulating Americans' bodies. Dictating that Americans must adhere to a religious cult selected by the state if they are pregnant. Regulating what doctors say to patients ordering doctors to read government-written scripts to patients, banning speech by doctors and patients, to name a few things. Straight out of Nazi Germany.