 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 35
|
|
16
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Clinton's emotional
|
on: January 09, 2008, 06:06:10 PM
|
Hillary Clinton basically slept her way to the top. She did not go through a rigorous political process. She did not rise to the level of senator by debating issues and rising from local politics and evolve into the national stage. Nope. She slept with a man who did it all, and she was there because she knew she couldn't do it without a man.. Even when he slept with every bimbette he could find, she knew she could not achieve anything without a man.
The senate was handed to her in a dem state and dem leadership that owed her husband much. And now she is using the same system in an attempt to vault to the top. I would hardly call the first lady any kind of elected office, and I certainly don't see the office mentioned in the Constitution as having real power or authority (beyond what the man, her husband gives her).
Hillary turns feminism on its head and everything she has, she owes to a man who abused his relationship with her. If that is measured or realistic, I would suggest you go back to school kid.
I don't think Obama has the full measure needed presently (though I think later he will, maybe another term or two), but at least he rose through the hurley burley of American politics in order to guage a nations pulse. It wasn't given to him, he earned it.
You're sexism is showing... again. A woman can't make it to the top without a man and if a woman does it she didn't earn it like a man? Not that I disagree with you that she needed Bill. That's why I firmly believe that if Hillary doesn't make it, it will be a cold day in hell before we have another chance at a woman president. I think there are many people in positions of power in this country not because they earned it, but because of who they know, intimately or otherwise. Yeah, you'd think in 2007 we would be past this misogynist view of women in power. Even if she did sleep her way to the top (which is pathetically condescending) she did what a woman would have to do if the power structure is anything like the Neolithic view Baldar has. Luckily, he represents a minority more and more. I just can't figure out if he has this view because of his mother or wife: Dinner at our house was always cold. Physically and emotionally. My father always maintained we could say anything we wanted to, but we had better damn well back it up with some facts. Our mother was of the same nature, though her method was infinitely more manipulative. So we kept an updated set of the encyclopedia Brittanica next to the dinner table ready for a quick reference. I wanted to beat my father so badly that I began reading the entire set of secondary encyclopedias we kept upstairs for our homework, to this day I remember it, World Scope encyclopedia. Not of the level Brittanica had but still a good read for a little kid of 13. Surprisingly enough I learned that Bill and Hillary Clinton raised their child in much the same way.
At sixteen my parents divorced. The difference between an aristocratic (and manipulative mother) and an intelligent but cold and distant father was too wide for them to work out. The divorce was acrimonious with my father yelling and stern and my mother manipulating us children with both guilt and anger. From Baldar's Autobiography. Misogyny starts young.. apparently around 16 years... (Notice the reference to the Clintons! how timely!) Sigh, what a complete idiot you are. My view is clearly explained but your hatred makes you even appear even stupid than previously assumed. I suppose everyone who agrees with my reasonsing is a mysoginist.  As a teenager I tried to masturbate, but the tweezers kept slipping. From the autobiography of daedalus-- apparently he is a small man in more ways than one. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Clinton's emotional
|
on: January 09, 2008, 06:02:10 PM
|
Hillary Clinton basically slept her way to the top. She did not go through a rigorous political process. She did not rise to the level of senator by debating issues and rising from local politics and evolve into the national stage. Nope. She slept with a man who did it all, and she was there because she knew she couldn't do it without a man.. Even when he slept with every bimbette he could find, she knew she could not achieve anything without a man.
The senate was handed to her in a dem state and dem leadership that owed her husband much. And now she is using the same system in an attempt to vault to the top. I would hardly call the first lady any kind of elected office, and I certainly don't see the office mentioned in the Constitution as having real power or authority (beyond what the man, her husband gives her).
Hillary turns feminism on its head and everything she has, she owes to a man who abused his relationship with her. If that is measured or realistic, I would suggest you go back to school kid.
I don't think Obama has the full measure needed presently (though I think later he will, maybe another term or two), but at least he rose through the hurley burley of American politics in order to guage a nations pulse. It wasn't given to him, he earned it.
You're sexism is showing... again. A woman can't make it to the top without a man and if a woman does it she didn't earn it like a man? Not that I disagree with you that she needed Bill. That's why I firmly believe that if Hillary doesn't make it, it will be a cold day in hell before we have another chance at a woman president. I think there are many people in positions of power in this country not because they earned it, but because of who they know, intimately or otherwise. Wrong, I think a woman can work her way to the top. My wife is a CFO, I worked for two talented business leaders who happened to be women. Frankly good leaders are good leaders regardless of sex. So you are completely wrong where your view of me is concerned. Certainly many people are in positions they don't deserve. I didn't imply that isn't true either. That doesn't mean I have to accept it in anyone including Hillary Clinton. Hillary didn't work her way to the top, certainly Bill put her there. The fact that you seem to think that if Hillary doesn't make it, no woman will, suggests your extreme partisan nature. Nancy Pelosi, Condileeza Rice, more women finishing graduate school than men, women CFO's, you are very myopic when it comes to this. Care to tell me which other presidential candidate manipulated his party into giving his wife or her husband a senatorial position? |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Religious scams
|
on: January 09, 2008, 05:49:27 PM
|
Communism is an atheist scam.
Communism is neither atheist nor a scam. It is both, a key pillar of communism is atheism, that all cause is only that of man. And it is a scam because everywhere it has been used in all its principle it has left misery and failure. Apparently you need to get out more in the real world. Perhaps if you read "Das Kapital" you would be more sure of the doctrine. |
|
|
|
|
21
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: God & Hitler.... What's the difference?
|
on: January 09, 2008, 05:47:25 PM
|
Does barney respond to the an insect far away? So why should god respond to the pureile interests of barney? Oh too bad, barney gets upset and in a fit of whining self importance says "see god didn't talk to me so he must not exist". Amazing, I wonder if his mom would cease to exist if she refused to answer the phone or shout down into the basement when he called for her? I once purchased a company in South America, Chile to be specific. The janitor wanted to let me know how he felt the company should be run, in fact, he sent an email demanding to talk to me. I deleted it because frankly, what he had to say was irrelevant to what we as a company were doing. Imagine the difference and distance enhanced to an infinite level. And that pretty much is where barney is, less even than that self deluded janitor. |
|
|
|
|
22
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Misquoting Jesus
|
on: January 09, 2008, 05:41:14 PM
|
|
Barney I want to thank you for once again supporting Reasoned Faiths post just prior to yours. You constantly prove our points without even realizing it.
While all RF has is the Bible and of course his own innate sense of goodness, what does Barney have other than his own innate sense of illogic and his constant abuse of historical facts (which he always gets wrong), his constant abuse of scripture (which he always gets wrong), his constant abuse of google (using words he doesn't know the definition of). Wow, its amazing the boy doesn't go to bed shamed by his intellect every night.
Consider how barney makes constant errors. He calls himself an "independent" observer when referring the flood. One asks, how is barney independent of his bigotry? Well he isn't. How is it he claims to observe the flood? Well he didn't. And yet here he is the "independent observer". A legend in his own mind. Of course he cannot reconcile his "independent observation". He lives in constant error, there can be no reconciliation when one seems to be wrong every step of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Can somebody explain something to me?
|
on: January 09, 2008, 02:58:21 PM
|
|
Nope, the borrowers are always told, they know what will happen, they make the decision betting on higher equity and they lost.
If Vegas treated its people the way the gov seems to view mortgage holders, it would still be a crap hole in the desert because everyone would get their money back, even when they knew they might lose.
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
Assistance and Feedback / The Lobbyist (Off Topic) / Re: A refugee from a sinking forum arrives
|
on: January 09, 2008, 02:54:50 PM
|
As any urologist will tell you, sperm count isn't important if they don't wiggle.  Oh, so that was your problem, all quantity but no quality. I hope things have changed. Your closest girl seems satisfied.  Oh by the way mine wiggle, I have many children to prove it. Hell some people thought I was catholic. In a posting sense; My posts tend to have content versus cut and paste. I will just point out how you boys seem to be shooting blanks left and right here. It takes two, three even four of you at a time when I post (not how you self congratulate yourself, but both of you were on the attack on just one poster). If that isn't some strong action on my part I don't know what is. I certainly haven't seen you kids step up to the base that way. I have yet to meet one of you willing to go one on one. |
|
|
|
|
28
|
Assistance and Feedback / The Inferno / Re: How DO we 'account for' things?
|
on: January 09, 2008, 02:49:19 PM
|
|
There is no "going there" abraxas. The fact of the matter is that barney constitution spits his vile attacks at anyone who has belief system different than his and when called on it and shown just how stupid his logic is, he claims its ad hom.
Or he claims it all about him.
And you suffer him to do so.
Well thats fine, but in the end he needs to man up and start taking the abuse he seems to enjoy dishing out, either that or start deleting his posts and editing them.
|
|
|
|
|
