| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-16 11:47:30 |
|
|
|
|
Why bother explaining now? Dont say things in future which are so easily misunderstood. LIving in America, you need to start looking at some of your former male presindents before you start talking down women. Currently Merkel (German PM) is leading Germany and their current affairs really well, need I also remind you of the Iron lady a.k.a Thatcher?
Sometimes practicallity is better than the theory bull your going on about. |
 |
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-17 00:03:16 |
|
|
|
|
You have to agree with her about most women usually letting themselves guide by their emotions  I'm afraid Maggie Thatcher-types will always be rare. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-17 04:02:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Why bother explaining now? |
Because you seemed to misunderstand my intentions. So I explained myself because people here lash out with their PC babble without thinking that maybe someone has reasons behind their evaluations. So I'll try to mentally scan everything I say from now on to see if it needs to be elaborated upon, lest I get the whole Women's Lib movement jumping on me.
|
| LIving in America, you need to start looking at some of your former male presindents before you start talking down women. |
Perhaps you didn't catch what I said the first time. Let repeat myself: |
| Actually, I don't think most men would make good presidents, either. |
So, there you go. I already mentioned that I don't think most men make good presidents, either. It takes a very particular kind of person to make a good president.
|
| Sometimes practicallity is better than the theory bull your going on about. |
Theory is what a person uses to avoid seeing unfortunate things actually happen in practice. Besides, my "theory" is derived from evidence. Can you really deny that most women are just how I described them? (Not all, but most.)
When the modern feminists and the rest of those groups are given free reign, and this next generation of young women turns out to be a bunch of man-hating lazy-asses who are excused from having to do anything or from ever having been challenged simply because they were born with vaginas, we will all be cashing the proverbial check of this "practicality."
I see this stuff already, even now. I see it in my peers. I see it in the women around me; the women who graduated with me; the women who switch their majors in college five times, then find a poor sap of a husband that can pay their bills and allow them to quit their God-forsaken University. I see them doing nothing and expecting everything. I see then relying on other people's decisions or on their own emotions. And I see it getting worse. We don't need someone for president who will sanction all this; and, the truth of the matter is, most women DO sanction this--especially the women in politics, who were the ones to shape the mentality of modern women in the first place.
Personally, I don't want to see society allow women to get away with giving nothing and getting everything. And it's not because I'm disloyal to my own gender. The opposite, actually: I don't want these things to get worse precisely because I love women. Real women. I don't want to see the things that women of strength have needed to work towards for years being granted to weaklings for nothing. I don't want to see the talent of a woman being rendered obsolete because she'd get the job anyway because her boss has to fill a quota. This is what's in store for us if we elect the wrong kind of person for president. And this kind of person, practically speaking, is more likely to be a woman than a man.
And that's just one aspect of the problem. Emotional decision-making is another.
|
| You have to agree with her about most women usually letting themselves guide by their emotions I'm afraid Maggie Thatcher-types will always be rare. |
Exactly. Like I said: logical, strong women DO exist, but few of them do, and even fewer would be interested in something like politics. (Politics attracts a lot of the wrong people in general.) It would just be too rare of an occurance, so it probably isn't going to happen. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-17 13:20:30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| hes just so stuck up and a loser, YES I CALLED GEORGE BUSH A LOSER AND IM PROUD!! |
Really? You're the first person to ever call George Bush a loser, since it seems that everyone just LOVES him. You rebel, you, standing against the consensus.
Besides, it's not the president who decides whether gay marriage is legal or not. This isn't a dictatorship. The president always needs approval from the other two government branches. So it's not all Bush's fault, because he doesn't have enough power for it to all be his fault. Now, he's definitely opposed to gay marriage, that's for sure.
|
| USA needs a new president.....like....OPRAH! Shed legalize same sex marriage! |
Hell, no! Not Oprah for president! Please, anything but that. Geez, I know we're all emotional over this and everything, but you don't have to start talking crazy now. I mean, Oprah would never make a good president because 1) She's a woman and 2) She already has an obvious political agenda and I, personally, don't think we need any more fembots in the United States. |
George Bush is a loser, and a real idiot. Face the fact.
I don't know if Oprah will be a good president, I don't know so much about her, but why couldn't women be presidents? Women isn't more stupid than men. It isn't what you have between your legs which making you a good president. Women and men are the same, except that women can be pregnant and stuff like that. Women and men don't think diffrent, it's diffrent persons which think diffrent. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-17 21:34:25 |
|
|
|
|
oh come on, oprah would give everyone cars! hybrids of course  |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-18 03:39:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
| George Bush is a loser, and a real idiot. Face the fact. |
I didn't say he wasn't. I was just being sarcastic to imply that there's no point in parading around and acting like disliking Bush makes a person different. But, really, I don't like Bush any more than you do. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't jump to random conclusions about things I've said.
|
| I don't know if Oprah will be a good president, I don't know so much about her, but why couldn't women be presidents? Women isn't more stupid than men. It isn't what you have between your legs which making you a good president. Women and men are the same, except that women can be pregnant and stuff like that. Women and men don't think diffrent, it's diffrent persons which think diffrent. |
Please read my response in my last post; the one right above yours. There, I say why most women shouldn't be president. Unless, of course, you want your argument to consist of quoting the more vague of my statements and using them as a basis.
I don't think there's anything written in people's genes that says women have to think drastically differently from men. But other physical differences have contributed to women's tending to think differently, and also the fact that society has picked up these differences over time and, thus, teaches the next generation of girls slightly differently from its boys. That's just the reality of it. Most men and women are different to a certain extent. Obviously, we're all human, and should all be treated the same under the government; but in physical reality, men and women tend to be different.
Since this topic was originally related to this, look at it this way: If men and women aren't different, then how would there be a basis for differing sexual orientations? Unless being attracted to men or women meant that one was just attracted to their anatomically differing organs. Which isn't true. One, because one is human and not an animal, is attracted to the corresponding masculinity or femininity of males or females, and this is more than physical. However, femininity does not really stop a woman from running for president, but, rather, the things I mentioned in the other post do. This was merely an illustration of why you can't say men and women are EXACTLY the same, except for anatomical differences, without invalidating nearly everyone's sexual preference.
Look, just read my other post, because it seems that you didn't. If you're too lazy to do that, then don't reply to this topic. In a previous post, I already went over most of the things you mentioned and you're not offering me a counter-point, just the old argument. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-18 13:26:09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| George Bush is a loser, and a real idiot. Face the fact. |
I didn't say he wasn't. I was just being sarcastic to imply that there's no point in parading around and acting like disliking Bush makes a person different. But, really, I don't like Bush any more than you do. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't jump to random conclusions about things I've said.
|
| I don't know if Oprah will be a good president, I don't know so much about her, but why couldn't women be presidents? Women isn't more stupid than men. It isn't what you have between your legs which making you a good president. Women and men are the same, except that women can be pregnant and stuff like that. Women and men don't think diffrent, it's diffrent persons which think diffrent. |
Please read my response in my last post; the one right above yours. There, I say why most women shouldn't be president. Unless, of course, you want your argument to consist of quoting the more vague of my statements and using them as a basis.
I don't think there's anything written in people's genes that says women have to think drastically differently from men. But other physical differences have contributed to women's tending to think differently, and also the fact that society has picked up these differences over time and, thus, teaches the next generation of girls slightly differently from its boys. That's just the reality of it. Most men and women are different to a certain extent. Obviously, we're all human, and should all be treated the same under the government; but in physical reality, men and women tend to be different.
Since this topic was originally related to this, look at it this way: If men and women aren't different, then how would there be a basis for differing sexual orientations? Unless being attracted to men or women meant that one was just attracted to their anatomically differing organs. Which isn't true. One, because one is human and not an animal, is attracted to the corresponding masculinity or femininity of males or females, and this is more than physical. However, femininity does not really stop a woman from running for president, but, rather, the things I mentioned in the other post do. This was merely an illustration of why you can't say men and women are EXACTLY the same, except for anatomical differences, without invalidating nearly everyone's sexual preference.
Look, just read my other post, because it seems that you didn't. If you're too lazy to do that, then don't reply to this topic. In a previous post, I already went over most of the things you mentioned and you're not offering me a counter-point, just the old argument. |
o.O; Ehm, I don't say people are attracted to differing organs. Maybe more little girls like to play with dolls, and more little boys like to play with cars, but that's called genus. Since the child is born, she/he is taught what's girly, and what's boyish. Girls are taught to play with dolls, cause that's the ''right'' and vice versa. So, the so called ''diffrence'' between men and women isn't congenital. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-19 03:22:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
| o.O; Ehm, I don't say people are attracted to differing organs. |
Then what are they attracted to, if--like you say--that's the only real difference between men and women?
|
| Maybe more little girls like to play with dolls, and more little boys like to play with cars, but that's called genus. Since the child is born, she/he is taught what's girly, and what's boyish. Girls are taught to play with dolls, cause that's the ''right'' and vice versa. So, the so called ''diffrence'' between men and women isn't congenital. |
Yeah, a lot of it is society, as I said, but there is a reason why society teaches its males and females differently. Even if there wasn't, the reality is that, whether it was nature or society that taught most women to be a certain way, they are that way. That's the end result. The result is the same: most women are unfit for the office of president. Whether it was nature that did it, or society, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is besides the point. The end result is that women tend to be more emotional than men and have the horrid tendency to make decisions based on those emotions, and, these days, politically-minded women also tend to be insufferable feminists. (All of these things I think are taught by society mostly--to both men and women--since they don't really seem to come from nature. But like I said, it doesn't make a difference to the end result, anyway.)
I'm not saying women are inherently inferior to men, or any other such nonsense. I'm just saying most women end up (Whether by nature or society--probably the latter) unfit for the presidency, in a way that is more severely unfit than most males for reasons I have already highlighted. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-22 23:34:04 |
|
|
|
|
it is legal in the UK, cause i remember it being annoncened on the news. the main reasons why ther nite no be many in pplaces like rural india and rural asia is because it is shameful, and the parent usually arrange marriage, but i think the us and europe all hav legalized it now. |
|
|
|
| Författare |
| Skrivet den 2006-07-24 06:22:22 |
|
|
|
|
Oh god what have I started!?!? This shoould be like a whole new topic, Would women make good leaders. Well thats all! Bye |
|
|
|
Välkommen till Amanda Jenssens största fansajt - av fans, för fans. Registrera dig på vårt Community och börja chatta med andra Amanda-fans redan idag!