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: 1394
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 (1-101) not displayed.
.
.
.
#102. To: scrapper2 (#98)
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?
ziiiiiing
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
Good lord, jj......given all the negatives she throws at wimmen, your list forgot the most important thing of all: motherhood! I mean, what's desirable about a mom that: 1) Women are emotional, changeable, and notoriously unstable because of hormone flux. Using her rationale, every woman should be sterilized at birth to prevent them from becoming mothers OR voters. JMO.
Make it a threesome if that makes you happy, bucko.
Thats funny. But you missed my point.
Well......sorry to disappoint ya, but my feathers aren't gonna get ruffled tonight; that's about all the arguing you'll get from me this evening. :) But you have my permission to take it however you desire in order to make your most salient point....or whatever........'kay?
I have always loved your posts, rowdee. Your awesome libertarian concepts keep me glued to your capabilities to create the words and express the same in a manner that watches you. I just don't express myself much in this way and so you understand me as an argumentative SOB. This is what happens to some of us as being critical and voicing an opinion. It follows the path of what I am trying to do. You probably feel the same from time to time. Best Regards!
I must say I find this a bit funny, buck......consideriing that generally with the things I am passionate about I have the least degree of tolerance for stoopidness and will generally state my thoughts or position in the most briefest of what some consider 'foul' language. Therefore, I must believe you are trying your hand at 1) flattery (nice, but ....?) or 2) you have the wrong person in mind as being a creator of much of anything. For the record, argumentative isn't such a bad thing......but I get really tired of reading the same ol, same ol for 100 comments or so back and forth. I've read a number of your posts that have been articulate and passionate in concern for the restoration of a constitutional republic. More people should be desirous of that. But I'm not holding my breath. Republics, as a form of government, don't have a long history of success. And given where we are with the moral decay and rotten gubmint, I believe we're about to go the day of My regards back atcha, Dee
You raised the right hand and swore this oath going into the military. Inherent to the oath is acceptance of the Geneva Accords as rule of international law regarding conduct of war. You are a hypocrite, and myopia regarding your own history leaves you here a childish whiner. I know it if you do not; pal. You are trying to take the ground you would only have if you had declared yourself a sovereign citizen above the recognition and invocation of all the compromises to our sovereignty as human beings inherent to life in our culture if you live in any context of it's rules. This is fine if you had done this, but by your own admission of having gone into the military, this is not so.
So whom made you the purveyor of "morality?" Aren't you therefore defying your own comment just above? There are moral absolutes or Mala In Se laws that require no debate. Your moral underpinnings however confused cannot exist in a vacuum. Your unwillingness or inability to acknowledge Mala In Se doesn't make me a purveyor of "morality". It makes you a kindred spirit of Ted Bundy.
...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....
I've seen The Great Dictator. Thanks.
...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....
You are a hypocrite, and myopia regarding your own history leaves you here a childish whiner. I know it if you do not; pal. I swore to defend the US Constitution as a soldier and to obey the chain of command. I fulfilled my oath and duties 38 years ago and I received an honorable discharge. My job is complete swearing an oath. Are you saying that because I fulfilled my responsibilities that I must carry those same oaths forward forever? Are you insane? Look at yourself calling me a hypocrite when you have foolishly assumed a spineless position. I owe no allegiance or duty to any government. And I don't have to accept the rules of warfare based upon any nation's or government's agreements. I am free unlike yourself wherein you are chained to some despotic concept about law.
#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.
#131. To: jessejane (#125)
How can she reach such a conclusion if she is not qualified by her own definition to make them?
#132. To: jessejane (#125)
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.
2) They usually want to talk talk talk talk a situation over, under, around, and to death. LONG after the time for action.
3)And action, even when the right thing to do, is the LAST thing they want, and will try to stop it after it starts
and........4) We just don't have what it takes to be "rulers" and "deciders". Those roles require cooler heads and harder hearts.
#133. To: buckeroo (#129)
#134. To: rowdee (#133)
#135. To: buckeroo (#134)
#136. To: rowdee (#135)
Buckeroo
#137. To: buckeroo (#136)
Your awesome libertarian concepts keep me glued to your capabilities to create the words and express the same in a manner that watches you. I just don't express myself much in this way and so you understand me as an argumentative SOB
dodo birds the roman empire.
#138. To: buckeroo (#127)
(Edited)
"No I am not. You are saying I have to accept any law. There is a BIG_DIFFERENCE, pal."
#139. To: buckeroo, rowdee (#130)
... I get irritated with anyone who supports pure evil and wraps that support in a mantle of moral righteousness.
#140. To: HOUNDDAWG (#139)
(Edited)
#141. To: Ferret Mike (#140)
#142. To: Ferret Mike (#138)
You raised the right hand and swore this oath going into the military. Inherent to the oath is acceptance of the Geneva Accords as rule of international law regarding conduct of war.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest