RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

sirsholly -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 5:55:23 AM)

quote:

.this you wont like,. if a woman tells me to do something vs a man telling me to do something- well there is a subtle difference. check out how kids are, mom can scream her head off. dad walks in and points at the kid and the kid behaves.

oh for heavens sake [8|]



barelynangel -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:00:43 AM)

Kittnsol, i hate to tell you this but your mindreading techniques need a little work.  My statement was not based in any way in regards to a woman's worth compared to a Man's. 

Secondly, you don't seem naive, i find it interesting you would not think a support of a president isn't emotional on the part of a supporter.  Politics in and of itself is VERY emotional because its about beliefs and understandings and passions of an individual based on visions they see for themselves and those who can obtain that for them.  Do you seriously believe most people know the actual TRUTH with regard to the people who run, and that most people never even meet the person they are voting for.  The media isn't always unbias in its reporting.  And with the internet and the billions things on it, for everything stated you can find contradictory statements that add up also.

Hint, i did not lay out my reasons for my statement, so no i am sorry but you really don't know my reasoning behind that statement despite your belief you do.  Therefore, until i choose too, you in all your infinite wisdom lol have no clue my reasonings for stating such a thing.  And another hint, i didn't say the US wasn't or was, i said the world. 

angel



sirsholly -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:17:53 AM)

quote:

Hint, i did not lay out my reasons for my statement, so no i am sorry but you really don't know my reasoning behind that statement despite your belief you do. Therefore, until i choose too, you in all your infinite wisdom lol have no clue my reasonings for stating such a thing.

Kittinsol made a valid statement based on what you posted.



barelynangel -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:26:22 AM)

Umm no she did not -- she ASSUMED she knew what i meant when i said --

I don't think or want a woman president, i don't think the world is ready for a woman to be president of the Main Super Power,

There is NOTHING in that very simple statement to remotely indicate i was speaking of a woman's WORTH or a Man's WORTH. 

No wonder these discussions get so skewed if you seriously think her assumption of believing she knew WHY i made that statement was valid.  She attempted to state why i said something -- she is wrong and it was a wrong assumption on her part not a valid statement!  You do know the difference correct?  Valid would have been ASKING me the reasonings behind the post lol not acting as if she knew my thinking behind the statement.

And if she was working off the word indepth?  It simply meant i a detailed explanation not an overly emotional one but simply a lengthy one.

angel



colouredin -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:27:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Hint, i did not lay out my reasons for my statement, so no i am sorry but you really don't know my reasoning behind that statement despite your belief you do.  Therefore, until i choose too, you in all your infinite wisdom lol have no clue my reasonings for stating such a thing.  And another hint, i didn't say the US wasn't or was, i said the world. 

angel


Angel,

Like the bulk of your post suggested people make their minds up based on bias. If you choose to be cryptic thats fine but then people will create logical conculsions based on their knowledge of the situation. So in this case your prior postings and affiliation. It is no wonder then that the assumption was made my KS but also no doubt many other people (myself included)

If you dont want incorrect assumptions to be made then you have to be clearer.




barelynangel -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:39:28 AM)

You people are amazing.  I made a ONE sentence statement in a discussion i have never posted on a statement so vague i doubt my mom would be able to correctly put what i mean to it as well as my former Master.  AND if anyone knows me as you claim they must they would know  i don't compare WOMEN AND MEN, therefore my reasonings are not based on a woman's WORTH versus a Man's.  Anyone who thinks i would, obviously don't know me and therefore, should take a very simple statement and not attempt to have the arrogance of believing they KNOW me so they know what i mean.  How ridiculous.

Shakes my head, i was going to expound when i had more time to put my reasonings in better form to share, but hell, you guys seem to think you know it better than i do.

Good luck with that.

angel



DarkSteven -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:50:30 AM)

Four years ago, I would have said that Colin Powell was the only legit black contender for President.

Obama came out of nowhere.  As did W, Bill Clinton, and pretty much every President since Ford (ignoring Bush's daddy and of course reelected Presidents).

I cannot see Hillary as President, partly due to her organizational inability (how could she manage to put together a team that couldn't elect the ONLY candidate with name recognition and traditional  fundraising ability?), partly due to the extreme dislike she engenders on the Rush Limbaugh right, and partly due to her complicity in murky conflicts of interest.  Pelosi is a nonstarter, and I don't think she'd want to be President anyway.  Palin has strong appeal to her base and none outside of it.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't see any prominent women right now, but expect that one will emerge from nowhere.  I don't know when.



kittinSol -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 6:58:43 AM)

You said: "Its indepth why i feel like this and hard to explain."

Enough said.



barelynangel -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 7:41:00 AM)

OMG kittinSol that is just pathetic on your part and desperate and you know it.  There is nothing in THAT statement that indicates my reasonings are regarding a worth of a woman versus a Man.  ALL that statement meant -  despite your need to believe that you know what my words mean better than myself -- is simply the indepth hard to explain concept is 1) i have to organize my thoughts which is why its hard to explain for me, and 2) indepth is simply the length that my explanation could come too.  AGAIN, i am not sure what meanings YOU have for words but there is NOTHING in any of my statements that REMOTELY indicate what you are trying desperately to have them say.

Hint -- the word "indepth" and the phrase "hard to explain" is not a person saying they are speaking about a woman's worth versus a Mans.  At least not in any dictionary i know, perhaps you use another dictionary?

Amazingly, it seems you will sit here, stamp your foot and tell ME what MY words mean -- words that mind you have NO indication where i am going with my reasoning.  Good luck with that lol. 


angel



Dnomyar -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 8:03:21 AM)

Women have run other countries. It is just a matter of time before one runs this one.



sirsholly -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 8:12:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
Amazingly, it seems you will sit here, stamp your foot and tell ME what MY words mean -- words that mind you have NO indication where i am going with my reasoning. 


you are tossing a fit because your "reasoning" was not well expressed in your post. Your fault...no one elses.

If you want to be understood, perchance your posts will have more clarity in the future.



barelynangel -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 8:44:26 AM)

Holly, no, my comments are telling someone to not speak for me as to my reasonings of a couple statements i made.  THAT IS ALL.  My words ARE understandable.  What causes the confusion aren't my words which are pretty simplistic, its  people attempting to speak FOR me and well, being wrong.   What causes the confusion Holly are people like you who believe its okay to put words in other people's mouths.  IF i had not gone to correct kittinsol's assumption, people would then take her words and place that reasoning underneath my words because they would presume she knows something they don't.  However, i the actual poster and thinker of those words know she is wrong and said so and told her not to speak for me.

Its that simple Holly, only you are trying to make my simple words complicated.  And, if its "tossing a fit" because i don't like people especially people i don't know attempting to speak for me AND get it wrong on top of it, then oh well.   I will start doing that to you and you see how well you enjoy me running around telling people what you really mean behind simple statements you make.

And my post CAN'T have more clarity Holly.  They are SIMPLE straight forward statements.  Now my reasonings that i have that has me stating those statements need clarity which is why i didn't try and expound on the REASONS for my statements in that post.   I didn't feel i needed too, i felt i answered the question posed.  I probably would have expounded more but it seems everyone else knows what i am thinking lol.  As i said, good luck with that.

angel



sirsholly -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 8:51:09 AM)

Ahhh...so the problem is with all of us who read what you wrote as opposed to what you really meant. Gotcha babe [:D][:D][:D]



Lashra -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 9:53:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dnomyar

Women have run other countries. It is just a matter of time before one runs this one.


And they have done it very well. Yes the US and the world is ready for a woman President. Those who do not believe so, well they will just have to get over it and deal with it. We are evolving past the old outdated traditions and into the future. Humans are humans, their dangly bits have nothing to do with their intelligence or ability to lead.

~Lashra



SteelofUtah -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 9:54:32 AM)

Gender has nothing to do with my views on this however I do feel that there are valid reasons one would want one over the other I look at the WHOLE Picture. It wasn't Hillary I had a problem with it was who she had in her back pocket and who I felt she would tap on the shoulder to join her cabinet, It was Them I had an issue with.

On the whole those arguing the issue doesn't matter I know quite a few people who believe that a woman should never be president based on nothing more than thier gender and what might surprize you to know is how many of them are female themselves.

My view are my own who cares what anyone thinks of them my vote when it happens is Anonymous, and no ones business but my own.

However it should be known that there are more people who vote on Race and Gender and Individual Background than on Platforms and Views. Arguing any point like this is futile due to the fact that it goes no where and nothing changes we just get angry with one another and say mean things.

Steel



Irishknight -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/20/2009 11:00:54 AM)

Gender had nothing to do with my dislike of Hillary.  Hillary had everything to do with my dislike of her.  Her history is too clouded in a number of areas.  Her "experience" is ridiculously overrated as she has spent most of her time as a Senator jockeying for position as the first woman president.  She believed that she deserved the office without earning it.  Thats the Hillary I've seen and detested during my youth in Arkansas and during her time as 1st lady.

There have been a number of women in politics over the years who I would have gladly supported.  The late Ann Richardson of Texas would have made a fantastic president in my opinion.  There was a no nonsense lady whose experience was real.  She didn't just sit in an office getting ready to run for a higher office like so many politicians do.

While the only nice things I could say about Palin were about her looks, tits are neither a qualifier or disqualifier for elected office.  Neither is a penis.  The day that we stop trying to force the 1st (fill in the blank) president is the day that this country finally grows up and becomes an adult.



gman992 -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/21/2009 12:03:08 AM)

I just hope that our Female President doesn't get upset with the female president of another country just because they are wearing the same outfit.



Raechard -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/21/2009 7:15:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
I don't think or want a woman president, i don't think the world is ready for a woman to be president of the Main Super Power -- and yes, i am a woman saying this.  Its indepth why i feel like this and hard to explain.



Some leaders of foreign nations will never be ready for female leadership, others will have the perception that America has a weak leader and so may try to chance their arm and take liberties.
 
This will always be the case and so the right time for a female leader of a superpower is now because the world will always assume things or believe things to be true about a leader, that is beyond your control as the electorate.
 
America is a bit behind the times in relation to this issue, even the much criticised Pakistan has had a female leader. Although in my opinion elections should not be about milestones and a better question should perhaps not be when will a female be President but how many female presidential candidates have there been?



OrionTheWolf -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/21/2009 11:44:29 AM)

It should come down to qualifications and merit. To say that we should have a President because of race or gender, is pretty biased and discriminatory. In this latest round we has Hillary, who is a ruthless, coniving bitch in my opinion, and Palin, who is dumb as a stump in my opinion.


quote:

ORIGINAL: winterlight

Black President. I was sure that Obama would win before, say Hillary. Do you think we are ready for a female President yet? Would we be ready in 8 years?



Vendaval -> RE: In talking with a few relatives they thought we would have a female President first before a (1/21/2009 8:34:58 PM)

Fast Reply -  Gloria Steinem had an op-ed piece in The New York Times about this subject back in January, 2008.
 

"Women Are Never Front-Runners"

By GLORIA STEINEM
Published: January 8, 2008 
"Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter). "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875