Who won tonights debate?

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
and part of the latter has to do with her showing that she can't make rational decisions not based in emotions, which is a typical characteristic of the female gender.



Not being a women myself, although I have high estrogen levels
I can't argue this at the same level you, Undo, and Ashley can, but I personally believe women are fully capable of making rational decisions not 'biased' by emotion, just like men. Also, I think men make decisions 'biased' by emotions just as women sometimes do. I don't think the sexes are ultimately that different, if at all, in those regards. I think Undo is expressing this point?




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
here we go democrats!
hop on over to the
WOMEN GENETICALLY LESS INTELLIGENT THAN MEN thread. And please, don't leave it. We don't want the planet blown up by democrat anymore than a republican ya know.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Yes.. consider this with complete honesty. When a break up occurs between a man and a woman, who is the more likely to seek vengeance and in the cruelest way possible and who is the more likely to walk away with out needing to consult the sappy movie, bucket of ice cream, and tissues?


Women become more emotionally attached... this is a NATURAL trait and it serves a GREAT and BEAUTIFUL purpose, but that purpose is not to lead.


edited to add: the post right above this is proof that women are not prone to rational thinking... you have alluded already that I am a democrat and that was a conclusion based on your emotions, not rationality. I have seen nothing that conclusively tells me you are female, but let me use some logic based on understanding the traits of the genders.. you are female, right? haha No doubt that I am right bc you are more emotional than rational.

]

[edit on 5-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Undo....

ARE YOU HONESTLY suggesting to all of us that Conservatives and Republicans have not shown sexism towards women???



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


i had this really odd out of body vision type thing one day, and it's stuck with me ever since. i dunno if it's what people call astral projection or what the bible calls visions, but what i learned was pretty disturbing, which may explain why i'm so focused on this particular topic. it has to do with a certain group of ...."extra-terrestrials" perhaps ? that have always hated humans but really hate human women because we make more humans. i've always wondered if perhaps this is part of the problem, ya know? it's almost like its engrained in human cultures the planet over. i really can't make sense out of it otherwise. have you ever read about female infanticide? it's gruesome.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have not, but I am interested in reading more about what you are talking about.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


nope, i'm not saying that at all. i don't think either side will let the other's female candidate have a shot at it, as long as the general public is willing to divide so rigidly along party lines and buy the spins of whatever voice is opposing.

when and if the democrats ever try for a female candidate again, she'll be given the same treatment sarah has because it works, or appears to, anyway. maybe not? i'm having trouble grasping this concept...a woman president...would we suddnely have prettier public restrooms and stuff? would she redecorate the country? (i'm assuming we need to exaggerate her feminine talents that are the least appropriate for the job so that she looks like a maroon).



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Well, this is why, if I let my emotions get in the way
I would be quite offended because I am not saying that a woman could NOT be qualified for office, but Sarah Palin is NOT that woman.. and one of the reasons IS because of traits that are natural to women. I do not think that a man is capable of leading the country simply because he is a man, but typically the reasons why a man would not qualify is because his issues are anti constitutional.

And I have not once said that there weren't exceptions to the natural rules. There are indeed some women who tend toward male traits (Hillary Clinton being one, albeit she falls under the "not fit to lead the country" based on her anti constitutional stances) and there are men who tend toward female traits, although, in all honesty, most of those men don't tend to pursue such positions of leadership.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


i dunno, i don't think i ever sought vengeance on a former love interest, unless i've forgotten. i think that might just be a stereotype. same with the ice cream and sappy movie stuff. only time i recall having sappy movie syndrome was when my dad was dying and i was very melancholy, but it really wasn't sappy movies as much as sappy music, that matched my mood, perhaps i just don't understand the word "sappy." if by sappy you mean romantic...if i'm going to watch a romance movie, it has to be fun and lighthearted. i hated casablanca, romeo and juliet, titanic, and the stupid relationship of padme and anakin, which just infuriated me to no end. but i thoroughly enjoyed princess bride, the doris day/rock hudson romance comedies, spencer tracy/katherine hepburn romance comedies, that kinda thing





[edit on 4-10-2008 by undo]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


So essentially you are saying leadership is a male trait? Because of the way society has constructed the image of what male traits are i.e leadership? Or are you saying it's the actual genetic inheritance of man? I think if anything it's the former, and that's an issue, hence the feminist movement, etc.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


I am confused....maybe I missed it, but what traits are you referring to, specifically? I haven't seen or heard her do anything more "typical" than any other politician.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I see people spinning her female traits both for and against her as they interpret the debate. Both positions are potentially sexist, depending.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
To sum it all up, a few people on this thread don't think Palin is the right choice for president. Undo believes that these people are sexist. The people say it isn't sexism, but belief that she lacks qualifications. Undo believes that when they say she lacks qualification, they are continuing sexism. And on we go....



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


i agree. i have no clue why it matters if she's pretty or not. if she can handle the job, that's the prerequisite, i should think. probably trying to establish a cult of personality for her as was done for obama. if he's apollo, she's some goddess or something. ya know how it goes in the world of symbols and icons. irrelevant to us, not so irrelevant to others. also there's the problem of the ideal vs. reality. it's ideally that people would accept each other as they appear, but fact is, we can be really persnickety about appearances.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
so wanna tell me how it's possible for it not to be because she's a woman if your rationale for not trusting her decisions is because she's a woman, displaying typical characteristics of the female gender?


I think you've completely missing the point. I'm not saying for a moment that women are inferior to men in any way. I mean look at Condy Rice. Can you compare Palin's grasp of international relations and foreign policy with hers? Not a chance. It's all about individual competence.

Now having said that, Palin has a gang of kids to raise who are in the formative stage of character development. They need her to be a friend, philosopher and guide so that they become good citizens of the country. She needs to inculcate discipline and ensure a good healthy upbringing.

WILL SHE BE ABLE TO DEVOTE THE TIME AND EFFORT TO THIS IMPORTANT FACET IF SHE'S VICE PRESIDENT? NO! In other words, does she really care for her family? Power and pelf is probably more important to her.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


translated: she's not a democrat so she needs to stay home and take care of her kids. that's pretty interesting.

i hope the people who voted for the equal opportunity employment and day care centers for working moms in places of business, are reading this. also the moms who go to college and work and raise a family. ladies, go home. that's the message. if your kids are under the age of 10, you have no business in the work place.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Obama has small children as well, so why is this question never asked of him? One could easily say that he is putting his aspirations of being President over the welfare of his children?

Asking this of Palin is a bit hypocritical in my mind....especially if it isn't asked of the other candidates with small children.

And, it has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican....



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
okay i admit you had me going there for a bit. i know what you're doing. you're hoping to garner support from the conservative christian or any other person who is against the idea of women in the work place or working moms in general. interesting strategy. it may backfire on you but interesting nonetheless.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Reasons she is not competent that have nothing to do with being a female:

1. She is so clueless that she actually believes that *we* won the Vietnam War and that John McCain was actually responsible for our winning it (I think most people missed this bit of ignorance that was made evident in the debate.. check the transcript hehe)

2. She has blatantly lied and her lies have been stated in this thread so no need to rehash, ALTHOUGH as I have previously said, I don't chalk this up as JUST her character flaw, but it is a MAJOR flaw that keeps me from voting for her or any of the other glorified politicians we get served... after all, I do have values that are not swayed because I am SO loyal to a particular party.

3. She stated HERSELF that she doesn't know the duties that a Vice President carries out... not surprising when she can't even name one major newspaper in this country even though she claims to read them consistently.

4. She is so naive that she actually thinks that since Alaska is close to Russia, she has experience in foreign relations.. cute, but not a "qualification" that I personally care to see in someone who could lead this country from the #2 position let alone having the possibility of leading from the #1 position.

5. She wants to go to war with Iran and the only reason she can stu.. stu.. stutter out is because "Israel is the good guy."

6. She is gung ho on going to war with Russia as well.

7. The only thing she can say when asked about the current state of our economy and quite frankly ANY issue she can't answer (which if you pay attention, is more than republicans want to admit) is "I want to talk about, again, my record on energy" and yet, what has she REALLY done for this country where "energy" is concerned?? hmmmm???

8. She sounds JUST LIKE our current president when it comes to hearing voices and claiming it is god telling her what to do. That is VERY dangerous as we have already witnessed.


anyway.. those are just a FEW of the reasons that she is BAD NEWS for either of the top 2 positions of leadership in this country. If I add a
and give a cute
, will it be better received??






[edit on 4-10-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1Obama has small children as well, so why is this question never asked of him?


I am anti-Obama... in fact, before McCain showed his lack of good judgment by choosing "image" over substance, I was considering voting McCain simply because I see Obama as toxic for this country (but so is Palin... McCain made sure either choice was null and void in my book).

However, to answer your question, BECAUSE NATURE has CHOSEN women to be the nurturer.. she has a NEWBORN for gods sake and I understand that we have bottles and formula, but nature has proven that babies NEED their mother during the first years of their life because if the bottle and formula DIDN'T exist, the baby would need that FEMALE tit to get their milk from. (and by the way, I am not anti bottle. I understand women have valid reasons for using a bottle, but I am sorry... this is not one of them.... when she is fulfilling her role as VP, who will be feeding that baby? .. not the dad because he has a demanding job as well).

EDITED TO TONE DOWN: bc my intent is not to offend here.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by justamomma]





top topics
 
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join