What exactly is a "net taxpayer"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.1) I believe only net taxpayers should be able to vote in federal elections. I do not care if that opinion makes me controversial;
See my last post. It's at the end.What exactly is a "net taxpayer"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
So, I gather no Nikki Haley takers here. She'd be, by all accounts and biological studies cited, paralyzed in having to make decisions in the Oval Office.Men upon reading this:
Women upon reading this:
Nobody in here is saying chain women to the bed until they’re pregnant and then chain them to the stove after. I just made a factual statement that our society tries to deny.R.A. Fisher was a pioneer is statistics and genetics and his work was used to justify eugenics.
The question is whether the studying of differences is problematics or is it the intent and use of those findings.
For me, you keep digging a deeper hole. Pretty condescending to tell any human being what "makes them happy," and cap that statement off by suggesting we'd all be better off if we "incentivized" women to stay home. (What form, btw, would your proposed "incentive" take?)Nobody in here is saying chain women to the bed until they’re pregnant and then chain them to the stove after. I just made a factual statement that our society tries to deny.
A big topic in this thread is societal decay and unhappy people. Would it not make sense to incentivize women doing what makes them happy, having a family? Everything starts at home. So wouldn’t a strong family, raised by that family, not strangers, help being down the number of lunatics?
All I hear is “do something!” But when I provide a blueprint, backed by facts, I get nothing but pushback.
It’s not made up science, it’s actually real. Feel free to disprove it.For me, you keep digging a deeper hole. Pretty condescending to tell any human being what "makes them happy," and cap that statement off by suggesting we'd all be better off if we "incentivized" women to stay home. (What form, btw, would your proposed "incentive" take?)
Yeah, I know, it's not you, it's the science (biology) telling us all this, which is sorta rich and ironic given the respect that "science" usually gets from many in this forum.
This is the point that gets lost in the gun debate. That guy is dangerous and was always intent on killing someone. He wasn't going to suddenly become a well adjusted person because it was more difficult to achieve his goal.Someone tried to straight up kill police offers and medical workers in an emergency in Germany.
He build a bomb, called police and the first responders and when they arrived, he detonated the bomb.
No one got killed, but thats just un****ingbelievable...
A Mexican White Supremacist conveniently posts what look like fresh tattoos on an incredibly obscure Russian website and this story gets broken by a CIA op?
Seems reasonable. No need to question anything here.
idiot leftists soon to claim that you can hate white people and still be a white supremacist