"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:Ac9Z8.2824$Fq6.176354 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "Jen Larson" <straycat at udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:3D332AA5.2876A76E at udel.edu...> >
> >
> > John Knight wrote:
> > hope wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I'd let the issue drop at that, except I remember that you're
that
> guy
> > > > > > who believes that the Nineteenth Amendment ought to be repealed,
> women
> > > > > > ought not to have driving privileges nor even be allowed to
attend
> > > > > > college.
> >
> > Yup he is Hope. He is one of the most vile of sexists I've ever seen.
> >
> > > Can you name any way in which women benefitted from any of this?
> >
> > Yup. Women benefitted by being recognized as fully human citizens with
> > the same inalienable rights that men have.
> >
>> And what were you before "feminism" set in--half-humans?
>> The problem with demanding "the same inalienable rights that men have" is
> that you forgot to exercise the responsibilities that go with it, like
> comprehending the US Constitution, and the Second Amendment, and the rest
of
> the Bill of Rights.
>> Another problem is that women are now 11% more of the voters than men, yet
> as a group, they get back more directly from the IRS in tax credits and
> "earned income credit" than they pay in taxes in the first place
>http://christianparty.net/menpy115.htm>> So women are now voting to spend money they never earned, whereas men are
> paying 115% of federal taxes and get outvoted on key issues by women.
The same is true with rich and poor people. You do know that rich people
pay more in taxes than they use, and poor people get more out of it than
they pay.
