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: 1306
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 (1-73) not displayed.
.
.
.
#74. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
Cool the theatrics, pal. Here is the oath we are discussing: And you say that its OK for an experienced soldier to just walk away and hide. Yeah, he can just skip away, whistling Dixie while sucking a government paid lollipop without any social stigma attached to his cowardice towards his own pledge. I say he should be executed.
I posted that a few days ago, you just don't pay attention sometimes. Answer the question in this earlier post for me please: Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3) Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2) Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1) Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2) http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=36741&Disp=11#C11
Yeah. And I had to remind you again. Because you don't know how to read your own posts. In short, don't commit yourself about anything. You have no honor about your own oath.
Answer the question, stop stalling.
Your hypothetical question shall never exist upon this planet. It certainly isn't within the framework of reality of my perceptions.
Then why did they include that verbiage in the Geneva Accords? I am going to take that as a default to an answer that you in fact do not support the Geneva convention or international law regarding war. You sure are acting like you don't and just don't want to say so. The question is easy. A moron like Quantrill could even answer it. You feel that if you swear an oath to defend the Constitution, that obeying the orders to aid a criminal commander in chief subvert the U.S. Constitution is unavoidable because your oath says to do what they say, even should you know what they are doing is wrong. This is not the case, if they are engaged in an illegal and immoral war your oath binds you to disobey the orders of superiors that contradict the intent of their oath and yours'. This soldier is to be commented for refusing to go to combat involving an illegal and immoral war. You arguing he is duty bound to do so is a de facto support of Mr. Bush and his war efforts. You are conflicted. You don't support Bush and what he does, but you believe people who know better should act as if they don't in order to help him in the commission of conducting a wrong. You just can't have it both ways. You don't make any sense.
Convince me why I should answer your question .... Shall I learn that no matter which answer I provide, you shall attempt to be outraged? Isn't that why you invited me to this thread in the first place? And, moreover, I see you have changed your reasons to chat with me. The issue you have with me has nothing to do with Goldi, the thread's title. Nor is the issue about my perspective concerning honor, some past thread you picked off from LP. You just want to play around. You want to see if I contradict myself in such a way that you can achieve a method of immortality to eliminate those stale elephant GOP cartoons that you use as your postscript. Get rid of that crap, you look foolish.
yawn
Remember, free speech is a privilege, not a right. In time of war speech should be censored and even prosecuted if it crosses the line. ~ Aaron on LP
It is a simple question not requiring much effort. I don't intend outrage or attack whatever your answer. I ask because I am curious. You contradict yourself and you don't want to talk about it. In regards to playing Martha Steward concerning my additions to my posts, I don't give a rats ass if you like them or not. Do you or do you not believe the oath of enlistment means one must obey illegal orders given by superiors even if obeying them violates the Geneva Accords?
So why did you ping me to this thread? You want something don't you? And when I didn't give you what you wanted about Goldi ( your wonder-woman ) you changed the subject attempting to continue some form of grievous questioning that could have been easily performed on the appropriate thread. No tact .. no honor. No understanding.
a man of substance (but i'm not pointing him out ;)
It was a ten second free fall..that's what I saw, that's what you saw..that's what everybody saw...
SleepyTime in NewYork ...
Reshape your question, grasshopper .. into an intelligible method from which I can answer. Your inferences give away your October Surprise. You forget that I am a vet as yourself.
You blubbered about pots mentioning you without a ping, so I included one as I had said I would should I mention your account name. Make up your mind; do you ant me to ping you when I mention you or not? You invited yourself in. I merely pinged you when mentioning your account name as I had said I would as per your request/whine previously. Honestly Buck, grow the hell up. You can really be quite the little fussbudget.
One either supports the Geneva Accords or does not. I assume your answer is you do not. I am through playing games. I default to assuming the answer you make most likely through experience in dealing with non-answers like yours. I don't live in frustration wondering things. You do not support the Geneva Accords, anyone violating them are good troops as long as they obey their superior's orders. That is exactly what you believe.
Your Internet etiquette goes a long way for me to describe any offensive or defensive material as I choose. A ping to me helps so as to relieve my HUGE task list about baby-sitting renegade Internet posters that have obviously formed an opinion to grind an axe with me. 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?
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.
Comments (115 - 142) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestPeople like you who feel the oath is like some blood initiation into a mafia generally don't understand what a commitment to that oath means.
I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Note that the last line is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)
#75. To: buckeroo (#74)
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36741&Disp=9#C9
#11. To: buckeroo (#8)
If I were under official orders to be in the Armed Forces and in a combat zone, and my superior officer said, "Look, they are parachuting from that plane that is about to crash, fire them up!" and I absolutely refused, I would be disobeying the enlistment oath I quoted in my last post, but I would be obeying the Geneva convention accords. Do you agree? hors de combat Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4)
#76. To: Ferret Mike (#75)
I posted that a few days ago, you just don't pay attention sometimes.
#77. To: buckeroo (#76)
#78. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
#79. To: buckeroo (#78)
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#79)
If I were under official orders to be in the Armed Forces and in a combat zone, and my superior officer said, "Look, they are parachuting from that plane that is about to crash, fire them up!" and I absolutely refused, I would be disobeying the enlistment oath I quoted in my last post, but I would be obeying the Geneva convention accords. Do you agree?
#81. To: buckeroo (#80)
#82. To: buckeroo (#80)
#83. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
I don't intend outrage or attack whatever your answer.
#84. To: rowdee, HOUNDDAWG (#71)
Young man, you're on a real roll this morning
#85. To: Morgana le Fay (#81)
#86. To: Ferret Mike (#82)
Do you or do you not believe the oath of enlistment means one must obey illegal orders given by superiors even if obeying them violates the Geneva Accords?
#87. To: buckeroo (#83)
"So why did you ping me to this thread? You want something don't you?"
"And when I didn't give you what you wanted about Goldi ( your wonder-woman ) you changed the subject attempting to continue some form of grievous questioning that could have been easily performed on the appropriate thread."
#88. To: buckeroo (#86)
(Edited)
"Reshape your question, grasshopper .. into an intelligible method from which I can answer. Your inferences give away your October Surprise. You forget that I am a vet as yourself."
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#87)
#90. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
One 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)
.
.
.