Does Bush think we're morons?

[Peter_Puget]

Anyone else notice how Arch keeps making blanket statements regarding gender roles/behavior/thinking/guilt? The men posting in the thread appear to see woman as equals yet Arch sees only sexually based differences. What was particularly striking was when she told KK this:

 

Figure it out and stop acting like a whiny little bitch.

 

WOW An amazing degree of self loathing! "Whiny little bitch" Whoa!

[archenemy]

Another post that makes no sense.

[archenemy]

The men posting in the thread appear to see woman as equals yet Arch sees only sexually based differences.

 

Is this what you mean by a "blanket statement"?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Anyone else notice how Arch keeps making blanket statements regarding gender roles/behavior/thinking/guilt? The men posting in the thread appear to see woman as equals yet Arch sees only sexually based differences. What was particularly striking was when she told KK this:

 

Figure it out and stop acting like a whiny little bitch.

 

WOW An amazing degree of self loathing! "Whiny little bitch" Whoa!

 

yeah, she's also a self-described "corporate whore" and "sinner"

[archenemy]

Would it be more convenient for you if I started another thread that you can post all the personal attacks at me on so that we can keep this one going? I'd be happy to do it if you can help me come up with a clever title.

[Peter_Puget]

Arch –It’s not about you it’s about the thread. KK and I make several comments related to behavior in this thread (he added some other examples) and you take it as a personal attack? I would note that a personal attack would look more like this written by you earlier in the thread:

 

I learned that in a history class I took while living in Denmark, but thank you for trying to enlighten me.

 

And the effect I see here is a sad one indeed--you were born.

[cj001f]

Arch –It’s not about you it’s about the thread. KK and I make several comments related to behavior in this thread (he added some other examples) and you take it as a personal attack? I would note that a personal attack would look more like this written by you earlier in the thread

 

Peter-

The notion that men and women are equals in reproductive matters transcends the inane in the era of invitro fertilization.

[JoshK]

Is this a particular case, or do you believe that in a general sense one cannot formulate an opinion that extends beyond the particulars of one's identity?

 

By this logic no one should take women's opinion on the draft seriously, because they do not have to register for selective service.

 

As things stand now, women have the final say on whether or not they wish to bear a child or abort it - and I'm personally comfortable with that - but it doesn't follow that men should preclude themselves from even thinking about the morality of the matter, or that their opinions should be discounted on the basis of their gender alone, if for no other reason that you are essentially using an ad hominem argument to defend a woman's right to make this decision - and it's an incredibly weak means of doing so.

 

A said nothing of an opinion. Anybody is welcome to their own opinion, but anti-choice people take it a step further than an opinion - they believe they have the right to tell somebody else what to do in such a personal matter.

[JoshK]

At the risk of drifting this captivating thread, I have a question for JayB: how many times do you re-word each post in your head before arriving at the pinnacle - the use of as many words and latin phrases as possible?

[Stefan]

I know this is late in the thread....but people were talking about voting fraud and problems with the voting.

 

Please remember people that with each vote there is a large amount of volunteers. Volunteers make mistakes. They are not paid.

 

If you want perfection in votes you will have to pay for wages of people who are willing to return for the amount of pay. They only way that will happen is if you the public allows for higher taxes to pay for those people.

 

Volunteers make up a large part of the public voting process. They make mistaks.

[archenemy]

Anyone else notice how Arch keeps making blanket statements regarding gender roles/behavior/thinking/guilt? The men posting in the thread appear to see woman as equals yet Arch sees only sexually based differences. What was particularly striking was when she told KK this:

 

Figure it out and stop acting like a whiny little bitch.

 

WOW An amazing degree of self loathing! "Whiny little bitch" Whoa!

 

So here's another personal attack from me to you.

 

Just because you finally deigned to realize that women are also human beings and therefore equal to men, doesn't mean that I have to be a nice little girl and go sit in the corner and be so thankful that you say you see me as an equal. Hell, I know women are equal to men, whether you recognize that or not doesn't change that fact.

 

It also doesn't mean that differences don't exist. They do exist, and I feel comfortable discussing them, arguing about them, and examining them. And I think that the men posting on this thread do as well, but I don't mean to speak for them. I just enjoy the engagement.

[JayB]

I love it when people who are all about personal rights, and anti-big government, think that the government should be telling women what to do with their bodies.

 

"their bodies" is where the argument falls flat on its ass. there's more than one person involved

 

 

Men seem to think that they are the other person involved. Wrong.

 

BINGO. The assertion that men, politicians or not, should be involved in the decision is laughable. The females of our race have the responsibility of bringing children into this world, and with that responsibility comes a right to make the decision on when and how they do that.

 

Is this a particular case, or do you believe that in a general sense one cannot formulate an opinion that extends beyond the particulars of one's identity?

 

By this logic no one should take women's opinion on the draft seriously, because they do not have to register for selective service.

 

As things stand now, women have the final say on whether or not they wish to bear a child or abort it - and I'm personally comfortable with that - but it doesn't follow that men should preclude themselves from even thinking about the morality of the matter, or that their opinions should be discounted on the basis of their gender alone, if for no other reason that you are essentially using an ad hominem argument to defend a woman's right to make this decision - and it's an incredibly weak means of doing so.

 

Formulating an opinion is different than legislating rule.

 

And because men are the overwhelming force in legislature, what you said about women not having a say in the draft is essentially true. But even aside from that, I could probably be convinced that as long as women are not drafted, that it could be up to men alone to decide on whether they wish to continue that barbaric practice or not. Hell, it's men who start the wars that require the deaths of so many people in the first place--you guys are more than welcome to deal with that problem and pay for it with your own blood.

 

So - with respect to the distinction between opinions and legislation, the gender of the person making the argument that the legislation is based upon is what matters - not the argument itself?

 

With respect to the men-as-root-of-all-evil riff - there seem to be a few assumptions at work there. The first is that women have by default always opposed war, which is not true. The second is that women have themselves chosen to abstain from the physical aspects of war - which is not the case either - they simply haven't been allowed to participate in the offensive side of any war that I'm aware of in a meaningful way. The third is that acts of war which are physically equivalent are thereby morally equivalent - which would render those who killed on behalf of the Nazis and those who killed to oppose them moral equals. The final is that taking no action that involves violence is by default the most moral course that a person or society can take in any given situation, which is also a proposition that's easy to disprove.

[Skeezix]

I don't think Bush thinks we're morons. I think Bush is an overachieving mediocre intellect who is clinging to his job after committing error after error. One can tell that he is not very bright every time he opens his mouth. He is surrounded by advisers that are conservative idealogues, which automatically implies that they've all suffered a blow to the head somewhere along the line --otherwise they wouldn't have their pinched world view. They're motivated by greed, hatred for others, and self-loathing. Furthermore, they've backed themselves so far into a corner that they can't see that their policies are leading to accelerated environmental degradation, increase of the gap between rich and poor, and isolation of the United States from the rest of the world. We're losing ground on all of the issues that we generally expect government to address. Bush is the moron.

[Peter_Puget]

I just enjoy the engagement.

 

Well someday you'll find out how enjoyable the marriage is!

[olyclimber]

Archenemy is getting married???!!!

[Dru]

Bush is right. You are morons.

[selkirk]

Bush is right. You are morons.

[Stonehead]

Bush is right. You are morons.

 

 

[Stonehead]

Not to be a cynic or anything but you guys have fully taken the bait 100%. R v W will not be overturned precisely because it appeals to both bases of the two main political parties. The whole abortion issue is a tactic designed to raise funds and distract us from things of far more importance.

 

That's right you guys. If you even discuss the ramifications of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, you're playing right into the hands of this administration, because conservative appointments are simply a SMOKESCREEN intended to distract y'all from something MUCH BIGGER and more important. Hehe.

 

Never one to miss an opporunity to be smug but rarely one to respond directly. The abortion debate is a smokescreen designed to stop more substantial debate.

 

Here is something to mull over: link

 

--snip--

 

Miers said last year that "[t]he future of the American economy depends on ... making the president's tax cuts permanent, lowering the costs of health care, [and] reducing the burden of frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary regulation,"

--snip--

 

-- Source -->Miers, Roberts, And Inequality

 

Ya, PP is just pointing out that even though the abortion issue is getting much of the attention, Miers' economic views might be rather interesting. In one case for Microsoft, she helped the company stave off a lawsuit brought by dissatisfied customers. The customers bought a product with defective code but that in itself was not enough for damage claims.

[Fairweather]

Probaly sarcasm.

 

If not, Josh's opinion on the relvance of her looks is his own anyway.

 

The queen of cc.com political correctness feminine' giving a pass to a fellow liberal who has just issued judgement on a woman based solely on perceived physical unattractiveness.

 

Priceless!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Probaly sarcasm.

 

If not, Josh's opinion on the relvance of her looks is his own anyway.

 

The queen of cc.com political correctness feminine' giving a pass to a fellow liberal who has just excersized judgement on a woman based solely on her perceived unattractiveness.

 

Priceless!

 

Yep. The hypocrisy of liberals never ceases to amaze me. Who cares what the woman looks like - she should be judged by her qualifications and job performance. Looks are irrelevant, remember? And, since Joshie is a liberal, other liberals will look the other way at his remark - like the feminists regarding Bubbas abuse of power with an intern.

[catbirdseat]

Right KK, how are we supposed to judge her based on her performance as a judge?

[Fairweather]

Right KK, how are we supposed to judge her based on her performance as a judge?

 

Use whatever criteria you would like to! Apparently open-minded, "non-judgemental" libs currently hold the immunity idol on this island.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Right KK, how are we supposed to judge her based on her performance as a judge?

 

Evaluate her qualifications. Compare them to those of previous nominees (esp. those w/ no prior experience as a judge). Her looks have nothing to do with this.

[minx]

Right KK, how are we supposed to judge her based on her performance as a judge?

 

Evaluate her qualifications. Compare them to those of previous nominees (esp. those w/ no prior experience as a judge). Her looks have nothing to do with this.

 

she wears too much make-up. she's not qualified