Women & government
A f
We (men) cannot continue to be afraid of what a female dominated government and policy might look like. Kevin Cos
This letter has not been edited.
One can hope your vote will be in vain. Speaking of vanity………
Posted by kobetabber on August 11, 2007 05:28 PMGrant-
Holy crap, this is going to be good.
You've done it now.
Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Scorned.
Also,your glaring male chauvinistic attitude greatly clashes with your loony left politics.
And quoting Kevin Costner?
Whats with that?
Grant, did your wife write this for you??? Go put your apron on and get busy with the dishes and vacuuming.
Posted by clyde on August 11, 2007 11:05 PMHA HA HA !!! What a farce. Grant, you have to be joking. You base your desire for a woman-controlled government on how you have been spoiled by them???
Perhaps you would like a dog for vice president since they have been man's best friend???
What a prime example of genderbaiting. If any of us men don’t vote for Hillary, than we must be afraid of strong woman? Well, Grant, I’ll never vote for a Democrat, I’ll never vote for anybody with a last name Clinton, and I’ll definitely will never vote for somebody who suddenly overdoes and fakes a southern accent to try to paddle for black votes, that was disgusting and racist. I will vote for anyone else who closest shares my views. Hillary is far from it, and it has nothing to do with her gender.
Posted by Uno on August 12, 2007 12:38 AMUno,
But you probably did vote for someone who got their daddy to get them into the national guard so they wouldn't have to be sent to Vietnam and then copped out on that by going AWOL.
And you probably did vote for that same man who drove numerous businesses into the ground including an oil business founded with money he recieved from the bin Laden family.
And you probably did vote a second time for this man after all his talk about WMDs turned out to be blatant lies.
So, go ahead and make your pathetic little list of who and why you won't vote for. We don't care. That you would vote for, support and defend someone as vile and dishonest
as the current president says all we need to know about your intelligence and integrity....or more to the point, the complete lack of both.
Grant probably pees sitting down.
Posted by Gloria Steinem on August 12, 2007 07:12 AMhey thomas are really telling us all about the clinton years? remember that guy didnt even know the meaning of 'is'.
if the oil industry is in the tank as you think why are all of the dumocrats so upset that they report profits and hillary wants to take them away to fund a social program to take care of you and grant?
Think the nation is divided now? Elect Hillary and the government will be instantly irrelevent - even more than now! There was a Congressional revolution in November - and Congress' ratings are in the toilet and it took the largest grassroots effort EVER to get the idiots to vote down the Amnesty Bill. Hillary is endorsed by the most hate-filled organization in the country - NOW. The Democrats will be unable to initiate ANY of their socialist agenda - Hillary will ensure complete and total resistance. The Democrats elected in the last election were mainstream Americans, not the radical Leftists that are leading the party - they will NOT support an anti-citizen agenda.
Posted by RS on August 12, 2007 08:16 AMThomas, yes I did, and it was a better choice than that gigolo with the fake wife, by far.
“So, go ahead and make your pathetic little list of who and why you won't vote for. We don't care.” – Yeah, right, I’m sure you didn’t care in the last two presidential elections either!
“And you probably did vote a second time for this man after all his talk about WMDs turned out to be blatant lies.” – blatant lies? By who’s account Thomas, yours? You choose to ignore the facts and call others liars, in what way would that make you telling the truth? Ignorance doesn’t make you right in any way, shape or form.
You label a politician dishonest? LOL, that’s really brilliant Thomas, are you really that naïve? The most straight-forward politician I know of is Alan Keyes, and I bet you hate the guy (if you even know who he is), so there goes the honesty issue.
And Thomas, on your pet project of gay marriage, which Dem presidential front runner do you favor?
I like Norway and I have liked every Norwegian I have ever met - not many though, unfortunately. They may indeed all be very bright, educated, well informed, and beautiful too. But when was the last time Norway took the lead on any global issue of any importance? I am always very suspect when anyone compares America to Europe and Europe comes out on top - especially when they come from Boulder. That might be prejudiced, but it is what it is. When Norway and Europe take ownership of their own continental security, military, and safety issues that do not depend on 300,000 US soldiers based in the heart of their world and the untold BILLIONS that we spend there so they can be so "beautiful AND extremely well informed as is the general population" then I will take them a bit more seriously on matters that relate to global importance and US foreign policy.
Posted by Michael on August 12, 2007 10:38 AMThe Hildabeast is a woman??? no way. I had no idea. Tell ya what sport. I wont vote for her cuz she is an avowed socialist. There, no gender bashing at all, pure anti-socialist here.
The Hildabeast is a woman??? no way. I had no idea. Tell ya what sport. I wont vote for her cuz she is an avowed socialist. There, no gender bashing at all, pure anti-socialist here.
Michael got a little carried away with his 300,000 U.S. troops based in the heart of Europe. From Wikipedia:
As of 2005, the United States occupied over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[5] Some of the largest contingents are:
Germany 64,319
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 33,453
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 29,086
Italy 10,449
United Kingdom 10,331
But Michael seems to think that we have troops there out of the goodness of our heart. Of course, we have troops there for a number of reasons, but that is not one of them. I presume the principle one is that we think that is the best way to protect the United States. Let's see now: we sent troops to Iraq so we wouldn't have a mushroom cloud where?
"But when was the last time Norway took the lead on any global issue of any importance?"
Hmmm, the United States sure took the global lead on creating the Iraq fiasco. Maybe we should have listened to Norway.
Posted by Truth on August 12, 2007 01:51 PMWhen I was in Guatemala caring for all the indigent children there (well, I may have missed a few), I recall seeing these posters of activist women doing their thing. The caption, in Spanish, read something like: "If there is to be peace, the women must make it happen". I believe there is much to be said for that.
Now, please go ahead with your pathetic and infantile name calling.
Posted by Truth on August 12, 2007 02:00 PMThe US is more than ready for either a woman or minority president. What we need is an effective president who will actually have the best interest of the country, not partisan politics nor an abstract construct of an idealistic world, as their primary area of concentration and effort.
While I personally haven't identified the person that I feel comes the closest to this yet, I don't believe we can either exclude from consideration, nor vote for, any individual based on party affiliation, gender or ethnic background. Voting based on labels rather than individual characteristics which include past accomplishments, established priorities and realistic goals will only give us what we've had to settle for the last several elections -- the lesser of two evils by perception and more do-little government.
Posted by Trinity on August 12, 2007 03:14 PMHere. Looks like the Democrats are fully united and ready for a woman president.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/12/democrats-worry-clinton-could-hurt-party/
This is CNN, so you guys can’t complain about this being right wing propaganda.
Truth Siiiigggghhhhhh. You use 2005 figures from "Wikapedia". Michael used no date. A few years ago there were millions of U.S. troops in Europe. One purpose was so we do not have to fight here. All of the reasons were for Americans' interest and safety, AS IT SHOULD BE! This is also of paramont importance to our foreign policy anywhere. We need a military to protect America and our interests and the best way to do that is to have the enevitable battles somewhere else.
Are you intimating we should stay out of foreign affairs? Fine, I like it. Isolationism, yes...if only we could. Problem is, people will not let us alone, and they keep asking for our help. What's an isolationist to do?
And who called you any names?
Guatamala caring for indigent kids, huh? Where at Antigua? with the Baby boom hippies. What group, the one I read about today that was Selling babies?
AF
Truth did you know , Wikapedia information is not always correct?
It has been changed in the past and is no longer the best source for true information.
I think you better find a different source that cannot be compromised.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 13, 2007 08:40 AMAmen, did you know that nobody is always correct, and that very definitely includes you? Don't give me broad generalizations; tell me specifically where it is incorrect.
If I were to criticize your posts with the statement that you were not always correct, that would be meaningless. The same goes for your statement.
Posted by Truth on August 13, 2007 09:46 AMOnly Truth is always correct because he is a lib and libs are always right.
Posted by on August 13, 2007 11:41 AMLooking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination — despite privately held fears.
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."
"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."
Posted by on August 13, 2007 03:11 PMCIgaAmen: Trying to argue with "truth" is like trying to clean up after an elephant with diarrhea; the more sh** you clean up, the emotionally biased sh** he'll dump on you. It's bad enough reading his "point of view" on anything -- arguing with it is futile.
Posted by on August 13, 2007 03:15 PMMost of the fear of Hillary is generated by the Republicans . Other than her failed health care proposals, she has done little to generate this fear.
She defended and stood by her man, how dammed Democratic was that? No good Republican woman would stay with a womanizer unless, she also wants to be president some day.
Fear of Hillary is based upon her being a "socialist" another name tied to her by the Republicans.
Both Nancy Pelosi and Hillary are probably fine, decent women with some good ideas about government.
I am not happy with Hillary or any other Dem who voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq if he so chose, but that is not enough to keep me from voting for them in the future since their philosophy of life and government matches mine.
Little boys are always afraid of strong women, but the women of this country who fear Hillary because of what their men say, need to look at her as if no one had discussed her before. Look for themselves.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 13, 2007 08:45 PM03:15PM: are we just a bit frustrated this afternoon? Maybe a good night's sleep will put you in a better mood. But would you please have your wife put the dog outside when you get home? He had nothing to do with it.
Posted by Truth on August 13, 2007 08:48 PMsharon b.,no such thing as a strong woman.grant ,get your sex change operation.
Posted by Keith on August 14, 2007 11:45 AMsharon b.,no such thing as a strong woman.grant ,get your sex change operation.
Posted by Keith on August 14, 2007 11:45 AMKeith, hello I thought you were going to ingore me forever. What is a woman.grant?
Do you have one?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 14, 2007 10:08 PMOMG Grant........
you have BIG balls for being able to talk about women, even EUROPEAN women with intelligence.......
US is still in the dark ages of macho vs. reality..........and do not for one second think as a woman I mean Hillary..
what I do mean is gentlemen, cool your jets, all of us who bring life into the world are getting a lot weary of using them for target practice.........
perhaps a thousand years of peace would wear out the soldiers/priests and misogynists.
Posted by janis houston on August 15, 2007 09:28 PMOMG Grant........
you have BIG balls for being able to talk about women, even EUROPEAN women with intelligence.......
US is still in the dark ages of macho vs. reality..........and do not for one second think as a woman I mean Hillary..
what I do mean is gentlemen, cool your jets, all of us who bring life into the world are getting a lot weary of using them for target practice.........
perhaps a thousand years of peace would wear out the soldiers/priests and misogynists.
Posted by janis houston on August 15, 2007 09:28 PM