Ted Cruz Calls Birth Control 'Abortifacients' MOD ALERT

Increasing wages is not enough, equal wages for equal work is what we require. It is due to feminism that you see women working in all kinds of jobs today. The old way was that women could only do "women's work" which was always low-paying. It hasn't been that long ago that women only worked at clerical, teaching, or nursing jobs. Now women can aspire to do anything.

I don't know that they were successful in controlling reproduction. Women tend to ignore government edicts when it comes to their own bodies. But they tried.

I don't think living in government housing would be much of an incentive. $10,000 will sound like a lot of money to some people who will start popping out a baby every year. The more intelligent ones will see that that isn't enough to pay for a child. Please explain how a woman's reproducing will elevate her status at all.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/economy/06women.html?_r=0 An article as recent as 2010 shows that women still do go for those jobs. So yes, higher wages has a far more significant impact than the non-existent(but socially destructive mindset) of Femi-Maleism.

http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/03/15/female-involvement-in-crime-growing-crime-news/ Who would've thought of that possibility 20-or-30 years ago? Feminism is a disease that erodes women from the inside out and it has been nothing but a miserable failure.

I know, that the women in the past(and thereby the present) thought their crusade was righteous and for a good cause. But what's the old saying? You're barking up the wrong tree.

It's okay to recognize just how destructive the Feminist Movement is. After all, it desensitizes the more radical believers surrounding their children. What could be more nihilistic than that?

Moreover, that other article I linked points to a deeper economic truth: That this movement disparages men from the working place, and society as a whole. As long as men and women remain forever separate in this manner, America will never economically thrive again.

A woman should honestly compare her life 30 or 40 years ago to today, and realistically ask herself which is better, she'd be a fool not to say 60's-70's America was vastly superior. The man was expected to take care of her, lest he be viewed in the eyes of fellow men as a dead beat degenerate loser, Feminism has taken that blow away, perhaps the only "good" thing it did for men.

The Daughters of yesteryear were more cultivated than the daughters of today, and such cultivation will probably be lost for all time. Which means that even if we maintained a European-American majority, our European-English society has already eroded and will continue to erode.

Young men of course were cultivated, now radical-feminists chastise them for even the slightest courtesy. And hence of course, especially among young men cultivation definitely no longer exists.

America's social destruction has come at the hands of Feminism. And perhaps to you, you might view that as a good thing. But I'll give you a stern warning:
It was much easier to build Rome than it was to rebuild it.

To this day, Greece has failed to reclaim her Glory. We only have one shot at this American "World super power" thing, and our 1900s civilization, while it lasted was so powerful it built us up to a mighty state.

But it's collapsing fast, far faster than it took to build it in the first place.

If I could appeal to women: Stop, think. This isn't the right way for Women or for the Empire.

Then I'll up it to $50,000. That would be $750 million dollars for 150 million females. Considering the vast economic and human capital that a healthy family provides, that's more worth it than the meaningless bailouts. And I don't mean government housing, I mean that you can choose to do whatever you want with the capital.

I don't intend to have families live in a second-rate home and call that a "family" to merely bloat statistics. I want real, actual economic growth.

As for your second question, on how births elevate a woman's social status, I'll let someone far more qualified than I to make that argument.

[video=youtube;cMmbZz-qNVM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMmbZz-qNVM[/video]

If it sounds better coming from my mouth, I'll say it like this: Women are the only ones with the gift of giving birth, how could they not see themselves as superior?
In aspiring for a man's work, a man's livelihood and degrading themselves as women, they could only emotionally damage themselves.

And over the course of 40 years, that's exactly what we've had. Though, we couldn't have expected the social destruction of the male race to boot as well.

 

This is why I don't like talking to people. Because emotions get in the way of facts, it is inconceivable to you to hear of an alternative. Even as I prove this right here and now, you'll find a way to object on some level. Which is why this country is in such poor political shape. You must be absolutely ruthless with your thinking, being correct is far greater than a political mindset(especially when it's a deluded one)



I think with this evidence, I can overwhelmingly say that without European Immigration, this country would've faded. Much like it's fading now. And even as far as Asian Immigration is concerned, we're more attracting the 2nd rate Asians than the 1st class Asians.

.

In much the same way, attracting the untalented labor from South America(and Mexico) is simply undesirable. The last 30+ years of poor immigration policy has not only opened the doors, it's opened the doors to the wrong people.

It wasn't "Immigration lulz", it was very specific, high-class, high-quality immigrants! Amazingly, despite having immigration as a policy, Leftists don't even understand how or why it worked. I would say if you have to qualify me as a "racist", I'm a reverse-racist. Wherein my belief is towards the most talented immigrants, and using their unique talents.

Making an otherwise third world person, mediocre may very well be great for him but for the Empire? Hah.

I see myself as a Social Philosopher, whose political views would transform and curtail yet open up proper channels of immigration.

Higher-class immigration, a restrengthening of the European-American class pool and thereby political and social leadership back in its original form of greatness.

 

Correction: I didn't "criticize your English." I pointed out that a "college level English" is NOT a "perfect English" as you mistakingly sated!
Otherwise, I stand by my statement that the kind of "social groups" based on "European-American" heritage are nothing more than merely disguised White supremacy propaganda that is insulting to those of us who have a background in social sciences, a mind, and a heart.

 

I sincerely apologize that we Europeans contributed so much to the country(I, an American born with German blood on my mother's side). I didn't state that my English was "perfect"(but then, how much more perfect can you get than not misspelling the words you use?). Perhaps, those of us native Americans with European blood should take the advice of the dwindling European immigrants. We should return home to Native Europe. Then "America" can collapse on the heels of its own economic stupidity, and then it'll come crawling back to us with your supposed "hearts".

I would love to live in Germany, where my parents lived before immigrating here. Or perhaps the British Empire would welcome a true Englishman into the continent. Yeah, I'm so politically depressed about this country moving out would be for the better.

 

For your information, I am not only an "European-American," but I was actually BORN and RAISED in Europe. . .so I believe I know a little more than you do about what it means. . .and it is obvious that, in ALL ethnicities, in ALL races, in ALL cultures, there are good and bad people, and there are leaders and followers, and there are people of intelligence, and those of intellectual mediocrity.

IF "European-Americans" have had more influence on the development of the USA, it is NOT necessarely because they were more intelligent, more courageous, or more willing to work, but because, very early, they took over, not hesitating to kill and enslave those who resisted their push for the "new world!"

OBVIOUSLY, it is more difficult to rise to the top level of a ladder if one start at the first rise. . .or one can't even make it to the first rise because he/she is being stepped on by those climbing above! OBVIOUSLY, if one must continue to fight on a daily basis to fulfill one's basic needs. . . it is more difficult to "rise above" those basic needs for food, for heat, for survival, than if one has fulfilled those daily needs and can afford to consider striving for the "higher needs" and more intellectual goals.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs may sound like it belongs in another time and place. . .but it is STILL very applicable to today's world. . .and it certainly was demonstrated fully through the history which you seem to apply almost exclusively to a "superiority" of the White race (although you cleverly avoid using that term!"

I wonder if your mother came to the US following the fall of the greatest (worst. .in my opinion!) of all White supremacists. . .HITLER.

By the way, I spend my childhood and teenage years in Belgium and in Portugal, and my adulthood in France, England, Colorado, Pennsylvania, California, and South Carolina. Although I didn't speak a word of English until the age of 21, I completed a double major and a Master degree in the US and I am a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Grow up. . .visit Europe, but do NOT believe that you will find more "enlightenment" in European countries than in any other countries. . . I suggest that "enlightenment" is within each one of us, and among those we choose to associate with. It is NOT dependent on ethnicity, culture, or even (to a great extend) to raw intelligence or education.

One of the best example I can think of at this time is the incredible young woman, Malala.

 

Actually, her great grandparents came to the US in the mid-60's during the political climate of the separated German States. So it depends on what you mean by after the fall of Hitler. That's about the only response I'll give to your annoyingly emotional diatribe.

Yes, European-Americans did conquer in the Indian-American war. We also paid reparations and as a result, the Indian-Americans can assimilate into the Homeland at any time they wish. They have that right. I'm sure you'll reference to the African Slave development, we weren't the only ones. Similarly in '64, as you know we evened things out regarding Education.

No longer can European-Americans be blamed for the lesser development of these socio-groups.. Indeed, Thomas Sowell goes out of his way to disprove the notion. It's simply rather unfortunate, but the African-American community will struggle for all time as long as the misconception of "Whitey" or some false supremacist miindset continues to blind you fools to socio-economic realities.

In fact, I recognize more than anyone that there's several high level African-Americans, including the President. I just happen to also recognize that for reasons specific to they alone, that the high-class of African-Americans and the low-class have a severe divide amongst themselves, as to never expect them to grow properly into leadership.

I haven't cleverly done anything, I apologize if my vocabulary is different than what you want it to be but I'm not obliged to please you, nor am I obliged to respond to you any longer. Because you can't refrain from emotionalism in your post.

See Okgrannie? She opposes my position on Feminism, but she isn't biting my head off.

 

The American Taliban strikes again.

 

In the non-legal court of your opinion it is murder. In the real world it is called birth control.

 

That is really interesting. You believe that in order for a man and woman to have a close relationship, the woman must be inferior. Luckily, there are plenty of men out there who actually like smart empowered women, women who can talk about something besides diapers at the end of the day.

The "only" thing? That was the main point of feminism, that and the ability to decide for ourselves what we could do with our own bodies. And yes, we did need feminism for that, because it sure wasn't happening any other way.

$10,000? $1429 a year? LOL. You don't have kids, do you?

 

How you see yourself is irrelevant. Now for your undesirables, then Sen Rubio and Sen Cruz would most certainly protest. To save you some other suspense, I suggest you reread the Statue of Liberty plaque, the immigrants then were not "top notch".

In the computer field, we have plenty of immigrants, most are not European, yet they contribute.

BTW, when people talk about the greatness past, shall we talk about how bad police corruption was, then in my Italian heritage and how they gained power, you want to go back to that. Your comments are racist.

 

You must be an english major and not a math major unless I am misunderstanding. $50,000 x 150 million is just a little more than $750 million. Looks like $5 each for 150 million.

 

If you believe that my comments to you was "biting your had off," you are demonstrating that your remark about "my" being emotional is nothing more than projection!

Grow up!

 

You don't know what inferiority is, women were a protected class, especially European-Americans. Now you'd like to wish to have the same protection while not engaging like a woman should. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you got rid of your own protective class. Like fools really, I'd rather be a 19th-century female then a 21st century male. '

Your "ability to decide for yourself" did two things. 1) It made women butchers of over 50 million babies and 2) It created the same kind of inequality women thought they had for men.

Yes...Forward!(Onto more delusions). I hope I'm getting you to realize that women have been set-back. How about this: The average male my age thinks of women from a purely sexual perspective. You can thank your movement for that. But hey, you're in "control" of it right .

I was actually thinking more along the lines of $10,000 monthly checks. But I'll admit that I did what the Bush Republicans did during TARP: I just thought about a really big number and attached it to my proposal.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't project the truth, just read your own posts. No, literally, go back and look at every single one of them. As far as our conversation is concerned, it's finished.

 

No. There is no life until fertilization occurs. Or, in the case of the other things you listed, pollinization.

 

Typical pro-death Progressive leftist attitude. Pathetic.

 

It's weird that the same party that opposes welfare also opposes abortion.... as if one doesn't directly lead to the other.

 

I am right because I have a conscience and a soul, along with morals, values, and meaningful principles.

 

Does that mean you oppose the death penalty?

 

Murder of innocent infants is a far different issue than duely convicted criminals who have been judged by their peers to be guilty.

 

Your statement is an uneducated, unsubstantiated, illogical, idiotic, ridiculous claim that makes me wonder how anyone could state that neither a Human Egg Cell or Human Sperm Cell are not alive and that there is no life until fertilization occurs.

You do realize that a Human Sperm Cell uses it's tail to move or swim distances to reach the Egg Cell....correct?

Both the Egg and Sperm are INDEPENDENT LIFE FORMS just as a drop of a persons blood has thousands of Living Blood Cells....each one an INDEPENDENT LIFE FORM....as the Human Body is not a single life form but rather a grouping of many, many independent life forms and....IN FACT....NOT ALL LIVING CELLS THAT ARE A PART OF THE HUMAN BODY ARE OF THE SAME SPECIES.....as our Stomachs and Intestines are loaded with various Living Bacteria which without a HUMAN BEING COULD NEITHER EXIST OR SURVIVE.....as without these Bacteria a Human Being could not digest food and excrete waste.

AboveAlpha

 

Innocent people have been convicted and sentenced too. I wonder why that violation of moral principles doesn't bother you?

 

All the meaningless insults in the world do not indicate that I am not right. Because I am. With out the sperm meeting the ovum no live will occur that will make a human being. With out the sperm, the egg will die. Without the egg, the sperm will die and no life will have been created. Until the sperm and the egg meet there is no life. Once they have net, there is no choice but life.

- - - Updated - - -

Progressive leftist bla ditty bla ditty bla. Substantive avoidance syndrome is quite rampant tonight.

 

Maybe then you can spare me any further lectures about the moral high ground since you obviously have no idea where to even look for it.

 

Spare you? It is my sworn duty to enlighten MaO'Bama voters as far as possible. But the depth of ignorance is far beyond initial estimates, both broader and wider than any reasonable effort to overcome is beyond heroic in scope. You are welcome for my undertaking this monumental task for MaO'Bama voter benefit.