Blogs 4 Brownback

June 11, 2007

It’s About the Baby, Stupid

Brownback clarifies what the abortion debate is all about:

“Rape is terrible. Rape is awful,” but rape victims’ rights come secondary to those of an unborn child, GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback said on Saturday.

Campaigning before the National Catholic Men’s Conference, Brownback questioned whether rape victims should get abortions.

“Is (rape) made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that’s been raped?” the Kansas Republican asked at the St. Joseph’s Covenant Keepers gathering.

“We need to protect innocent life. Period,” Brownback said, bringing the crowd of about 500 to its feet.

Brownback also talked about keeping marriage between a man and a woman, saying nations that have allowed same-sex marriages were engaging in bad social experiments, with bad results.

He also encouraged married couples to stay together, saying unspecified studies have shown that if couples weather hard times for five years, their marriages tend to last. After five years, “people are happier than those who have had a divorce,” Brownback said.

There’s a good reason why this man will be our next President. He’s the only candidate who’s not afraid to utter the unpleasant truths that not everyone wants to hear. Abortion is murder. When a woman murders a baby, she should face the same punishments that society metes out to all other baby-murderers. Rape victims should get much lighter sentences, but the bottom line is that a fetus is a living baby.  To permit abortion in the case of rape makes no more sense than to permit abortion in every other circumstance. It’s really as simple as that. Americans may not like that, but they sure do love babies.

Life is a beautiful gift, no matter how horrible the circumstances in which that life began. 30 million lives have been lost to the Roe v. Wade decision. This is the greatest bloodbath in American history, and the moonbats have been behind it every step of the way. Illegalization of infanticide, followed by death sentences for abortion doctors and serial abortion-obtainers, will go a long way toward making this a decent, God-fearing, Christian nation again.

God bless America.

45 Comments »

  1. Excellent post Sisyphus. I think it’s very important to point out that under Sen. Brownback, the state, writ large, would regain its control over women’s bodies that it largely ceded in the past eighty years or so. And that is as it should be. The forces of liberalism and decadent materialism have given so many women the idea that they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want. And that’s just not right. G*d would not have made them as vessels of marital love, did he not intend for them to bear the fruit of that love. I think it’s vital that women again realize that they have an obligation to do exactly what the government (and the Bible) wants, and there’s nobody better than Sen. Brownback to tell them that.

    Comment by Everett Volk — June 11, 2007 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  2. As usual, I agree with Brownback. However, in some cases it may go against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare. Let’s say, for instance, the Dixie Chicks raped Michael Moore, because let’s be honest, card-carrying communists don’t have consensual sex but rape each other like wild baboons. Would it not be in the best interest of our freedom and our theocratic democracy to state-sponsor the forced abortion of their devil child? I agree with Brownback wholeheartedly that abortion is wrong even if a 45 year old man rapes and impregnates a 12 year old girl, but sometimes it is necessary when our entire nation could be in peril.

    Comment by Cletus — June 11, 2007 @ 4:14 pm | Reply

  3. Is Sam Brownback going to increase spending on foster care and federal financial support for poor single moms, introduce stricter laws on child support and ask his followers to be generally nicer to unmarried pregnant women and girls (so they don’t feel pressured into abortions because of the “Oh no, what will people think” factor.)

    Just wonderin’

    Comment by Skeptic — June 11, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  4. “Excellent post Sisyphus. I think it’s very important to point out that under Sen. Brownback, the state, writ large, would regain its control over women’s bodies that it largely ceded in the past eighty years or so. And that is as it should be. The forces of liberalism and decadent materialism have given so many women the idea that they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want. And that’s just not right. G*d would not have made them as vessels of marital love, did he not intend for them to bear the fruit of that love. I think it’s vital that women again realize that they have an obligation to do exactly what the government (and the Bible) wants, and there’s nobody better than Sen. Brownback to tell them that.”

    Exactly. This is also why I think women should be forced to strap their bosoms down in public. Men should not be subject to their vile temptations. A woman who goes out in public without her chest strapped should be subject to criminal penalties. Women who work in fields other than nursing, cleaning, cooking, and housewifery should also face severe punishment- and perhaps I’m not going far enough.

    “Would it not be in the best interest of our freedom and our theocratic democracy to state-sponsor the forced abortion of their devil child? I agree with Brownback wholeheartedly that abortion is wrong even if a 45 year old man rapes and impregnates a 12 year old girl, but sometimes it is necessary when our entire nation could be in peril.”

    No. They should go to prison, but their child should be raised as a ward of the state. If the child misbehaves as an adult, it should then be executed. But life is a gift from God, and is more important even than patriotic Americans’ shared loathing for the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore.

    “Is Sam Brownback going to increase spending on foster care and federal financial support for poor single moms, introduce stricter laws on child support and ask his followers to be generally nicer to unmarried pregnant women and girls (so they don’t feel pressured into abortions because of the “Oh no, what will people think” factor.)”

    I hope not. Taxation is the problem, not the solution. If you want child support payments, your father should perform the traditional shotgun marriage. With the end of legal infanticide and state-sponsored child support, fathers will resume this traditional duty.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  5. “Is Sam Brownback going to increase spending on foster care and federal financial support for poor single moms, introduce stricter laws on child support and ask his followers to be generally nicer to unmarried pregnant women and girls (so they don’t feel pressured into abortions because of the “Oh no, what will people think” factor.)”

    What about taking responsibility for yourself? Sam has confidence that a woman whose been victimized in a brutal attack will know what’s best for herself than any bureaucrat in Washington. That’s why we need laws to stop abortions so she can move forward without her friends and family demanding she murder her baby.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — June 11, 2007 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

  6. And what if the father’s is gone, dead or too poor?
    Shouldn’t the government step in?

    “Exactly. This is also why I think women should be forced to strap their bosoms down in public. Men should not be subject to their vile temptations. A woman who goes out in public without her chest strapped should be subject to criminal penalties.”

    It takes two to tango, remember?
    Should men be prohibited from walking around shirtless, so women won’t be tempted?

    “Women who work in fields other than nursing, cleaning, cooking, and housewifery should also face severe punishment- and perhaps I’m not going far enough.”

    That’s just wrong in so many ways, I know plenty of women who are perfectly capable of working better jobs than that, and it’s good for the economy!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 11, 2007 @ 4:32 pm | Reply

  7. “Rape victims should get much lighter sentences”

    I’m not so sure about this. Lots of women will pretend that they were “raped” in order to get a lighter sentence. Plus, as we all know, even the ones who are genuinely raped bear part of the blame for being raped, in that they dress provocatively, drink liquor, or associate with questionable people. I think giving lighter sentences to these women is a terrible example and will encourage promiscuity. They must take responsibility for their actions.

    Comment by DPS — June 11, 2007 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  8. “And what if the father’s is gone, dead or too poor?
    Shouldn’t the government step in?”

    No.

    “It takes two to tango, remember?
    Should men be prohibited from walking around shirtless, so women won’t be tempted?”

    Women are better able to resist temptation than men, they themselves being Satan’s primary tool of temptation.

    “That’s just wrong in so many ways, I know plenty of women who are perfectly capable of working better jobs than that, and it’s good for the economy!”

    They steal good jobs from the men. Men need work, too!

    “I’m not so sure about this. Lots of women will pretend that they were “raped” in order to get a lighter sentence. Plus, as we all know, even the ones who are genuinely raped bear part of the blame for being raped, in that they dress provocatively, drink liquor, or associate with questionable people. I think giving lighter sentences to these women is a terrible example and will encourage promiscuity. They must take responsibility for their actions.”

    That’s a good point, DPS. I hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps I need to revise my statements a little.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  9. ““Rape victims should get much lighter sentences”

    I’m not so sure about this. Lots of women will pretend that they were “raped” in order to get a lighter sentence. Plus, as we all know, even the ones who are genuinely raped bear part of the blame for being raped, in that they dress provocatively, drink liquor, or associate with questionable people. I think giving lighter sentences to these women is a terrible example and will encourage promiscuity. They must take responsibility for their actions.”

    DPS, you are an evil man, I don’t understand how anyone can be this heartless!

    Comment by Satan — June 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  10. If Satan opposes you, DPS, you must be on to something.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  11. You’re just as bad, Sisy.

    I’ll ask God if he’ll have the two of you butt-raped by a dozen prison-gays, as punishment for your wickedness!

    Comment by Satan — June 11, 2007 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  12. My head is reeling. Are you people for real or is this a parody site?

    Very confusing, so I’ll just back out now…. I don’t think any of you have seen a woman in a while….

    Comment by Paddy — June 11, 2007 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  13. “You’re just as bad, Sisy.”

    Coming from you, that’s a compliment!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  14. I just had a long talk with my wife. We are willing to adopt several rape babies. We already have one snowflake baby as well as a mild frost baby. Don’t ask.

    I am sure Brownback would be in for a half a dozen or so, good Christian that he is. Who else? How about you Mary, DPS, B.J., Everett?

    Comment by ec1009 — June 11, 2007 @ 6:40 pm | Reply

  15. This is really disgusting. All of this talk about what should happen to the women and not a word about what should happen to their rapists. Not even a suggestion that they should be forced to pay child support. Wait, let me guess. If a woman gets raped its HER fault. The guy was just minding his business and when she walked by without her bosoms strapped down he forgot all of the things he learned in church. Is that how it works, Sis?

    Maybe the state should exercise some control over men’s bodies since, according to you, they can’t do it themselves. I recommend some sort of implant surgically attached the genitals that generates a severe electric shock when the man feels “tempted.”

    There you go. No rapes, no abortions. Hey, you could stop pre-maritial sex if men had to show a marriage certificate to get the implant removed. You could stop divorce if he knew he’d have to get the implant re-inserted. You could even give the wife some sort of transmitter so if her husband felt tempted when she wasn’t in the vicinity he’d get a double jolt. That would do away with maritial infidelity.

    So what do you say Sis? We women look to you big strong men to run everything and keep us safe. You and men like Brownback clearly want to crack down on all of the immorality tainting America. If a quick surgery could make America more God-like, wouldn’t you do it? Shouldn’t you do it? Or are you just another sicko who hates his mommy and doesn’t understand why the girls always laugh at him?

    Comment by NOW! — June 11, 2007 @ 8:43 pm | Reply

  16. God wants us to reject temptation through the force of our own willpower and our steadfast faith in his justice. We shouldn’t attempt to force this, lest liberal moonbats fail to reveal their true iniquities, leading to them sneaking into heaven, taking drugs and fornicating with each other, utterly ruining property values near the throne of our Lord.

    However, the rapist be required to help raise the child. Lets remember the damage single mothers can do a child, nearly as great as that which double mothers can do. A child needs a mother AND a father. Without a father present who will teach the child not to be a homosexual liberal serial-killer.

    Comment by Onan — June 12, 2007 @ 5:51 am | Reply

  17. NOW!, your attempt at satire falls flat. You elide the fact that G*d gave Man the natural urge to procreate and Woman the natural urge to stay at home and raise the product of that urge (i.e., babies). Sen. Brownback recognizes that it is not only impossible, but immoral, to attempt to restrain a god-given urge. In his view (and ours!), the only proper thing for a government to do, is to create an environment in which those urges can be fully nurtured. Likewise, it should have policies to combat non-god-given urges.

    Thus, our government should support all men in their urge to procreate. The corrollary, of course, is that the government should have policies to punish men who don’t procreate or pursue other urges. Hence, we should outlaw homosexuality and gay marriage. As Onan well-knows, that’s wasted seed!

    Similarly, government should have policies to promote women’s natural urge to raise children. For example, government should mandate lower wages for women or perhaps even prohibit women from working, so they have less incentive to leave their homes. We should, of course, ban abortion, so malingering women can’t avoid their natural urges. And, finally, once we get more originalist judges in the courts, we should tamp down the fallacious argument once and for all that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to women.

    If Sen. Brownback is elected President in 2012, like he will be in 2008, I think we can feel certain that progressive, pro-family policies like those outlined above will be put in place. And perhaps, for a brief time, G*d-fearing Americans will get a brief respoite from the ceaseless assault of the atheistic, evolution-spouting, helioleftist, elitist liberals.

    Comment by Everett Volk — June 12, 2007 @ 7:37 am | Reply

  18. NOW! is being sarcastic, but I just want to say that I’m not in principle opposed to genital electrocution.

    Comment by DPS — June 12, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  19. “I just had a long talk with my wife. We are willing to adopt several rape babies. We already have one snowflake baby as well as a mild frost baby. Don’t ask.”

    Good for you!

    “Maybe the state should exercise some control over men’s bodies since, according to you, they can’t do it themselves. I recommend some sort of implant surgically attached the genitals that generates a severe electric shock when the man feels “tempted.”

    That would be unConstitutional.

    “There you go. No rapes, no abortions. Hey, you could stop pre-maritial sex if men had to show a marriage certificate to get the implant removed. You could stop divorce if he knew he’d have to get the implant re-inserted. You could even give the wife some sort of transmitter so if her husband felt tempted when she wasn’t in the vicinity he’d get a double jolt. That would do away with maritial infidelity.”

    What are you, some kind of Fascist?

    “So what do you say Sis? We women look to you big strong men to run everything and keep us safe.”

    Good to hear it.

    “You and men like Brownback clearly want to crack down on all of the immorality tainting America. If a quick surgery could make America more God-like, wouldn’t you do it? Shouldn’t you do it? Or are you just another sicko who hates his mommy and doesn’t understand why the girls always laugh at him?”

    Typical Commie ranting. Why do you leftists want to oppress decent Americans?

    “NOW! is being sarcastic, but I just want to say that I’m not in principle opposed to genital electrocution.”

    Neither am I. But there’s a big difference between asking a woman to keep her chest from being seen, and electrocuting every man in America.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 8:55 am | Reply

  20. “If Satan opposes you, DPS, you must be on to something.”

    If even Satan says what you’re doing is wrong, it must be really, really f*cking wrong!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 12, 2007 @ 10:15 am | Reply

  21. “…women should be forced to strap their bosoms down in public. Men should not be subject to their vile temptations. A woman who goes out in public without her chest strapped should be subject to criminal penalties.”

    Don’t forget to add Burqa’s and veils to that list!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 12, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  22. “Don’t forget to add Burqa’s and veils to that list!”

    Those ideas have their merits, but they seem a little bit excessive.

    Did you know that the chador was worn in the time of the Gospel?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

  23. “Did you know that the chador was worn in the time of the Gospel?”

    I do, I also know I’m glad I wasn’t alive back then.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 12, 2007 @ 2:57 pm | Reply

  24. “Those ideas have their merits, but they seem a little bit excessive.”

    But what if her pretty face provokes uncleanly thoughts? Shouldn’t she be made to wear a Burqa so I won’t be tempted?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 12, 2007 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  25. “I do, I also know I’m glad I wasn’t alive back then.”

    Why do you hate Christianity? If you’d been alive back then, you might have seen the miracles of Jesus. Your soul might be saved.

    “But what if her pretty face provokes uncleanly thoughts? Shouldn’t she be made to wear a Burqa so I won’t be tempted?”

    I think wearing a chador and strapping her chest down is enough. Anything more is almost Islamist.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 6:09 pm | Reply

  26. I think we should start by strapping Skeptic’s bosom down.

    Comment by DPS — June 12, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  27. “I think we should start by strapping Skeptic’s bosom down.”

    Skeptic is a woman???

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 6:23 pm | Reply

  28. “Skeptic is a woman???”

    Who knows with these Europeans? She probably doesn’t even know. Or he doesn’t know. Or whatever. I say, strap her just to be safe.

    Comment by DPS — June 12, 2007 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

  29. Never mind. I just read in the other thread that Skeptic is a 180 lb. lesbian, so that settles it.

    Comment by DPS — June 12, 2007 @ 10:46 pm | Reply

  30. All this talk of rapist and women is moot. It clearly states in Deuteronomy what needs to happen in the case of rape.

    If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

    22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

    22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; [there is] in the damsel no sin [worthy] of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so [is] this matter:

    22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.

    22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    It’s either death or marriage for the rapist and victim. Thus any children produced from rape will be well cared for as it states in the bible. Better to kill a fully grown adult than a few undeveloped cells in the womb. It must be this way because the bible say so.

    Let me hear you say: Yeah!

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 13, 2007 @ 8:42 am | Reply

  31. “Skeptic is a woman???”

    No, I’m not you f*ckface, but unlike you Jihadists (I’m sorry if I offended you, but “Jihadist” is the only word that describes you accurately), I respect women (R E S P E C T, look that up in the dictionary.)

    “I think wearing a chador and strapping her chest down is enough. Anything more is almost Islamist.”

    I know, Islamists violate women’s rights, and we wouldn’t want that, now would we?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  32. “…women should be forced to strap their bosoms down in public. Men should not be subject to their vile temptations. A woman who goes out in public without her chest strapped should be subject to criminal penalties.”

    Come buy veils at Abdullah Fabrics, best shop in Tehran!

    We at Abdullah Fabrics have veils in all shapes and sizes!

    Special price for you my American friend: only 5000 rial for you!

    Check our whips also, very good for flogging!

    And remember, you get a free AK47 clip for every 20.000 rial you spend in our shop!

    Comment by Achmed Abdullah — June 13, 2007 @ 11:57 am | Reply

  33. Special offer: burqa’s now 20% off!

    And remember, you get a free AK47 clip for every 20.000 rial you spend in our shop!

    Comment by Achmed Abdullah — June 13, 2007 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  34. Please try to refrain from profanity, Skeptic. My children sometimes read this blog.

    I think that it’s time call for a little more civility on this blog. Why can’t we all just follow Sisyphus’ example of calm, reasoned discourse?

    So here, Skeptic: maybe you’re a woman, maybe you’re not. Whatever you say, I’ll believe. But what’s really important here is the issue of preventing the murder of babies, and I think we can all agree that Senator Brownback is right.

    See how easy it is to be civil when we just put a little effort into it?

    Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 12:11 pm | Reply

  35. “Let me hear you say: Yeah!”

    I agree with the Bible in all things.

    “I think that it’s time call for a little more civility on this blog. Why can’t we all just follow Sisyphus’ example of calm, reasoned discourse?”

    Thank you, DPS! You’re quite civil yourself!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 6:53 pm | Reply

  36. I simply do not know what to say. I don’t.

    Who the HELL are you to tell someone how to live THEIR life? Someone you don’t know?

    “A woman who goes out in public without her chest strapped should be subject to criminal penalties. Women who work in fields other than nursing, cleaning, cooking, and housewifery should also face severe punishment- and perhaps I’m not going far enough.”

    Sisyphus, you are an imbusile. When are you from, the dark ages? What the fuck is up with your head? You need a good smack in the face, and in the pants, because you obviously believe in no women’s rights.

    If you’re married, I feel bad for your wife. I honestly do. Tell her she might be able to get some cream to soothe her whip marks. Oh, wait – maybe she can pick some up on her nursing job, if you let her out of the house.

    Comment by awestruck — June 13, 2007 @ 9:29 pm | Reply

  37. In response to Skeptic statement:

    “That’s just wrong in so many ways, I know plenty of women who are perfectly capable of working better jobs than that, and it’s good for the economy!”

    Actually from economic standpoint it worse for the economy. More workers causes wages to go down and it creates more unemployment. Getting rid of women in the workplace would cause fewer people competing jobs making wages to go up so that a family can live off of one person’s income. Another reason why women should not be in the workplace is that they generally perform at a lower standard than their male counterparts. Males produce a higher quality product than women.

    Comment by BillD — June 13, 2007 @ 10:21 pm | Reply

  38. “Actually from economic standpoint it worse for the economy. More workers causes wages to go down and it creates more unemployment. Getting rid of women in the workplace would cause fewer people competing jobs making wages to go up so that a family can live off of one person’s income. Another reason why women should not be in the workplace is that they generally perform at a lower standard than their male counterparts. Males produce a higher quality product than women.”

    No, more workers mean more salaries, salaries that they want to spend, creating a greater demand.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 14, 2007 @ 7:38 am | Reply

  39. “No, more workers mean more salaries, salaries that they want to spend, creating a greater demand.”

    Yes, there would be salaries but they would be much smaller than if there were fewer workers. Anyway, housewives still create demand even though they don’t make any money. They get money from their husbands to buy goods. Just like kids who aren’t allowed to work still create demand even though they don’t have a salary. Otherwise, with your logic, there would be no toys for kids since there would be no demand for toys because kids don’t have a salary and hence can’t have a demand for anything.

    Comment by BillD — June 14, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  40. “I simply do not know what to say. I don’t.”

    There, there.

    “Who the HELL are you to tell someone how to live THEIR life? Someone you don’t know?”

    A God-fearing Christian. And you?

    “Sisyphus, you are an imbusile.”

    Thanks, I guess.

    “When are you from, the dark ages?”

    The 1970s were a pretty bleak era, yes.

    “What the f-ck is up with your head?”

    Must you pry?

    “You need a good smack in the face, and in the pants, because you obviously believe in no women’s rights.”

    Ah, terrorist threats. When you liberals get down to your core beliefs, it’s really all you have.

    “If you’re married, I feel bad for your wife.”

    No need. She’s quite happy.

    “I honestly do. Tell her she might be able to get some cream to soothe her whip marks.”

    She doesn’t get whipped. She’s a decent woman who knows her place.

    “Oh, wait – maybe she can pick some up on her nursing job, if you let her out of the house.”

    Not even sure what this means.

    “Actually from economic standpoint it worse for the economy. More workers causes wages to go down and it creates more unemployment. Getting rid of women in the workplace would cause fewer people competing jobs making wages to go up so that a family can live off of one person’s income. Another reason why women should not be in the workplace is that they generally perform at a lower standard than their male counterparts. Males produce a higher quality product than women.”

    Those are excellent points, Bill! Thank you!

    “No, more workers mean more salaries, salaries that they want to spend, creating a greater demand.”

    By your non-logical “logic,” Skeptic, we should have universal employment. The 1930s New Deal boondoggles proved to us all how poorly this kind of economic tinkering works in the real world.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 10:43 am | Reply

  41. What can a housewife buy with an allowance of, say 300 dollars a month, and what can a successful businesswoman buy with a salary of, say 6000 dollars a month?

    Salaries didn’t drop since women started working, now did they?

    The more people contribute to society, the larger the economy becomes, it’s that simple!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 14, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  42. “What can a housewife buy with an allowance of, say 300 dollars a month, and what can a successful businesswoman buy with a salary of, say 6000 dollars a month?”

    The housewife will buy more. Trust me. I know women.

    “Salaries didn’t drop since women started working, now did they?”

    Adjusting for inflation, yes.

    “The more people contribute to society, the larger the economy becomes, it’s that simple!”

    Rubbish. Free enterprise, coupled with fewer salaries, are the recipe for economic growth. Ask any economist who didn’t get his degree from Moonbat U., and they’ll all give you that answer.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  43. So by your reasoning, a nation’s economy will shrink as its population grows…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 14, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  44. “So by your reasoning, a nation’s economy will shrink as its population grows…”

    Only if the women work and the businessmen grow poorer. Fortunately, capitalists grow wealthier as the population grows, and they’re able to hire more men at higher salaries.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 1:20 pm | Reply

  45. This is the scariest thing I’ve ever read.

    Comment by Dr. M — July 26, 2007 @ 8:56 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: