|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
****Right. Like the author I'm just thrilled at the progress made by our welfare state and how we can show our womanly concern for all americans and the world with our amazing free "magic money" system. It's also very nice that other countries are so willing to suffer at our expense.*****
So are you saying that this country would be in better shape in men had the testicular fortitude to keep women in their place? And the downfall of men from the 1920's was letting women "influence" them? Blame it on Mother Eve again...sheesh.
So shall we ponder/debate ethics, morality, theology and/or secular humanism to clarify whom feels more for another's suffering? Man or Woman?
The idea women are construed as nurturing and/or emotional *only* is derived from the conservative religious point of view, which was heightened during the era of the "religious reign" of Pat Robertson. More often than not, people that take this point of view really don't think outside of the box when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, they adhere to it literally.
Hence the claim that I made with a typewritten eyeroll effect to exude sarcasm....the dude posts on freerepublic....shiver. |
|
|
Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:37 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
andi03 schreef:
Blame it on Mother Eve again...sheesh.
You are aware, are you not, that Eve was a blond?  |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:40 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| I wonder if the carpet matched the drapes. and another kinda scary thought I wonder how all them smelly hippie bra burners from the sixties are hanging. Just a couple of thoughts to ponder. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
andi03 schreef:
****Right. Like the author I'm just thrilled at the progress made by our welfare state and how we can show our womanly concern for all americans and the world with our amazing free "magic money" system. It's also very nice that other countries are so willing to suffer at our expense.*****
So are you saying that this country would be in better shape in men had the testicular fortitude to keep women in their place? And the downfall of men from the 1920's was letting women "influence" them? Blame it on Mother Eve again...sheesh.
So shall we ponder/debate ethics, morality, theology and/or secular humanism to clarify whom feels more for another's suffering? Man or Woman?
The idea women are construed as nurturing and/or emotional *only* is derived from the conservative religious point of view, which was heightened during the era of the "religious reign" of Pat Robertson. More often than not, people that take this point of view really don't think outside of the box when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, they adhere to it literally.
Hence the claim that I made with a typewritten eyeroll effect to exude sarcasm....the dude posts on freerepublic....shiver.
If the elected men and women used their brains and didn't rely on feel good social welfare and policing the world programs we would be in better shape.
Generally men are stereotypically supposed to think more with their brains and not just their hearts but obviously our leaders are not like that. The same goes with elected women.
A don't see the article as purely sexist like you do. I think the point that America's feel good heart centered poltics is no substitute for well thought out logical policies that not simply based on pandering to special interests.
Maybe it's wrong to use sexism satire to make a point but the point is valid. America needs to learn to focus more on real issues instead of political correctness. |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:41 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
So you are admitting that my opinions are valid, Adam?
What has to be done is eradicate the freakin' special interest groups associated with the politicking and the inept lawmakers that don't have enough of a spine to say no. "No, I am not going to take your monies for my re-election because I don't agree with what you are all about."
"Gee, I'll make sure that I insert pork into the bill that will be passed because you hired my crazy nephew, one that no one else deemed fit to employ." |
|
|
|
Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:31 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Not to worry as I am sure this guy is still lurking around waiting to strike again.
(2005-03-15) — A San Francisco County judge, who yesterday struck down California’s ban on homosexual marriage, today ruled on the same basis that separate restrooms for men and women are unconstitutional.
Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer likened the division of washrooms to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be “no rational purpose for denying women access to men’s facilities and vice versa.”
“The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,” Judge Kramer wrote. “The court finds that the legal principle of lavatorio proportio [potty parity] offers inadequate protections. In practice, it leaves women stranded in line while men swiftly accomplish their objectives. Beyond practicality, the idea that you can bar access to some citizens from restrooms which are open to others smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal.”
The decision was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Organization for Women (NOW).
“This ruling offers recognition that men and women are not only equal, but identical,”
said a spokesman at a joint ACLU-NOW news conference. “The bigoted era of sex descrimination is over. From now on, the United States is one gender, under God, indivisible.”
I gotta buy a camera phone for sure to have handy the first time I see a gal using a urinal. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:51 am |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
andi03 schreef:
So you are admitting that my opinions are valid, Adam?
What has to be done is eradicate the freakin' special interest groups associated with the politicking and the inept lawmakers that don't have enough of a spine to say no. "No, I am not going to take your monies for my re-election because I don't agree with what you are all about."
"Gee, I'll make sure that I insert pork into the bill that will be passed because you hired my crazy nephew, one that no one else deemed fit to employ."
I don't think corruption is the only problem I think stupidity and lack of serious debate is more of a problem. Our political system is in shambles though. |
|
|
|
Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Not to worry as I am sure this guy is still lurking around waiting to strike again.
(2005-03-15) — A San Francisco County judge, who yesterday struck down California’s ban on homosexual marriage, today ruled on the same basis that separate restrooms for men and women are unconstitutional.
Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer likened the division of washrooms to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be “no rational purpose for denying women access to men’s facilities and vice versa.”
“The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,” Judge Kramer wrote. “The court finds that the legal principle of lavatorio proportio [potty parity] offers inadequate protections. In practice, it leaves women stranded in line while men swiftly accomplish their objectives. Beyond practicality, the idea that you can bar access to some citizens from restrooms which are open to others smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal.”
The decision was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Organization for Women (NOW).
“This ruling offers recognition that men and women are not only equal, but identical,”
said a spokesman at a joint ACLU-NOW news conference. “The bigoted era of sex descrimination is over. From now on, the United States is one gender, under God, indivisible.”
I gotta buy a camera phone for sure to have handy the first time I see a gal using a urinal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2222070/posts?page=1
Is free Republic legit?
If so it seems that that could be dangerous for women. |
|
|
|
Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
Women are only thought to be the "emotional" and "irrational" because thousands of years of MEN'S writings have said so.
Just because your predecessors burned or suppressed texts which included women's vital role in world affairs, and recorded only that which they understood (other men), doesn't make it "the truth" about history. It doesn't even make it a fact.
Some of these documents have survived, yes, or I wouldn't know about Eleanor of Aquitaine or Lady Hamilton or Zenobia or Queen Gorgo (the Gnostic texts are another piece of evidence which suggests history has been rewritten by the victorious). But the driving "civilizing" force at the time -- the Catholic Church -- could not maintain its hold on the nearly-pagan masses by allowing women to formally claim any leadership role in religion or community -- that was too close to the ideals they were trying to eradicate (pagan ideas always center around women as the givers of life, the holy, the link between the living and the spirit world).
The only way in which men have prevailed over the centuries is with might makes right: men over women, men over other men. The "might", these days, is intellectual and financial; in the first world, at least, raw physical strength is no longer necessary for survival (as long as society is still functioning, you can hire it easily). See: Bill Gates.
Your argument is like saying that outmoded courtship models are still necessary, like chaperones, dowries and engagement rings, because that's how it was done over the centuries. The engagement ring, for example, was given as a FINANCIAL promise; that if something goes wrong here, you are compensated. Now it's just a quaint, meaningless tradition in Western culture. It may be sweet and romantic -- like opening doors and helping with a chair -- but is not necessary per se to survival.
Now, on the most basic level, and I can't believe I'm wasting all these words on this, women did not "need" the right to vote because they had husbands -- it was really a family vote. More than half of all adults now are single -- the majority. I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but I'm guessing that around half of our workforce is female. Have you heard of taxation without representation? It would violate the most basic prinicple on which this country was founded.
We are citizens of this country and we contribute just as much to it as you do, if not more, for many of us hold jobs and do all the domestic work, as well.
And finally, if women have no need to vote, then I guess black men don't either? Was that whole slavery thing a mistake, or not? After all, throughout the ages they were considered to be an inferior race.
No, we've finally figured out that modernity means changes in the way we think about what is legally and morally necessary for a stable society. And you're just lucky that crazy feminists haven't gotten all women together and staged a coup. Instead of sitting here waxing misogynistically about women and their "hysterics", you'd be begging for clemency from the new penalty for treason against the United States of SHEmerica -- neutering. |
_________________
I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. - Mae West |
|
|
Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
| Dem, you're a breath of fresh air!! |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:36 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Demeralda schreef:
Women are only thought to be the "emotional" and "irrational" because thousands of years of MEN'S writings have said so.
Just because your predecessors burned or suppressed texts which included women's vital role in world affairs, and recorded only that which they understood (other men), doesn't make it "the truth" about history. It doesn't even make it a fact.
Some of these documents have survived, yes, or I wouldn't know about Eleanor of Aquitaine or Lady Hamilton or Zenobia or Queen Gorgo (the Gnostic texts are another piece of evidence which suggests history has been rewritten by the victorious). But the driving "civilizing" force at the time -- the Catholic Church -- could not maintain its hold on the nearly-pagan masses by allowing women to formally claim any leadership role in religion or community -- that was too close to the ideals they were trying to eradicate (pagan ideas always center around women as the givers of life, the holy, the link between the living and the spirit world).
The only way in which men have prevailed over the centuries is with might makes right: men over women, men over other men. The "might", these days, is intellectual and financial; in the first world, at least, raw physical strength is no longer necessary for survival (as long as society is still functioning, you can hire it easily). See: Bill Gates.
Your argument is like saying that outmoded courtship models are still necessary, like chaperones, dowries and engagement rings, because that's how it was done over the centuries. The engagement ring, for example, was given as a FINANCIAL promise; that if something goes wrong here, you are compensated. Now it's just a quaint, meaningless tradition in Western culture. It may be sweet and romantic -- like opening doors and helping with a chair -- but is not necessary per se to survival.
Now, on the most basic level, and I can't believe I'm wasting all these words on this, women did not "need" the right to vote because they had husbands -- it was really a family vote. More than half of all adults now are single -- the majority. I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but I'm guessing that around half of our workforce is female. Have you heard of taxation without representation? It would violate the most basic prinicple on which this country was founded.
We are citizens of this country and we contribute just as much to it as you do, if not more, for many of us hold jobs and do all the domestic work, as well.
And finally, if women have no need to vote, then I guess black men don't either? Was that whole slavery thing a mistake, or not? After all, throughout the ages they were considered to be an inferior race.
No, we've finally figured out that modernity means changes in the way we think about what is legally and morally necessary for a stable society. And you're just lucky that crazy feminists haven't gotten all women together and staged a coup. Instead of sitting here waxing misogynistically about women and their "hysterics", you'd be begging for clemency from the new penalty for treason against the United States of SHEmerica -- neutering.
I did it! I got the cat out of the bag. How have you been?
To have a stable society we need to move away from a society that no longer codlles the boomers and every other special interest faction from cradle to grave. Although seniors are treated as superiors they may not do so will once we complete the move towards a banana Republic style of government.
Listen to America's politicians it seems like almost all have already been politically neutered. |
|
|
|
Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:10 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Wheres the Duke when we need him??
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:13 am |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
the duke? in purgatory wearing a dress
:lol:damn dem!!! i've always LOVED strong opinionated women!!  |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:33 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
| I think the Duke and Dem would have made a great couple. Too bad we can't bring him back in time. |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
