The Woman President Propaganda is getting thick. Are you a believer? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Woman President Propaganda is getting thick. Are you a believer? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:14:01 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Women bashing is not welcome on this board any more than religion bashing or race bashing. Please refrain from the sweeping generalizations and keep CoC #1 in mind.

Please cite the "women bashing" please.

Yeah, no shit.

Besides, it's bad enough women have taken over control of the gov't and the courts. That's really worked out great BTW. If they're going to take over this place I doubt I'll much care whether I get banned or not.

What a bunch of feminazi bullshit.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:25:27 PM EDT

[#2]

I find it amusing that the emotional responses in this thread have come from men, not women.

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and logic"
"Women are just to unstable to be president."
"Also add that the main interest of women is getting money from men."

Making statements about women you've had dealings with is one thing. Painting all women with the same broad brush is another. Not all women are feminazi liberal touchy feely gun-grabbing soccer moms. If that were the case, I wouldn't be here. I would be campaigning for the Brady Bunch.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:28:23 PM EDT

[#3]

Nice sigline BTW.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:30:33 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Nice sigline BTW.

Why thank ewe.

Posted: 2/20/2006 12:37:23 PM EDT

[#5]

Condi for VP.

Posted: 2/20/2006 1:18:33 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I find it amusing that the emotional responses in this thread have come from men, not women.

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and logic"
"Women are just to unstable to be president."
"Also add that the main interest of women is getting money from men."

Making statements about women you've had dealings with is one thing. Painting all women with the same broad brush is another. Not all women are feminazi liberal touchy feely gun-grabbing soccer moms. If that were the case, I wouldn't be here. I would be campaigning for the Brady Bunch.

Generally speaking, the reason generalizations are used is because they are likely true.

The three examples you cited are composed crudely. That said, men's thought processes and decision making are more logical in nature and men are not subject to hormonal swings which effects emotional stability.

Whoever wrote the third point is probably just venting based on some bad personal experience.

The expression of these ideas, and even the third posters feelings are not "women bashing."

We have just about gotten to the point where we cannot have open discussion anymore.

Someone with hurt feelings is always calling someone a "basher" of some sort or another.

Posted: 2/20/2006 1:25:59 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
NO, NO, AND DOUBLE NO

it would be stupid to put the fate of the country in the hands of a gender that operates mostly on emotion as opposed to logic.

Woman president? - "I think of a man, and then I take away reason and logic"

Flame away

Wasn't this a quote from Jack N. in a movie where a woman asked him how he understood women so well?

Also add that the main interest of women is getting money from men.

Neo1 , im with ya , but the rest of it was , reason , logic -- AND ACCOUNTABILITY !
But then she doesnot have to be bothered with that , as long as the state of our news media stays the same !

Posted: 2/20/2006 1:40:12 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Someone with hurt feelings is always calling someone a "basher" of some sort or another.

Heh, my feelings aren't hurt.

Posted: 2/20/2006 3:48:59 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone with hurt feelings is always calling someone a "basher" of some sort or another.

Heh, my feelings aren't hurt.

I am sure glad because I hate to see a woman cry!

Posted: 2/20/2006 5:04:38 PM EDT

[#10]

I'm not opposed to a woman president, per se.

I am opposed to any of the current potential women presidents, and their politics.

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:52:52 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This country has already been feminized.

Isa 3:12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

We used to have a Secretary of War. We used to win wars. Now we don't.

We used to paddle the behinds of those who misbehaved in schoools. Now we fear the children. (GASP! They might call HRS and get YOU thrown in jail for paddling their behinds!)

These are but two examples of feminization.

Women are intelligent, highly capable creatures. They are not inferior to men. But, they deal with situations in a completely different manner. Women have a softer side which should, by all means, temper the harder aspect of the masculine nature.

They are not however, leaders of men. They were not designed to be so by their Creator.

Of course, like the majority of people, the majority of posters on this thread have been programmed otherwise.

Society suffers as a result.

The characteristics of successful leaders are gender-independent.

IOW, successful male and female leaders all share the same set of core characteristics.

Women can be great leaders of women.

You will not find a MAN who wants to be led by a woman.

You might find those of the male gender willing.

Two things:

1) I think you may have been quoting Isaiah a bit out of context. Didn't that just apply to "His" people (i.e. God's Chosen People)? Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

2) Does being a MAN entail losing the will/desire to be successful and/or make money? I want to hitch my wagon up to a WINNER, be he/she male or female. I think you might be confusing women leaders (we're talking "sum of all possibles" here) with just the chicks you know and or see in the media.

Posted: 2/20/2006 7:45:53 PM EDT

[#12]

I don't care about a President's gender, race, age, or any other pointless category. The only category I care about is the "ability to lead the country well" category. If the ballot contains a well-qualified person whom I think will do a good job of leading the country, and that person is a better choice in my opinion than the other people on the ballot, then I'm voting for that person.

Jim

Posted: 2/20/2006 7:54:01 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
No contenders are currently on the roster.

One could say the EXACT same thing about the current MALE candidates!

Posted: 2/20/2006 7:55:06 PM EDT

[#14]

Your poll kinda pisses me off to be honest. It's TIME? It's NOT TIME? What does time have to do with it? There's a TIME we should have a woman President? That's news to me.

We should have a woman President when a woman was the best qualified candidate for the job, NOT just because we just feel like electing some woman. It's TIME when the most qualified candidate happens to be a female. You don't just decide, "We need to elect a woman NOW." and then vote for the first female that runs. That's NUTS!

People who think it's time or it's not time are dim. The question is whether or not we're ready for a female President. Assuming the answer's yes . . . then it could be 4 years or it could be 40 years before it actually happens.

When people are thinking, "Should we elect Hillary?" they shouldN'T be thinking, "IS IT TIME?" They should be thinking "Is she qualified, and do I agree with her positions?" Of course the answer would be F*&# NO! When I vote against Hillary, it won't be because it's "not time", it'll be because she's a crazy BI#(*

The reason your poll pisses me off is because it's exactly how most of America thinks and TONS of people are gonna vote for her STRICTLY because it's PC, because it "would be nice to have a female President" because "it's time". That idiocy pisses me off 'cause THAT's the kinda thinking that's fu**#&% up this country.

Posted: 2/20/2006 7:56:39 PM EDT

[#15]

I wouldn't vote for a candidate just because of gender. But there are specific females that I would vote for POTUS. Condi is a yes, Hitlery a definite never!

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:02:23 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe we are headed for an imminent economic collapse and WWIII. 10-20 years and it ain't going to matter who is President. In fact, I would say it is just about inevitable at this point.

Might even be a Civil War on top of it when people realize just how badly the gov't has flushed this country.

If Hildebeast is elected this country is in big trouble and I would expect it all to be sooner and worse.

I have been clear in the past that I don't vote for women for dogcatcher much less President. YMMV.

The sky is not falling.

We are the richest most powerful we have ever been, by a huge margin. Remember most of the media makes money only if everyone's afraid. Plus most of the press are stupid enough to believe there own nonsense. Look at any scientific measure of success and America is kicking ass all over the place. Keep the faith man, and remember all our big problems are simply a question of educating the ignorant.

As was said before, the decision for whom to lead the free world should be made based on qualifications, not arbitrary shit like race and color.

www.uwm.edu/People/danielz/Roman%20Empire%20Scavenger%20Hunt_files/image004.jpg

You DO know how long the roman empire lasted, right?

Everything comes to an end, but I imagine the U.S. might still have a good 100 years left, and possibly much, much longer than that.

Yep.
I'm just saying DKprof, everything that goes up, must come down.
And, one could make a case, that things do not last as long these days because of the technology and inter-connectedness of the world.
One could say they speed up historical forces.

What about the possibility that our science and technology is so overwhelming that "historical forces" are stalled and even stopped. What if we can freely distribute the truth, and more importantly the, science of what makes the world work, in a way we were never in a position to before.

We are the sole superpower and anyone who's interested in competing with us is having to do so by emulating our style, in many cases, just to keep the lights on. In this way, I think our predicament is quite different from the Romans. And that these fundamental differences make the comparison imposable.

One way or the other, it's not gunna be on my watch, you know what I mean?

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:14:18 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I have no problem with a woman POTUS but I know it won't be Hilary. The Dems know someone with a 50% hate rate will not win an election.

They want someone who is fairly unknown.

Everybody hated her in NY and . .. . SHE WON. She'd win the election strictly BECAUSE she's a woman. All the dems will vote for her and so will many of the "rightwing" women. They'd switch ranks to support "a fellow woman". The only people who'd vote against her would be Conservative men. She'd win. She is our next President. Even if she goes up against Condi Rice.

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:20:18 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I don't vote based upon the candidate's sex.

Thats important because I believe hitlery has a ...............

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:29:22 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
I find it amusing that the emotional responses in this thread have come from men, not women.

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and logic"
"Women are just to unstable to be president."
"Also add that the main interest of women is getting money from men."

Making statements about women you've had dealings with is one thing. Painting all women with the same broad brush is another. Not all women are feminazi liberal touchy feely gun-grabbing soccer moms. If that were the case, I wouldn't be here. I would be campaigning for the Brady Bunch.

Whether you or I or others agree or disagree with those statements is irrelevant. The fact is that those are their opinions/beliefs and they should be allowed to express them without being intimidated by site staff that has taken the statements personally. Of course I UNDERSTAND how you'd be offended by their statements, but people should be able to say what they think on here without worrying "oh golly gee could this offend somebody?" AR15.com is STILL a conservative site that supports freedom of speech right? Or do we have do be PC and practice self cencorship from now on so that we don't risk hurting even ONE person's feelings?

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:35:51 PM EDT

[#20]

The only woman I ever I ever thought would be a good president was former WA governor Dixie Lee Ray. She was a staunch Repulican (and a RSDD - rompin' stompin' diesel dyke).

Posted: 2/20/2006 8:35:58 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I don't vote based upon the candidate's sex.

+1

Posted: 2/20/2006 10:31:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Here is a little linear thinking.

1. Islam thinks women should stay in the background and not lead countries.

2. The Left in the US wants to appease Islam and "not make them mad" at us.

3. Electing Hitlery as our President would certainly inflame Islam as much as, if not more than, publishing cartoons of Muhammed did.

SO. . . .To be honest to their principles (LOL!!!!!!!!), the Left should refrain from nominating or electing Hitlery for President.

This explains why Pakistan elected Benazir Bhutto as their President in 1988 and again in 1993.

BTW, the poll forgot the most important option: "neither, vote for the candidate you like or against the candidate you hate". I'd vote for Rice in a heartbeep; I'd vote against Hillebeeste in a heartbleep.

Posted: 2/20/2006 11:48:11 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Whether you or I or others agree or disagree with those statements is irrelevant. The fact is that those are their opinions/beliefs and they should be allowed to express them without being intimidated by site staff that has taken the statements personally. Of course I UNDERSTAND how you'd be offended by their statements, but people should be able to say what they think on here without worrying "oh golly gee could this offend somebody?" AR15.com is STILL a conservative site that supports freedom of speech right? Or do we have do be PC and practice self cencorship from now on so that we don't risk hurting even ONE person's feelings?

I'm intimidating now? Yay, a promotion!

I'm not offended. I can understand how a bad experience can make people view a certain group in a dim light. However, if you substitute an ethnic or religious group of your choice into the statements where "women" appears, you could see how that thread would get locked. Since the CoC specifically mentions derogatory comments of a "racial, religious, or sexual nature", I'm just trying to remind people to follow the house rules. This thread travels much further into that territory than it would if those statements said "all black people" or "all Catholics". Since I'm a woman and I posted the warning, people automatically assume I'm getting on my high horse. I'm not. I don't get along with horses.

Yes, there is freedom of speech in America. However, this is a private board and therefore isn't covered by the first amendment. Hence the CoC.

If anyone would like further information about my reasoning (or feelings on feminism, for that matter) feel free to IM me since this thread is hijacked enough.

Anyway, if Ann Coulter runs for president, I hope she loses. Hate her. Dr. Rice all the way!

Posted: 2/21/2006 4:14:20 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem with a woman POTUS but I know it won't be Hilary. The Dems know someone with a 50% hate rate will not win an election.

They want someone who is fairly unknown.

Everybody hated her in NY and . .. . SHE WON. She'd win the election strictly BECAUSE she's a woman. All the dems will vote for her and so will many of the "rightwing" women. They'd switch ranks to support "a fellow woman". The only people who'd vote against her would be Conservative men. She'd win. She is our next President. Even if she goes up against Condi Rice.

The force is NOT strong with this one.........

Hillary will be defeated in the primaries by Mark Warner.

Care to put money on it?

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:04:04 AM EDT

[#25]

It's NOT (nor will it ever be) time for Hillary Clinton to be President, I can tell you that much!

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:22:17 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I believe we are headed for an imminent economic collapse and WWIII. 10-20 years and it ain't going to matter who is President. In fact, I would say it is just about inevitable at this point.

Might even be a Civil War on top of it when people realize just how badly the gov't has flushed this country.

YMMV.

I'm with 100% on these two issues Doc. Uncle Sam's Debt and
never ending Garage Sale could be the end of us.

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:25:00 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I don't vote based upon the candidate's sex.

no shit! wtf? i hope this ain't gender driven!!! the best person for the job, no matter what the race, sex, religion, ethnicity, whatever...

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:26:37 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No contenders are currently on the roster.

One could say the EXACT same thing about the current MALE candidates!

Amen!

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:27:10 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I wouldn't vote for a candidate just because of gender. But there are specific females that I would vote for POTUS. Condi is a yes, Hitlery a definite never!

I agree with you on Hitlery; but Condi is still only a 'maybe' in my book.

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:30:01 AM EDT

[#30]

I believe that we will have a black (male) President first. I could be wrong.

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:31:27 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I believe we are headed for an imminent economic collapse and WWIII. 10-20 years and it ain't going to matter who is President. In fact, I would say it is just about inevitable at this point.

I'm concerned about this too. All it would take at this point is for China and OPEC to tell us to go fuck ourselves. Ten years down the road we are going to be even more dependent on questionable countries for our economic integrity. That might not be bad if everyone else in the world only cared about their checking account but it just isn't like that.

I'm not going to say "it's time" for a female president, to me it solely rests on which candidate will be best for the Country. If that happens to be a woman, so be it.

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:39:36 AM EDT

[#32]

I don't think it's "time" for a woman president anymore than I think I think it's "time" for another male president.

When I vote for a representative in government it is based on how that person represents me, regardless of whether said person is white, black, purple, or has a penis.

Posted: 2/21/2006 5:45:38 AM EDT

[#33]

It's not gonna happen, especially if hilary is the shining hope for women everywhere...

Posted: 2/21/2006 7:26:48 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe we are headed for an imminent economic collapse and WWIII. 10-20 years and it ain't going to matter who is President. In fact, I would say it is just about inevitable at this point.

Might even be a Civil War on top of it when people realize just how badly the gov't has flushed this country.

If Hildebeast is elected this country is in big trouble and I would expect it all to be sooner and worse.

I have been clear in the past that I don't vote for women for dogcatcher much less President. YMMV.

The sky is not falling.

We are the richest most powerful we have ever been, by a huge margin. Remember most of the media makes money only if everyone's afraid. Plus most of the press are stupid enough to believe there own nonsense. Look at any scientific measure of success and America is kicking ass all over the place. Keep the faith man, and remember all our big problems are simply a question of educating the ignorant.

Technology isn't what keeps an economy or a society afloat.

As was said before, the decision for whom to lead the free world should be made based on qualifications, not arbitrary shit like race and color.

I understand why you think that but have you considered that it will matter to the person you elect?

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

www.uwm.edu/People/danielz/Roman%20Empire%20Scavenger%20Hunt_files/image004.jpg

You DO know how long the roman empire lasted, right?

Everything comes to an end, but I imagine the U.S. might still have a good 100 years left, and possibly much, much longer than that.

Yep.
I'm just saying DKprof, everything that goes up, must come down.
And, one could make a case, that things do not last as long these days because of the technology and inter-connectedness of the world.
One could say they speed up historical forces.

We survived one Civil War, the second Revolution, and ended up stronger for it. Assuming that another would destroy this nation is a mistake. In fact, it is possible that it is the only thing which will save us. Not saying that is the case but no one can say that it isn't either. The status quo in this instance only aids those already in power, those who are responsible for the debacle that may bring us to the brink.

Quoted:What about the possibility that our science and technology is so overwhelming that "historical forces" are stalled and even stopped. What if we can freely distribute the truth, and more importantly the, science of what makes the world work, in a way we were never in a position to before.

We are the sole superpower and anyone who's interested in competing with us is having to do so by emulating our style, in many cases, just to keep the lights on. In this way, I think our predicament is quite different from the Romans. And that these fundamental differences make the comparison imposable.

One way or the other, it's not gunna be on my watch, you know what I mean?

There are an incredible number of parallels between the US and the Roman Empire.
As for emulating us, that is as it has always been. Nations which conquered other great nations had respect for them and their success, typically adopting much of their technology, religion, and societal ideology. You would do well to bear that in mind.

Posted: 2/21/2006 7:03:47 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no problem with a woman POTUS but I know it won't be Hilary. The Dems know someone with a 50% hate rate will not win an election.

They want someone who is fairly unknown.

Everybody hated her in NY and . .. . SHE WON. She'd win the election strictly BECAUSE she's a woman. All the dems will vote for her and so will many of the "rightwing" women. They'd switch ranks to support "a fellow woman". The only people who'd vote against her would be Conservative men. She'd win. She is our next President. Even if she goes up against Condi Rice.

The force is NOT strong with this one.........

Hillary will be defeated in the primaries by Mark Warner.

Care to put money on it?

Well I hope you're right.

Posted: 2/21/2006 7:21:46 PM EDT

[#36]

How come The Constitution of the United States of America repeatedly refers to The President as "HE" ??

Posted: 2/21/2006 7:26:05 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
How come The Constitution of the United States of America repeatedly refers to The President as "HE" ??

Because that's what you do when you're writing proper English.

Posted: 2/21/2006 7:36:14 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
How come The Constitution of the United States of America repeatedly refers to The President as "HE" ??

Because that's what you do when you're writing proper English.

Soooo....anytime you use SHE you are being IMproper?

Posted: 2/21/2006 8:07:53 PM EDT

[#39]

the call for a woman president in 2008 is just another LIBERAL media blitz to turn the tide to suit the tree huggers.

i'm not saying it will never happen, but this country isn't ready yet. it will NEVER be ready for hillary

Posted: 2/21/2006 8:21:42 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
This country has already been feminized.

Isa 3:12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

We used to have a Secretary of War. We used to win wars. Now we don't.

We used to paddle the behinds of those who misbehaved in schoools. Now we fear the children. (GASP! They might call HRS and get YOU thrown in jail for paddling their behinds!)

These are but two examples of feminization.

Women are intelligent, highly capable creatures. They are not inferior to men. But, they deal with situations in a completely different manner. Women have a softer side which should, by all means, temper the harder aspect of the masculine nature.

They are not however, leaders of men. They were not designed to be so by their Creator.

Of course, like the majority of people, the majority of posters on this thread have been programmed otherwise.

Society suffers as a result.

Very much my sentiment. I have yet in my 45 years, be it in the military or civilan life, to work with or for or otherwise a woman that I would without hesitation follow into a war. And war is the ultimate decision for a president to ponder.

Women let emotions control too many of their critical decisions. They do things because they "feel" like it, not because it is the logical step to take, and seemingly often without thinking of long term consequences.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Woman President Propaganda is getting thick. Are you a believer? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us