See other 4play Articles
Title: Goldi on Women's Suffrage
Source:
ElPee
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... rt.cgi?ArtNum=162468&Disp=5#C4
Published: Oct 16, 2006
Author: Goldi-Lox
Post Date: 2006-10-16 21:50:48 by Nostalgia
Keywords: None
Views: 2365
Comments: 142
4. To: High Hopes (#0) Women led the opposition, with seven in 10 saying they oppose the war. Twenty-eight percent say they support it, which is the lowest support among women in any CNN poll taken since the invasion more than three years ago. Women voting is a mistake. Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux. They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action. And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts. I'm a woman, and I know this is true. I'd give up my vote in a minute if they took it away from all other women as well. We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts. Goldi-Lox posted on 2006-10-16 17:54:48 ET Reply Trace
Poster Comment: Oy Vey
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-89) not displayed.
.
.
.
#90. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
That's a government treaty. The acts of government bodies are considered not mine.
Yeah....lets not discuss the substance :)
Nowhere I know of. You have strange ways of looking at things, but I don't dislike you. In any event, I wouldn't worry that much about my opinion and priorities when posting. And I wouldn't try this hard to put me on the defensive when changing the subject anyway. I'm familiar with the tactic. That doesn't work on me either.
Lets see now .... from Goldi to Geneva ... what no G- Strings to compliment your tirade with me? Well, the good news, I like Gold as in Au. I enjoy having lots of the stuff. LOL ... you are too funny. You couldn't Grind an axe with me if you wanted to. I can Grind an axe as I choose with you, though. Its just the way it is, pal. But, I have never hurt you in any way .. nor do I intend to.
You are attempting the chess game of intellectual battle with me, playing an offense. I am just asking about your intentions is all; and as I do so, I am slowly chipping away your capability to defend your own arguments against me. Its your tirade, not mine. HELL, I can go along with the ride until I choose to quit.
A man/woman giving their oath ( for any reason, signing a check, providing a service as fixing an automobile, ensuring a family unit, a pledge towards their own military unit engaged in battle ) and not delivering their best efforts has no substance to themselves nor society at large. Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?
Yeah....lets not discuss the substance :) Inside joke?
Huh? Whew....think I'll go back to playing a card game.....have a good evening, buckeroo. Nite...
Give it up already. You are burying discussion threads of real importance regarding the Military Commissions Act. Based on what our President just signed into codefied law, Buckeroo is right. End of story. The Geneva Conventions are toast. No one, including soldiers, have any right whatsoever to question anything the President requires of GI's of ordinary Joes on the street. America is under the rule of the President and the Secty of Defense. And if you think McNamara, Cohen, and RumDum sucked, wait until you get a load of Joseph Lieberman and Hadassah, his wife as back seat driver. And if you have any Democrat voting friends in Connecticut,I suggest you contact them tout de suite so they cast their vote against Joe, anyone but Joe. You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories to recognize/identify the train wreck that awaits America if Joe gets to be Secty of Defense. Over and out.
Whether a soldier has honor lives or dies upon his conduct on the battlefield. If he violates the international law we are signed onto to capriciously follow bad orders asking him to do so, he has no honor at all. If he was dumb enough to not be able to ethically judge his conduct correctly, he can use that in mitigation and extenuation of the penalties, but he still would be violating international law. Violating the Geneva Accords would be a violation of his oath of enlistment, not the disloyal of bad orders.
Wrong. End of story.
No. Lets play "cards" right here. I say honor is an important concept about transforming America towards the roots about our nation. Isn't that an obvious characteristic about anyone you know on a personal basis? "When we say we are going to do something, we mean it?" One of the reasons why our world is quickly changing is because individual efforts have been supplanted by collective ones. This has always lead to turmoil anywhere around the world. We should hold individual merit to the highest level of placement within the scope of challenging the world around us. This means that our honor is about all we can offer ... not some compromise that government suggests.
I know what a pantload Joseph Lieberman is by the way. I grew up in Connecticut, in fact I was born there. I support Ned Lamont.
Bullshit.
You sound as clueless regarding what honor and commitment is as Bush and other Neo Cons do. If I were in combat and a member of my unit violated the law, I would either act to stop them or report it and expect them to be held accountable for what they did. That is how you act as a professional on the battlefield. Not by throwing out common sense and human decency in order to commit to following illegal orders.
What "right" do they have?
In actual battle, we have our assholes all puckered upped, sometimes crying our hearts & souls out about why we are this mess to begin with. Is that the "professionalism" you want to see? Because, in battle it gets no better than this. I should know.
This is awesome. Are you akin to Mike Ferret that never experienced "battle" .... and as a result believe that some interconnection within the "political ether" magically protects you as you strum your banjo?
But you don't. Despite the stress and chaos of war, there are rules of conduct and engagement. I want them followed. If you want respect, you should show it. Violating the international laws of war can endanger American military when people reciprocate the same treatment unto them. You ignore common sense and good ethical behavior at your own peril. Despite what you think, there is no shortcut in the conduct of war that violates the Geneva Accords that doesn't eventually cost you dearly in the end.
You want tea & crumpets offered as a method recess, 'eh? Cool. Who cares about that? That's a government problem far beyond your reach or mine. Its an issue that is worthless to elaborate upon. Its an issue only politicians may control. And your pathetic elevation of the point simply shows your distress about arguing the point. Individual honor is a steadfast issue with me and the whole world. We are nothing more than our, individual word and capability to fulfil our own dignity and honor based upon a promise as far as we can individually create effort. And here you are saying its all about believing in government ideals while compromising our own viewpoints.
You seem not to have any idea what honor or what good ethical behavior is. Thanks for sharing, I appreciate your forthright answer that you throw ethical behavior and lawful conduct out the window in any war you are involved in. If I were around you in a combat situation, I wouldn't turn my back on a scoundrel like you. If I couldn't avoid such a misfortune in any way first that is.
You couldn't. You would have just been standing around doing nothing writing your mother while shining my boots or bringing coffee to our troops in the brigade based upon my orders. And you would have been scooted home bound to make you happy about your own freedoms that you have no personal honor to protect.
Masterful post, and if I may, reminiscent of this exchange between Henry Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, when Emerson visited Thoreau, imprisoned for having failed to pay the poll tax in protest against slavery: Emerson: Henry, what are you doing in here? Thoreau: The question is, what are you doing out there?
Why should anyone claim that a citizen requires jail time? Masterful post .... my ass. Oh, you never understood the Magna Carta. And you never read the the document. Well, of course.
We signed onto the Geneva Convention and are obligated to follow the rule of law as it protects our people as much as anyone else. You are arguing the point that we don't have to follow any law, that we can ignore the law book and just do as we feel suits our most sleazy idea of what is most convenient for us to do. And because you know this is indefensible, you do the comical decent into the world of half baked ad homenim attack. Sonny boy, I'd polish one boot in combat with you around. And that is the one I stuck up you ass when I kicked it if you were dumb enough to act in real life like you do in forum toward me. You have neither honor nor common sense, otherwise you wouldn't talk so ignorantly, here. You talk insultingly about who has no honor after claiming we as a nation should operate in war as if we have no honor or commitment to the rule of law because you realize you have painted yourself into a corner and left yourself with no defensible ground in claiming the oath of enlistment just means we follow the orders from the top on down and question nothing about any impropriety in how the leadership we follow. You claim I have no honor after showing you don't know what the word means. Your silly words don't bother me Buckie. In this case you are projecting your own inadequacies and failings, not mine. My sense of honor and comprehension of commitment to personal honor and to operate with integrity and commitment to sound ethical behavior is preferable to your contention the rule of law has no point of reference except what people like Bush say it does in a very self serving way. Nobody is too high on the chain of command to ignore sound ethical behavior, commitment to the principle of law and decent human conduct. You have taken the position that Bush and company are above the law, and the oath of enlistment means you must follow them with the same irrational commitment as lemmings following lemmings as they run into the sea to drown. It is you who you insult with your words meant to anger and distract, not me. So forget about me angering up and climbing down into the gutter to join you in your pointless, kindergarten grade mud fest. The tactics of insult to smoke screen how badly you lost this debate doesn't work on me any more then other tired worn out tactics you have tried here. You can wallow in your grammar school level modus operandi without me If you want to react to losing a debate by pouting like a child, it is your problem, not mine.
Well, I've been in two shooting situations and I've had considerably more real world gun handling experience than any of the draft dodgers for whom you wish to serve as fluffer. I've also arrested several felons including a former bank robber who did time in Leavenworth, and I had no illusions about who was protecting me. But, even if that was not the case your point is unsustainable for one reason: "You're no more entitled to opinions that you cannot validate than you're entitled to merchandise that you cannot pay for." I asked you a question earlier and I said "You cannot be honor bound to commit immoral acts." You have yet to offer any witty or dismissive reply. I understand honor and morality which is why I A) don't have any problem responding to you, which is more than you can say to me, and B) don't shill for a criminal syndicate while trying to pass it off as "honor". I've written two newspaper columns in the past and I used my own name and I never shied away from expressing my views, but my critics were always anonymous. You know all too well how ridiculous you appear which is why you'd only sell your confused anti logic anonymously and never in a public forum where people could shame you for your craven attacks and rank political advocacy.
Thoreau: The question is, what are you doing out there Outstanding.
Thanks for clarifying whatever it was that was like a burr under yer saddle. Obviously, I've not been following the bitchin you and Ferret have been engaged in. I believe in honor, yes. And I believe in upholding your word once its given. At the same time, I will say that if I agree to "X", I will attempt to do it to the best of my ability--unless I have to kill innocent beings to do it. AND, I think that once the 'contract' is initiated, BOTH sides should be honoring their word. Kindly notice that every elected gubmint official is required to take an oath of office....and somewhere in there, they take the name of God as witness to the covenant/contract/whatever you desire to call it. AND then, they immediately ignore it. Are we talking honor among thieves? Or honor among honorable men? Which ones are to be upheld--oaths or agreements, including handshakes?
good post, Mike, but my question to you is this. who is going to ensure that bush or anyone else is held to this standard when they've so blatantly violated the law? it seems to me no one in the world. btw, have you seen this? Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land where has the rest of the world been for the Palestinians?
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
I wonder if it's an RNC talking point: Limbaugh Doesn't Want Single Women to Vote.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
but draft dodging, torture-loving shills for the GOP should
Sounds like the ol' boy let his mouth overload his ass again. :)
I don't enjoy harsh exchanges, but I get irritated with anyone who supports pure evil and wraps that support in a mantle of moral righteousness. BushCo is the tip of an iceberg of blood, oil, greed and lust for power. And, I don't believe that there are two sides two every issue. Bush has no redeeming qualities other than his apparent ability to buy loyalty in those who were already for sale. And, I'll be damned if I'll suffer a lecture on honor or morality from some demented, ass licking dwarf.
I couldn't figure out where he was coming from when he made that comment to me about honor--until I started reading more of the thread and realized there was a pissing match going on. Don't blame you for not taking kindly to such remarks and having the spine to so state it. Generally, I agree completely in trying to maintain a collegial atmosphere on threads, but every so often it is necessary to handle situations in a more forceful way (covering my ass here, you see--LOL) because it seems as though some people leave their brain parked too long in stupid and the gearshift needs a whack to get it engaged.
Well said. I'm sure we haven't heard the last from the political schizophrenic who sites The Magna Carta in one breath while championing the goals of the man who abolished the most precious plank of The Great Charter-habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in the next. I know when someone is trying to dazzle me with a poor attempt at high powered perception and piercing logic. Truth has a vibration of its own. And, agenda-driven gibberish, a distinctive aroma like belching pockets of methane from an organic trash pile.
...and if by chance I should hold her, let me hold her for a time...but if allowed just one possession, I would pick her from the garden, to be mine....
It's Soccer Moms dear, not Sucker Moms. But you are qualified to run a forum and have a government job. Okay.. As opposed to the long debate before bombing Lebanon. Okay... Projection, and a pantload. Prove it. What about Transvestites, oh.. well, nevermind. How can she reach such a conclusion if she is not qualified by her own definition to make them? ~~ Actually, I agree no woman should vote...for an incumbant. And you know, to carry this a step forward, how about not voting FOR WOMEN. What about teachers, are women stable enough to teach? Or to be a nurse? Or to join the military? Well, I'm sure women in the military is fine... we do need those recruits. Sheesh.
I don't know about you, but I didn't.
No I am not. You are saying I have to accept any law. There is a BIG_DIFFERENCE, pal.
Its an irrelevant expression. I don't believe in government upon any level. Government is not moral, either, nor shall government EVER be moral.
Why are there only two sides based upon your suggestion, above?
So whom made you the purveyor of "morality?" Aren't you therefore defying your own comment just above?
Comments (131 - 142) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOne either supports the Geneva Accords or does not.
#91. To: christine, HOUNDDAWG (#84)
a man of substance (but i'm not pointing him out ;)
#92. To: buckeroo (#89)
"Irrespective of your reasoning, you act like I hurt you somehow. Over the 8 years you and I have posted on web boards on the Internet ( don't know if you post on IRC, Usenet, BBS ) ... where have I attempted to hurt you?"
#93. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
I don't live in frustration wondering things.
#94. To: Ferret Mike (#92)
And I wouldn't try this hard to put me on the defensive when changing the subject anyway. I'm familiar with the tactic. That doesn't work on me either.
#95. To: rowdee (#91)
lets not discuss the substance
#96. To: rowdee, christine, (#91)
a man of substance (but i'm not pointing him out ;)
#97. To: buckeroo (#95)
Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?
#98. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike (#95)
Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?
#99. To: buckeroo (#95)
"Is your opinion nothing more than the removal of an oath so as to lower the bar upon honor?"
#100. To: scrapper2 (#98)
"Based on what our President just signed into codefied law, Buckeroo is right. End of story."
#101. To: rowdee (#97)
#102. To: scrapper2 (#98)
#103. To: scrapper2 (#98)
"No one, including soldiers, have any right whatsoever to question anything the President requires of GI's of ordinary Joes on the street."
#104. To: buckeroo (#101)
"One of the reasons why our world is quickly changing is because individual efforts have been supplanted by collective ones. This has always lead to turmoil anywhere around the world. We should hold individual merit to the highest level of placement within the scope of challenging the world around us. This means that our honor is about all we can offer ... not some compromise that government suggests."
#105. To: Ferret Mike (#103)
#106. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
That is how you act as a professional on the battlefield.
#107. To: HOUNDDAWG, Mike Ferret (#70)
I remember reading about a young Mennonite soldier in The Great War ...
#108. To: buckeroo (#106)
"I should know."
#109. To: Ferret Mike (#108)
Despite the stress and chaos of war, there are rules of conduct and engagement.
Violating the international laws of war can endanger American military when people reciprocate the same treatment unto them.
#110. To: buckeroo (#109)
"And here you are saying its all about believing in government ideals while compromising our own viewpoints."
#111. To: Ferret Mike (#110)
If I were around you in a combat situation, I wouldn't turn my back on a scoundrel like you.
#112. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
And, the logical place for an honest man in a corrupt system IS IN JAIL!
#113. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#112)
Masterful post ....
#114. To: buckeroo (#111)
(Edited)
#115. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, Diana (#107)
This is awesome. Are you akin to Mike Ferret that never experienced "battle" .... and as a result believe that some interconnection within the "political ether" magically protects you as you strum your banjo?
#116. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#112)
Emerson: Henry, what are you doing in here?
#117. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike (#101)
#118. To: Ferret Mike (#114)
(Edited)
Nobody is too high on the chain of command to ignore sound ethical behavior, commitment to the principle of law and decent human conduct.
#119. To: Nostalgia (#0)
#120. To: aristeides (#119)
I wonder if it's an RNC talking point: Limbaugh Doesn't Want Single Women to Vote
#121. To: HOUNDDAWG (#115)
#122. To: rowdee (#121)
Sounds like the ol' boy let his mouth overload his ass again. :)
#123. To: HOUNDDAWG (#122)
#124. To: rowdee, Peetie Wheatstraw, christine, Zipporah, bluegrass, Ferret Mike, Neil McIver, rowdee, Diana (#123)
Generally, I agree completely in trying to maintain a collegial atmosphere on threads, but every so often it is necessary to handle situations in a more forceful way (covering my ass here, you see--LOL) because it seems as though some people leave their brain parked too long in stupid and the gearshift needs a whack to get it engaged.
#125. To: Nostalgia (#9)
Women voting is a mistake.
Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux.
They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action.
And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts.
I am a woman
and I know this is true.
Surely there lines forming for more of this 'truth' you speak of I'd give up my vote in a minute if they took it away from all other women as well.
We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts.
#126. To: Ferret Mike (#114)
We signed onto the Geneva Convention ...
#127. To: Ferret Mike (#114)
You are arguing the point that we don't have to follow any law ....
#128. To: HOUNDDAWG (#115)
"You cannot be honor bound to commit immoral acts."
#129. To: rowdee (#117)
AND, I think that once the 'contract' is initiated, BOTH sides should be honoring their word.
#130. To: HOUNDDAWG (#122)
... I get irritated with anyone who supports pure evil and wraps that support in a mantle of moral righteousness.
.
.
.