All women will vote for Romney. Also, Obama is a girl.

That might just be the most rediculous article I've ever read. Also, he failed to mention that the reason for the massive Romney clan probably has more to do with his Mormon lineage than anything else. When Mormons were told by their prophet to go forth and replenish the earth, some LDS families thought they could pull it off single-handedly.

The Puritans were right: The Devil does make work for idle hands. Kevin D. Williamson should be given something useful to do, like take out the trash or scrape the old paint off my house. With a butter knife and a toothbrush. That should keep him out of trouble -- and away from a keyboard.

I read the entire thing. It is rather goofy.

Some Occupy Wall Street types, believing it to be the height of wit, have begun to spell Romney’s name “Rmoney.” But Romney can do better than that — put it in all caps: R-MONEY. Jay-Z can keep his puny little lowercase letters and the Maybach: R-MONEY doesn’t own a flashy car with rims, R-MONEY does billion-dollar deals with Keystone Automotive and Delphi. You want to make it rain? R-MONEY is going to make it storm, like biblical. Rappers boast about their fat stacks: R-MONEY’s fat stacks live in a beachfront house of their own in the Hamptons, and the bricks in that house are made from tightly bound hundred-dollar bills. You have a ton of money? R-MONEY has 200 metric tons of money if he decides to keep it in cash.

Click to expand...

What.

...and to think, when I posted this picture the first time I thought of it as an embarrassing gaffe on his part. Little did I suspect it was part of his master plan!

This whole election is like watching a British comedy sketch show. Half of it is really hilarious, and the other half would probably be equally hilarious if I knew what the hell they were talking about.

DarthPanda said:

This whole election is like watching a British comedy sketch show. Half of it is really hilarious, and the other half would probably be equally hilarious if I knew what the hell they were talking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I was reminded of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnRRW2gINw

That made the world a little bit brighter.

<3 Sarah

Don said:

Click to expand...

That image shows both his priorities and the results of the current edumacation system.

Kaiser-Kun said:

That image shows both his priorities and the results of the current edumacation system.

Click to expand...

Or it could have been a simple mistake where two of the dumbass kids putting on the wrong shirts.

jmare said:

Or it could have been a simple mistake where two of the dumbass kids putting on the wrong shirts.

Click to expand...

And no one checked? At all?

Kaiser-Kun said:

That image shows both his priorities and the results of the current edumacation system.

Click to expand...

jmare said:

Or it could have been a simple mistake where two of the dumbass kids putting on the wrong shirts.

Click to expand...

icerose said:

And no one checked? At all?

Click to expand...

Maybe that's how his name is spelled in Amercia.

Or they may have just stood in the wrong place and someone snapped a picture before they had a chance to correct it.

These things can happen to anyone.

icerose said:

And no one checked? At all?

Click to expand...

Well, I assumed the shirts were on the wrong kids as they were ordered tallest to shortest, but my assumption could be wrong. Who knows?

jmare said:

Well, I assumed the shirts were on the wrong kids as they were ordered tallest to shortest, but my assumption could be wrong. Who knows?

Click to expand...

The two kids with the O and the M are pretty much the same height.

Kevin D. Williamson said:

Elections are not about public policy. They aren’t even about the economy. Elections are tribal, and tribes are ruthlessly hierarchical. Somebody has to be the top dog.

Click to expand...

Idiot.

kayleamay said:

When Mormons were told by their prophet to go forth and replenish the earth, some LDS families thought they could pull it off single-handedly.

Click to expand...

Well . . . not exactly handedly. That doesn't work very well, and is a serious sin, besides.

caw

But back to the OP...
As a woman, once young - now, not so much - I was never attracted to men of wealth, power, prestige. Even when I was bright eyed and perky I saw those types of men as pompous, self absorbed, assholes, who used woman as arm candy at best.

Williamson obvious sees himself as God's gift to wisdom and woman kind. He thinks he knows what all women want.
I, as submissive female obviously want strong, brute man to take care of me. Jerk

Nekko said:

Williamson obvious sees himself as God's gift to wisdom and woman kind. He thinks he knows what all women want.

Click to expand...

The feeling I got reading the article was that Romney's power, prestige and throbbing wad of cash had Williamson wanting to mate with him.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard said:

The feeling I got reading the article was that Romney's power, prestige and throbbing wad of cash had Williamson wanting to mate with him.

Click to expand...

The submissive nature of many people calling themselves 'conservatives' while constantly going on and on about 'freedom' and 'individuality' is an endless source of amusement to me.

If Romney's status is so much higher than Obama's now, becoming president would be a huge step down for him. So why is he even running?

And I'm still trying to figure out what Gwyneth Paltrow has to do with it.

Romantic Heretic said:

The submissive nature of many people calling themselves 'conservatives' while constantly going on and on about 'freedom' and 'individuality' is an endless source of amusement to me.

Click to expand...

Yep, the hypocrisy is ridiculous. At least liberals make no bones about their willingness to submit to the state for the good of all, and to require everyone else to do the same. Give me an honest enemy over a dishonest "friend" any day of the week.

We drove through Vail last year, and noticed a preponderance of female children. Not exactly scientific, but my husband and I did our best to see if our impression actually held up, by competing to see which of us could count the most kids (people young enough to have been brought there by their parents/with their parents, so as not to count folks there of their own volition, which could be slanted toward one particular gender due to Vail being primarily a sporting hub) of each sort. I believe I got females.

At the end of the day, females were ahead by a decent margin, something like 60 females to 50 males.

Not rigorous, of course, but it's what we could do on the spur of the moment while chasing our own two kids. (And certainly better than just analyzing Romney's brood.)

Now, maybe in the world of the billionaires, the skew is different. But we definitely observed that the rich had far more girls (while our middle-class neighborhood back in Denver was predominantly male.)

The National Review? We used to be allowed to use them as a source in my poli-sci degree. I take it that wouldn't be true now. What an amazingly crap article.


The male offspring thing in animals may be interesting, though. Usually nature provides for more chances of a male offspring in mammals because they tend to die more frequently in utero or as preemies. More chances ends up having a good balance between surviving males and females. With a high status animal (meh, I didn't look it up. Would that mean very healthy?) the extra health of the mother may end up with more surviving male offspring. Just a thought. In any case, that's the only part of the article that didn't kinda hurt my head

little_e said:

We drove through Vail last year, and noticed a preponderance of female children. Not exactly scientific, but my husband and I did our best to see if our impression actually held up, by competing to see which of us could count the most kids (people young enough to have been brought there by their parents/with their parents, so as not to count folks there of their own volition, which could be slanted toward one particular gender due to Vail being primarily a sporting hub) of each sort. I believe I got females.

At the end of the day, females were ahead by a decent margin, something like 60 females to 50 males.

Not rigorous, of course, but it's what we could do on the spur of the moment while chasing our own two kids. (And certainly better than just analyzing Romney's brood.)

Now, maybe in the world of the billionaires, the skew is different. But we definitely observed that the rich had far more girls (while our middle-class neighborhood back in Denver was predominantly male.)

Click to expand...

Here's one possibility:

The past 30 years worth of births in the industrialized nations of the world have been skewing progressively more and more toward higher female births and lower male births. Now, the decline in male births hasn't been DRAMATIC. Only micro-percentage points. Something like this (and I am pulling these numbers out of my ass)

1980 Females born = 50.019 %
1980 Males born = 49.981%

1981 Females born = 50.105%
1981 Males born = 49.89%

1982 Females born = 50.237%
1982 Males born = 49.721%

So the decline in males born vs. females born is show to be a very miniscule creep. But the alarming fact here is that the creep has been STEADY and PROGRESSIVE over the course of 30 years (from 1980 through 2010), and shows no sign of stopping.

Ten years ago, some scientist dude realized the trend (he was examining 20 years of European and American and Japanese birth data from 1980 to 2000) and he went to the CDC and the WHO and petitioned both organizations to take the trend seriosuly and have it labeled a "Sentinal Level Health Indicater." (Which would mean it would get labeled as something that needs to be watched closely. There are other health indicators -- such as an "Extinction Level Health Indicter" is exactly what it sounds like, one capable of wiping out the human race. But he wasn't petitioning for THAT level, only the "Sentinal Level." His petition was turned down.)

Since then, a Canadian film production company did a documentary called The Disappearing Male, laying out the particulars of this disturbing trend.

Video Part 1 of 3
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/the-disappearing-male-part-1/KKdk64mhc83WPwAGtVDCdg

Video Part 2 of 3
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=9230BL...ZSrOtv04bDSY4MuSVteCgospq1ptYv0D6p4qR-oeQPF7o

Video Part 3 of 3
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=jiPzeE...Xt1lopwhpNrlszS_EqBkWsEj28yDaxqxXdzqrtFYsoZHM



The possibility suggested in the film is that due to elevated levels of environmental pollution in these industrialized nations, coupled with the additional gestational steps needed for a male fetus to form vs. the less complex steps for a female fetus to form, it is possible that the "more delicate" male fetuses are experiencing some sort of gestational interferences that the female fetuses are better able to weather, and so the male ones are miscarrying more frequently than female ones, resulting in lower male birth rates. It is further suggested that many of these miscarriages are happening during the first 4 to 8 weeks of pregnancy, when a lot of women still don't even know they are pregenant, and when those very special gestational steps need to happen to make a fetus into a male. So it's possible that these miscarriages are happenning all the time and no one --not even the miscarrying mothers-- realize it.

So .... maybe THAT is part of the answer to your cross-country "punch buggy" survey of spotting boys vs. girls