- Special tax to fund war not necessary
- More ID requirements for voting is wrong
- Blackwater scandal
- Fighting air congestion
- Death toll in Iraq down
- Moveon.org’s ad
- Biofuels policy & legislation
- Take responsibility for your actions
- You need to pass to move on
- Too much hoopla over voting ID requirements
We will never know the impact of war
This letter has not been edited.
Maybe one of the unborn children or grandchildren of the casulties would become the next Hitler and perpetuate terrible attocities on human kind. Then what....
We will never know...and shouldn't really spend a whole lot of time wondering what if...
Just keeping hating your so called "Texan" and wondering "what if"
Posted by Justice4All on October 11, 2007 02:47 PMAnd just think of the 20 million lives saved because a nuke didn't go off in NYC.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 02:52 PMI just gave birth to another "Texan"...Dropped him off at the pool.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 03:06 PMwhat about all that were lost because of WWII.
you are a great example of stupidity chuck.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 03:23 PMA leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John Kerry
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."--Al Gore
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."-- Al Gore
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --Bill Clinton
Posted by on October 11, 2007 03:25 PMAnother Hitler? well at least its not another Bush or Cheney!
Posted by TJ on October 11, 2007 04:04 PMall of you are idiots!
Posted by Fresh on October 11, 2007 04:12 PMWe create more terrorist, either drop a bio-bomb or quit buying oil from the mid east and watch them starve! Thats the only way to win!
Posted by TJ on October 11, 2007 04:12 PMKeep playing the "You all are idiots" song Fresh.
I'm not totally bored with it yet, just slightly bored............
Posted by Heather on October 11, 2007 05:00 PMIf Thomas Jefferson and company had played the "What if" game over 200 years ago, I'm pretty sure we'd still be subservient to England.
Live in the now because yesterday is over and tomorrow is no guarantee period...............
Posted by Heather on October 11, 2007 05:04 PMDear Jesus, save us from your followers. I can really smell that sulphur.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 11, 2007 06:11 PM"And just think of the 20 million lives saved because a nuke didn't go off in NYC"
Think about it. No nukes went off in NYC during any other president's term, yet no one kept shouting about it. You thnk islamo-psychos didn't want to blow up NYC in the 70's, 80's and 90's? Maybe we should hang a big sign like the safetry posters in factories at the bridges and tunnels into New York: "100 nuclear-explosion-free days" and increment it as needed.
Posted by Mac on October 11, 2007 07:09 PMNice letter Chuck. So many lives lost and we haven't even defined our mission or exactly what constitues success.
3,000 American lives lost on 9/11 and almost 4,000 in Iraq so far. Bin Laden must be celebrating. I wonder if he ever thought that his actions would cause us to sacrifice so many of our own.
Posted by Michael R on October 11, 2007 10:21 PMHey Chuck, Go Nuts 1,000,000 butched in Rwanda. ( In 100 days! ) Now try "What if"
But good news, not one American killed.
What if you weren't such an idiot
mac they were working up to the nuke ny but when they found out that Bush pushes back, and not with a stern look on his face saying he would not stand for it, they have all run to hide in holes and have their morons blow themselves up for the cause.
they do need some more people who hate the US so if you would like a temp job I know where you can get one.
John II. Right on. Let's just kick ass, kill everyone and then ask questions later. We are the only rightious people on earth. Only Americans ( white christian americans that is) are the only true human race, all others must be destroyed because they are inferior to us! Sieg Heil Sieg Heil Mein JohnII!!!!!
Posted by Keith on October 12, 2007 06:51 AMWell! Now we know.
John 2s mean old Mommy told him to come inside when it got dark; made him pick up his toys; and sent him to bed, without letting him stay up for the Late Late Show on TV.
Just goes to show ya! Doesn't it?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 12, 2007 08:10 AMWe know one thing for damn sure. There has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since President Bush declared war on terrorism.
Posted by on October 12, 2007 08:13 AM"Well! Now we know.
John 2s mean old Mommy told him to come inside when it got dark; made him pick up his toys; and sent him to bed, without letting him stay up for the Late Late Show on TV.
Just goes to show ya! Doesn't it?"
Are we ever going to see a post with a valid point contained within at some point, Old Fool? Or just more of your "clever" wit?
Posted by on October 12, 2007 08:17 AMAnonymous,
You said "...they do need some more people who hate the US so if you would like a temp job I know where you can get one.."
Well, thanks for offering to give me a recommendation with your employers, but I think it would go against my oath of enlistment.
Don't worry, though, - we'll find you guys hiding in your Pakistani caves eventually when we stop wasting time, money and soldiers i Iraq.
I'm with Mac. Lets nuke pakistan.
Posted by KW on October 12, 2007 09:02 AMJohn II-
If kissing Bush's posterior at every turn and echoing the propaganda put forth by Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter (What have done for their country, by the way? What wars did they serve in? What war did you serve in?) is the way to achieve masculinty, then the male species is in sorry shape.
All I know is this:
Kerry, Murtha- Combat action
Cheney- 5 Deferments
Bush- Champaign Unit- ANG
Hannity- No service
Limbaugh- No service
Coulter- No service
Feel free to disagree with Kerry, Murtha, etc., but don't question their manhood, especially since your heroes are clearly the lesser manly of the bunch.
Okay BO, lets use your reasoning and listen to a Senator who served.
John Kerry:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Problem solved... Next.
Posted by KW on October 12, 2007 09:08 AMHere I am, cheeks a flexin'
Giving birth to another Texan
Liberalism is the enemy of masculinity and freedom.
Posted by John II
Double John loves the masculinity. Sounds like he is a little light in the loafers to me
Posted by It's True on October 12, 2007 09:15 AMJohn II says:
"Liberalism is the enemy of masculinity and freedom."
I guess Bush , Cheney, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, O'reilly, Gingrich, Hannity, DeLay, Rove & all the other Cons who got us into this war & are cheerleading it are "masculine?" So presumably your example of "masculine" is a cowardly chickenhawk who slinks off like a yellow cur when he has the opportunity to serve this country in combat?
I assume you're just as "masculine" as them.
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 09:26 AMchuckie,Another liberal idiot.
Posted by Keith on October 12, 2007 09:49 AMREFUSING TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY is the enemy of masculinity and freedom.
REFUSING TO QUESTION is the enemy of masculinity and freedom.
REFUSING TO GO AGAINST THE CROWD is the enemy of masculinity and freedom
REFUSING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT is the enemy of masculinity and freedom
REFUSING TO SPEAK OUT FOR FEAR OF BEING BRANDED "DIFFERENT" is the enemy of masculinity and freedom.
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 09:52 AMBy the way, "masculinity" and "freedom" don't necessarily go together - I just liked the way the phrases turned. I'm not quite as obsessed with the masculinity as some here.
I know plenty of women who believe in freedom, who live it and defend it, and believe me, I am glad they are not masculine!
Add Mac to that list of liberal idiots...
Posted by on October 12, 2007 10:00 AMI suggest you go live in the middle east then complain! Right you can not go there they would stone or behead you for your speech. I am tired of these so called what if's. How about what if the south won or what if Hitler had the bomb or maybe what if the united states fell to Russia or maybe what if a democrate became president. Enough go live somewhere in the woods and eat berries.
Posted by Joseph V. Seifert Jr on October 12, 2007 10:30 AMSo, are you saying refusing to serve IS masculine? Hmmm. Or thinking for yourself is NOT masculine? I'm not sure I'm getting your point - except for the insult, but that was fairly simple-minded.
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 10:37 AMMac said:
"REFUSING TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY is the enemy of masculinity and freedom."
How about the dim-witted yet always smiling Nancy Pelosi?
"REFUSING TO QUESTION is the enemy of masculinity and freedom."
That was a fragment sentence. Refusing to question what?
"REFUSING TO GO AGAINST THE CROWD is the enemy of masculinity and freedom"
"The crowd" is against the war in Iraq. Democrats promise anything that sounds good to the government-educated public. I, Hillary Clinton, will give everyone five thousand dollars.
"REFUSING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT is the enemy of masculinity and freedom"
True. Conservatives stand up to Islam. Liberals cower to it.
"REFUSING TO SPEAK OUT FOR FEAR OF BEING BRANDED "DIFFERENT" is the enemy of masculinity and freedom."
??
"By the way, "masculinity" and "freedom" don't necessarily go together "
Sure they do. The current batch of female morons in office lack knowledge of basic economics, history, and warfare. Because of this lack of knowledge, everything they propose is more government control, retreat and constitutional ignorance. Women, by and large, comprise the New Socialism movement. Weak and pathetic men like Harry Reid are just going along for the ride.
Every nanny-like program that women favor reduces our freedom.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 10:40 AMJohn II:
"The current batch of female morons in office lack knowledge of basic economics, history, and warfare..."
That's funny - coming from someone whose idol (WBush) got us into the biggest disaster in the history of US foreign policy because he & his lackeys are ignorant of the most basic history of the middle east.
Funny how people like John II are always throwing phrases around like "dim-witted" and "morons", yet they bow down to the biggest imbecile ever to have disgraced the office of the US Presidency.
Go see a psychiatrist, John II and get a handle on your rage issues against women. Did mommy spank you too hard when you were little? Poor little diddums!
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 10:53 AMBy the way, I don't care if you label me a misogynist. I am not one. I merely have the courage to say what many people think.
If women are going to throw themselves into the political arena, they are no longer infallible. If women, by and large, are aligning themselves with socialistic endeavors, non-socialists have a right to point this out just like we point out that most terrorists are Muslims.
The facts that a moron like Nancy Pelosi could become Speak of the House and a radical socialist demagogue like Hillary Clinton is the leading Democrat presidential candidate are proof that we need some kind of civics test before allowing any idiot over 18 to cast a vote.
Furthermore, why does an 18 year old teenager get to cancel out the vote of an educated adult? We can't even trust 18 year old's to drink responsibly; why should they get to choose our leaders?
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 10:57 AMdrew,
President Bush is not my idol. Although, I'm grateful for the tax cuts and judicial appointments, his immigration policies and spending habits bother me. He is not a true conservative. I'm looking forward to President Mitt Romney.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 11:01 AMJohn II,
OK - Mitt really embraced the gay community when he was governor of Mass. Now that he wants your vote, he's dead against gay marriage & other issues. So is he a "true conservative" or just a flip-flopper? If Hillary's a "demagogue" then what is old Mitty?
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 11:14 AM"REFUSING TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY is the enemy of masculinity and freedom.
How about the dim-witted yet always smiling Nancy Pelosi?"
She should have served, of course.
"REFUSING TO QUESTION is the enemy of masculinity and freedom.
That was a fragment sentence. Refusing to question what?"
Anything that looks wrong to you. I thought it was obvious, but the meaning was "Don't believe everything you hear."
"REFUSING TO GO AGAINST THE CROWD is the enemy of masculinity and freedom
"The crowd" is against the war in Iraq. Democrats promise anything that sounds good to the government-educated public."
I didn't say anything about the war in this paragraph. But if you want to go that way, it seems to me that the crowd supported the war before it was screwed up. Maybe that was the time to go against the crowd. And I prefer "television-educated public".
"REFUSING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT is the enemy of masculinity and freedom
True. Conservatives stand up to Islam. Liberals cower to it."
Really? First, how can you either stand up to OR cower from a religion. That's like cowering from Presbyterianism. Second, I'm not conservative, but I favor taking out our enemies - the Taliban, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. And doing it with a military force that is sufficient for the task and properly supported. What I don't favor is war for profit.
"REFUSING TO SPEAK OUT FOR FEAR OF BEING BRANDED "DIFFERENT" is the enemy of masculinity and freedom."
You're right - this is basically the same as the "against the crowd" line. I should have edited better.
"By the way, "masculinity" and "freedom" don't necessarily go together
Sure they do...Women, by and large, comprise the New Socialism movement."
Here's one of your "female morons" - think she'd agree with you?
'Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester fought her way through an enemy ambush south of Baghdad, killing three insurgents with her M-4 rifle to save fellow soldiers' lives -- and yesterday became the first woman since World War II to win the Silver Star medal for valor in combat.'
John II said:
"Furthermore, why does an 18 year old teenager get to cancel out the vote of an educated adult? We can't even trust 18 year old's to drink responsibly; why should they get to choose our leaders?"
Because some of them are doing the hard work against terrorism instead of you?
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 11:28 AMCorrection: I should have said "instead of you and me" in that last post because I did my time long long ago in the cold war.
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 11:32 AM"Because some of them are doing the hard work against terrorism instead of you?"
Hard work does not equal knowledge of national government policy.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 11:35 AMLast time I looked, Military service isn't a requirement needed to hold ANY political office. Nor does Military experience make you an expert in all things Military. Give me General Pateraus' knowledge and experience over John "Beetle Bailey" Kerry's any day.
We still have an all volunteer armed services, you have just as much right to choose not to serve as those who do choose to serve. However when you do choose to serve, you do so with the knowledge that odds are more than likely you'll have to go into harms way. And the person that decides that is the President of the United States. Congress has the power to "fund" and "authorize" Military action but only the President can send the troops into action.
So if the Dems are truly serious about ending the war all they have to do is not sign the check. It's just that simple. Something they boast so mightily about doing, but don't have the guts to actually do.
Posted by on October 12, 2007 11:44 AMJohn II:
Some days you sound somewhat rational and then you have days like these where you sound a bit fruity loops.
What gives? Were your pearls not received with proper humility by some swine that you're "romancing"?
Posted by Charles B. on October 12, 2007 11:45 AM"Hard work does not equal knowledge of national government policy."
Neither does typing on the RMN site.
Still, do you think we should not allow 18 year olds to serve in the military?
Hey Doc, how are you going to fix the 'Flux-Capacitor'?
Don't worry Marty, I have a plan.
"So if the Dems are truly serious about ending the war all they have to do is not sign the check. It's just that simple. Something they boast so mightily about doing, but don't have the guts to actually do"
Among the MANY things they don't have the guts to do.
Posted by on October 12, 2007 12:07 PMdrew
You're a prime example of liberal effemminate men in the ranks of the liberals.
The democratic party has been hijacked by feminists, lesbians and girly men such as yourself. Your Queen Hillary Clinton is proof of that and even she has more testosterone than you.
So then it would be the dems fault for leaving troops out in the field and not getting paid right?
Posted by Larry on October 12, 2007 12:18 PM"Last time I looked, Military service isn't a requirement needed to hold ANY political office. Nor does Military experience make you an expert in all things Military..."
True. But having served (especially in war, I would think) gives one a different perspective on the seriousness of sending live human biengs into harm's way. My problem with the chickenhawks is that they seem to see the military as a chess set they can play with. Well, in this game if you screw up the pawns don't come home at the end.
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 12:22 PMI agree that the Republicans might be the more masculine party since Ann Coulter loves it so much. Hard to imagine anyone more butch and manly than Ann. I'm betting she has a full set in her panties.
Posted by Ruth Limbaugh on October 12, 2007 12:40 PMAll American Man,
"The democratic party has been hijacked by feminists, lesbians and girly men such as yourself."
And the republican party has been hijacked by "manly men" like you & Larry Craig & that dude who was pursuing teenage page boys . Do you have a "wide stance" too, you testosterone-soaked, foot tapping stud? Bet you can run your fingers down the stall sixty times a minute - Larry can only do 50, that sissy!
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 12:42 PMYou do a major dis-service to them when you refer to the military as "pawns".
By your own admission, you fought in the "cold war", wasn't too much fighting going on during that "skirmish". Save fighting a sore butt while keeping one hand on the nuclear keys.
No President relishes sending troops into harms way. Yes that includes GW, despite what you may think. Though some realize you can't hide your head and hope the treat will go away, or worse yet hope the UN will "talk" it out for you...
Posted by on October 12, 2007 12:47 PMdrew
I think you're confused there girly man. Craig is an outcast in our party. Your party would welcome him with open arms like they did Barney Frank and you. Wasn't your pal Barney who was running a male prostitution ring out of his DC home?
Now your true vulgar and perverted "Rainbow" colors are showing for everyone one on this blog to see. You also validated my point.
Drew, what a sicko you really are.
Posted by All American Man on October 12, 2007 01:18 PMOctober 11, 2007 06:11 PM draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue posted
"Dear Jesus, save us from your followers. I can really smell that sulphur."
That wasn't Jesus, it was me. I ate at Casa Bonita last night. Sorry. Just open a window or light a match.
Posted by Neal5x5 on October 12, 2007 01:23 PMWrong again, sissy man. Craig, page-molester & that right wing priest who was getting "back-rubs" from the homosexual prostitute are pretty much the norm in your "real man" party now.
And I'm always suspicious of people like you who have to tell everyone what "men" they are. You hiding something there, sissy man? Are you tapping this into your laptop in a stall at Minneapolis Airport? Is it difficult to tap on your laptop & tap your feet at the same time? It's OK, don't feel bad - sissy men are now becoming more acceptable on the right !
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 01:28 PMCharles B. said:
"Some days you sound somewhat rational and then you have days like these where you sound a bit fruity loops."
Ha, I go fruit loops when I'm bored and I feel like livening up a dull conversation.
Mac asked:
"Still, do you think we should not allow 18 year olds to serve in the military?"
No, I have no problem with 18 year olds in the military. But, that has nothing to do with voting.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 01:42 PMdrew
Wow!!! Poor guy, Take a chill pill. You're having a conniption fit and probably the vapors also.
You are starting to repeat yourself.
The only way I would feel bad would be if they let you in like they did Larry Craig.
Posted by on October 12, 2007 01:48 PMP.S.
Besides Larry Craig sneaked in. They would catch you at the entrance.
Hey, is that you again sissy man? You anonymous now because you're embarrassed? You scared someone's gonna see you sneaking out of the men's room with your laptop? It's OK, sissy, they're only on the lookout for Craig - relax!
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 02:10 PMBlank said:
"You do a major dis-service to them when you refer to the military as "pawns".
Perhaps you never played, but I refer to the pieces on the chessboard that are lost first in the game and then are, of course, "ressurected" for the next one. I could have said bishops, rooks, or knights, but pawns is much more generic. Sorry to have confused you.
"By your own admission, you fought in the "cold war", wasn't too much fighting going on during that "skirmish". Save fighting a sore butt while keeping one hand on the nuclear keys."
Never said I fought - but the 80's was indeed when I served; that was my age group. Blame my parents for that one. And the Warsaw Pact DID go down, if you recall. Oh, in case you weren't aware - there are no nuclear keys on M-60 tanks.
"No President relishes sending troops into harms way. Yes that includes GW, despite what you may think. "
Never said Dubya relishes sending troops into harm's way,either. Your mind-reading skills need some polishing. However, I don't necessarily believe he knows what he is doing when Cheney tells him to do so.
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 02:20 PM"...I have no problem with 18 year olds in the military. But, that has nothing to do with voting."
Sorry, J2, I hit the post button a little soon. I wanted to add - should there be soldiers who are not allowed to vote due to their age?
Posted by on October 12, 2007 02:26 PMI think the voting age should be raised to 30. I would make exceptions for those who volunteered for military service. Actually, I think that would be a great privilege and honor to bestow on soldiers. But, I don't think 18 year old civilians should be allowed to vote. At least, they should not be allowed to vote unless they have passed some kind of civics test.
Posted by John II on October 12, 2007 02:50 PMdrew
Poor drew, my delicate little rosebud.
So irrational and emotional. There you go off track again. I just forgot to click on the remember personal info. What else can you expect for a girly man in the Democratic Party.
Come to think of it I am starting to get a bit emarrassed to be seen conversing with an effemminate Liberal and member of the "Sissy" Dems.
It's time for me to move on to
more worthy and hopefully more "Manly" opponents.
Later My little delicate Rosebud!
J2, I can't really argue about your voting age ideas, except for the civics test. It's too much like the old Jim Crow poll tests in the south. Either all or none, IMO.
Posted by Mac on October 12, 2007 03:18 PM08:17 AM anonymous,
Sorry I'm so late getting back to your question. To answer then:
At just about the time I see a valid posting, with a valid point from someone else, I'll respond accordingly - if, that is, I come back to the line at all, after reading what's there at the time.
As to your categorization of my screen name: The old saying goes, "It takes one to know one." So glad you have identified yourself at least that much.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 12, 2007 03:37 PMNancy is speaker of the house, one pretzel and one blood clot from the White House.
And over a year to go. Who knows what might happen?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 12, 2007 05:46 PMThe "manly" republicans are so afraid that they will give up their civil liberties on the off chance that the terrorists might get them. We can fight terrorists the right way, by good and lawful detective work. We don't have to spy on our own citizens like the KGB.
Posted by on October 14, 2007 12:14 AMTypical of the regressive decompensation and mental deterioration of old age, is the desire to "stop the world", also usually accompanied by fear and distrust of the next generation(s), with all sorts of proposals to keep the young from exercising any form of influence - especially political influence, by way of voting - on the inexorable forward movement of time and reality.
This process often culminates in a retreat to a fixation on an imaginary fantasy land, where the aging individual erects a form of impregnable defense system around a belief that everything MUST conform to, and be judged by, a mythical standard of archaic social and political regulation, one that never truly existed in the REAL world to begin with.
One sees all this in the latter writings of the otherwise giant of the 20th Century world of Science Fiction authors - and forward looking creative minds concerned with mankind's future - the late Robert Heinlein. And one also finds it here on this website as well, with our own Pluperfect Pundit of the 18th Century, now expressing his fears concerning the matter of allowing 18 year olds to vote.
Fortunately for us all, in REALITY the clock does NOT run backwards; and our youth remain the hope for the future.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 14, 2007 08:12 AMDrew is just a US hating coward.No different than most Democrat [wo]men.These guys fear everything.They want to ban guns because they are not man enough to defend themselves.Their women are much more man like than them.Just read Sharon B's postings and you will see what I mean.If you are ever feeling down about your manhood just look at a Democrat like Drew and you will feel like a super hero.
Posted by An american on October 14, 2007 09:12 AMWomen in the Republic party should not vote because their husbands tell them how to vote.
Guys who use such terms as manly men and your manhood and think bravery comes from testosterone or what`s in your crotch, should remember that Goddess only gave you enough blood for one head at a time.
Since so many man spend most of their time thinking about the pleasures and pursuits of their "lesser head'" and women do not, it makes sense that we will be better legislators.
We won`t have lists of boy toys or appointments with male massage masters, or time to haves liaisons in restrooms.
Just look at at the time we will have for work!
Think or all the lovely programs we can institute.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 14, 2007 06:50 PMSharon B,
I'm glad to see you recognize that men and women are different. Men, for instance, do view sex differently than women. That is inarguable.
President Clinton must have thought it was Oral Office not Oval Office.
But if it's true that men and women are inherently different; and if it's also true that women are then more capable policitcal leaders; then why aren't women running things instead of men?
Hi Sharon,
Wow! That'll bring 'em out of the woodwork, in droves.
And, sure enough, right up front, the other Pluperfect Pundit - who knows little or nothing about anything, but always wirtes the last word on evrything (as reams of his, usually pointless and disjonted, emissions at the end of a line of postings go to show) - pops up..
Well . . . considering the current crop of letters, the forum needed some opportunity for fun. You GO, lady!
Posted by Old Grouch on October 15, 2007 08:54 AMSharon B. sounds like she is angry because no men want her.This is the essence of a Democrat woman.
Posted by An American on October 15, 2007 11:20 AMSharon B. sounds like she is angry because no men want her.This is the essence of a Democrat woman.
Posted by An American on October 15, 2007 11:20 AMJames Jones, men don`t just view sex differently than women, they think about it far more often. They seem to devote a great deal of time, money and energy into acquiring as much sex as possible, and for as long in their lives as possible. This is the reason the human race still exists.
Give us time, and the opportunity to overcome the system that discourages women from running for office, and discourages women from voting for women.
But look at the bright side, this gave you a chances to mention Clinton again.
Women just have more time and brain cells available for work.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 15, 2007 11:23 AMSharon B,
Always happy to assert that the libido problem is non-partisan when it's otherwise unclear.
Men think not just more often about sex but also differently. Example: Homosexual activity in prison rises dramatically for men while there is no appreciable change for women. Don't you find that interesting?
But you did not address my original question.
Since women have more brain cells, how did they come to play second-fiddle in the political arena?
As orignally constituted the US did not extend the civil right to vote to women. It seems to me women, who had the same size brains as today, sould have used their political acumen to get a better deal.
How do you account for that?
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 11:46 AMJJ,
"President Clinton must have thought it was Oral Office not Oval Office."
How's this different from Bush? Clinton screwed an intern, Bush screwed an entire country. What a libido!
Posted by drew on October 15, 2007 12:00 PMdrew,
Given your moral standards and your grasp of the issues - there isn't any difference.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 12:17 PMBecause men have rejected Sharon B. all her life she has become a twisted person [Democrat]. This is what the Democrat party is full of twisted people.Sharon wants to destroy this country because she hates men.She sees this country has been dominated by men and hates that fact.She hates men so bad she can't admit that it was men in large part that have made this country so great.
Posted by An American on October 15, 2007 01:11 PMJames Jones, I am patient, I can wait till you accurately quote my last line. Read it slower this time. Get that subordinate clause?
Culture is the reason for women having less say in the running of the World. Not only have women been denied the right to vote, here and elsewhere, but they have been denied the right to drive, ride a horse, own property, walk on unbound feet, have their genitals left unmutilated etc.
Almost every culture has found a way to keep women out of leadership roles, but you know all this and we all know you know it.
More women go to college now, the times really are changing.
My grandsons girl friend is studying political science.
Hide under the bed!
Posted by Sharon B. on October 15, 2007 01:15 PMSharon B,
Which last sentence am I supposed to read more slowly?
Think or all the lovely programs we can institute.
Or
Women just have more time and brain cells available for work.
Your answer to my question is:
Culture is the reason
Or am I reading too fast again?
If not, then that's not much of an answer. You are telling me that women have more time and more brain cells which I take to mean "are smarter."
I haven't asked you about the first but I have asked about the second.
If women are smarter then men, how come "culture" has developed to keep them out of the game?
It seems to me that you women should have been able to guide us men better than apparently you have to date.
Or did you just get to be smarter than us recently?
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 02:14 PMSharon B,
As a matter of fact most western cultures have had women in leading roles over the past couple of centuries.
You and I both know that.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 02:18 PMOn the subject at hand...we know from the 16 intelligence agencies who make up the consensus conclusions for the NIE's that Iraq has made us less safe and destabilized the middle east.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 03:39 PMJJ. Woman have more time available for work because of less time worrying over their next "piece" this also gives women more brain cells to apply to work.
It`s not always what you have, but how you apply it. Women could even function on fewer brain cells than men, because we get more work out of them. Just a theory of mine..
My guess on the culture of oppression of women that we see all over the World still, comes from fear of competition from women.
Men, some, a few, maybe millions, like subservient women with few options in life, so that they need men's support.
Think of the Middle East and our own Middle ages when men were men and women were chattel.
Sometimes our worst enemies are women so indoctrinated by culture and religion that they have little support to give other women. Yet whether it is in developing a written but never spoken language for women to use to communicate with each other, or women support groups, slowly all over the World women are making progress.
I just know you are thrilled that we keep pushing on for equal opportunities.
Some women have risen to the top, but over immense odds. Very true heroes.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 15, 2007 03:53 PMSharo B,
Actually in the Middle Ages almost everyone was chattel. There has been a lot of progress.
My view is that everyone should be treated fairly and have the same opportunity. That is the recent social history and yes I do applaud.
Knowing that men and women are different in both in ways we can see and in ways we don't fully understand, we should not expect, or find social injustice when, the outcomes are not equal.
Margaret Thatcher and Mother Theresa are both heroes of the last century - wouldn't you agree?
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 04:54 PMjay,
Many would think it's notpossibel to know hwo things whould have turned out if Saddam had remain in power.
Modelling parallel universes with different parameters is considered problematic by many -but not you.
And what a coincidence - we can dispostively know exactly want to think!
Remarkable.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 04:59 PMjay,
Many would think it's not possible to know how things whould have turned out if Saddam had remained in power.
Modelling parallel universes with different parameters is considered problematic by many -but not you.
And what a coincidence - we can dispostively know exactly what you want to think!
Remarkable.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 05:24 PM