PDA

View Full Version : woman president



Offspringfan67
10-29-2007, 04:18 PM
do you think this country is ready for a woman president??

wheelchairman
10-29-2007, 04:43 PM
I don't know, I mean if Pakistan could handle it, it's pretty embarrassing that America couldn't.

Although the saying "can this country handle it". I mean, what's there to handle? It's like one of those sayings that people don't really know what it means, but seem to repeat to sound smart.

Bazza
10-29-2007, 04:57 PM
do you think this country is ready for a woman president??

It depends on the woman. If she has the right character and people like her then they will vote for her.

EMehl6
10-29-2007, 04:58 PM
I don't think it's really a question of "are we ready as a country for a woman president", but more of do we want the woman who is running for president to be the president. I personally don't, and wouldn't care if she was a man, woman, tranny, what-have-you, I don't agree with her stances.

Jakebert
10-29-2007, 05:10 PM
I think the backlash against Hiliary if she wins will be incredibly annoying, and that's enough of a reason for me to not support her. I'm really would go nuts with 4-8 years of Rush Limbaugh and Limbaugh-wannabes whining about the last name Clinton.

wheelchairman
10-29-2007, 05:28 PM
Wow no, that's a terrible criteria for voting.

GBH2
10-31-2007, 01:29 PM
I don't think it's really a question of "are we ready as a country for a woman president", but more of do we want the woman who is running for president to be the president. I personally don't, and wouldn't care if she was a man, woman, tranny, what-have-you, I don't agree with her stances.

the thing is, hillary doesn't have stances. she just says whatever she has to to get ahead. in last night's debate, she completely flip-flopped on one issue within two minutes, and when the mediator (moderator? whatever) and the other democrats pointed it out, she completely denied it. its FUCKING DOCUMENTED ON CAMERA, BITCH! needless to say, i hate hillary, and she would most likely be a terrible president, unless bill kind of took over. Her healthcare ideas (which seems to be the only stance she doen't change every day) are god-awfully terrible, forcing people to pay for healthcare many of them will never need. Healthy people will be funding the care of smokers and fatasses.

Superdope
10-31-2007, 02:18 PM
I live in Denmark, and we have a system, where everybody pays through taxes to keep our hospitals running. this makes sure that even poor people can get treatment.
Is that wrong?

Little_Miss_1565
10-31-2007, 02:47 PM
Hillary is such a poor choice for the Democratic nominee it just astounds me to see her continue to campaign. Even if you don't take into account how much she changes her tune, everyone in the country made up their minds about her years ago. She won't change anyone's mind about anything. It'd be great if she would realize that.

JohnnyNemesis
10-31-2007, 04:30 PM
An unreliable politician? Surely y'all are kiddin'!

Vera
10-31-2007, 05:18 PM
Wait three years and you can have ours. She's a darling.

Sin Studly
10-31-2007, 07:30 PM
Better question ; is the rest of the world ready for cowboy actors as presidents?

Vera
11-02-2007, 03:47 AM
Brokeback White House?

Mota Boy
11-02-2007, 05:11 AM
The fucking problem is that the Democratic party has been so successfully skewered by the Republicans over the past several years that we (both the average voters and the party elites) are looking for someone based on one simple criteria: they won't make a gaff or open themselves up to being parodied by the right. This has bred a line of candidates - Al Gore, John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton - that exist solely not to fuck up. Their entire campaigns have centered around saying bland, vague, inoffensive generalities that won't give the right an edge on them.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have a huge media advantage. They benefit greatly from the pervasive myth of a "liberal media", which allows them to brush aside any mainstream criticism. Meanwhile, they have their own counter-media, which is highly centralized to the point that it often functions as a Republican propaganda machine. Occasionally there are disagreements, but so far in races where a Republican and a Democrat face off, the Republicans all have a similar narrative, impervious to criticism by other media outlets.

Of course, even as I say this, it's coming apart due to its own zealotry - a candidate must, must pass a litmus test of conservativeness in order to fit the narrative of facing off against wimpy, Godless, gun-grabbing, big state libs. Giuliani is proving the central core of the movement is the most important - the 9/11 9/11 9/11 fear o' the Muslims - and Hillary-Rudy matchup would almost certain cause a return to the good ol' days of Bush v. Kerry, but the moment is passing. A candidate like Obama or even Edwards (though he does have a certain whiff of hypocrisy/faggotry that could be his undoing) would likely slice up the coalition that re-elected Bush, but that's not who the polls pick. The main problem is that Democrats, like a bad army, are fighting the last war.

JoY
11-02-2007, 07:44 AM
Sanni, you just reminded me, you are fantastic. that got me laughing & giggling for a good ten minutes.


It depends on the woman. If she has the right character and people like her then they will vote for her.

you don't really think it works that simple, do you?

when for generations & generations it has always been men who were in that position, it takes a lot more for a woman, than for a man, to get votes. not because, oh noes, women are underrated & so repressed & shit, but because we live up to certain roles in society & the one as president isn't a very standard one for anyone, let alone a woman, when there has never been a female president.

JoY
11-02-2007, 08:21 AM
the thing is, hillary doesn't have stances. she just says whatever she has to to get ahead. in last night's debate, she completely flip-flopped on one issue within two minutes, and when the mediator (moderator? whatever) and the other democrats pointed it out, she completely denied it. its FUCKING DOCUMENTED ON CAMERA, BITCH! needless to say, i hate hillary, and she would most likely be a terrible president, unless bill kind of took over. Her healthcare ideas (which seems to be the only stance she doen't change every day) are god-awfully terrible, forcing people to pay for healthcare many of them will never need. Healthy people will be funding the care of smokers and fatasses.

*taps your shoulder*

sorry, but have you got ANY IDEA WHAT KIND OF FUCKING MESS YOUR FUCKING HEALTHCARE IS??!?!?!?!?? *breathes* her idea about ideal healthcare is taken from other country's example, where no one gets into insane debts when they're sick & is refused treatment, yes, I've watched the Michael Moore film Sicko. but that film is fucking nothing compared to things I learn & hear from friends, family, et cetera.

let me tell you something, because apparently you know nothing: your country has the most clotted arteries out there. everyfuckingthing is industrialized- not just foods, which hasn't been very beneficial for the quality (which has been making people "fatasses" & sick), but also health care, which hasn't been very beneficial for the quality either. your healthcare is ranked number 37 in this world, just slightly ahead of Slovenia. damn me for pulling it from a lame-ass movie, but for god's sake, it's true & the man is right.

the fact a doctor... can refuse a patient treatment on the basis of money, is fucking beyond me. the fact a patient has to show his insurance card, before he gets a fucking chance of being treated, is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. doctors made an oath, THE oath of Hippocrates, THE Hippocratic oath. they've sworn to do everything they can to improve the health of the sick, to help those who are in pain & to protect them from harm & injustice. if a doctor refuses treatment, while he has the means to help a person, he's fucking breaking his oath & should be removed immediately from his position. over here, he would be fired on the spot. thank god.

you have about 80% chance of dying of an artery- or heart disease in your country, so you're pretty much paying for the risk of getting sick yourself. your medication is more expensive than exactly the same medication in another country. I know this, because I've been very sick during my stay in Florida & Atlanta. this makes absolutely no sense. when you are sick, insurance interferes with proper treatment & rather not pays out, than have you become all better.

another thing; smokers die ideal deaths. for healthcare & economy, that is. they pay their goddamn ass off their entire life to feed their addiction, most of it is taxes, going straight to the government, being pumped into economics, & when they eventually get sick, they die a quick, painful death without many complications or needing very much medication. when someone has lungcancer, it's mostly a matter of watch & wait till he dies.

smokers pay dearly for their sickness. you don't pay a dime for their health when medicine is "socialised" & universal over there, you pay for your own health. because 70% of the people over 70 & 95% of people over 80 take at least two kinds of medication & need more than one treatment, like a hip-/knee replacement. that's what you pay for, for the massive risk you will otherwise be in debt one day to be able to preserve your health.

you don't choose to be sick. sickness isn't a fair thing that only happens to people who lived an unhealthy life. cancer, parkinson's, accidents, fractured bones, nasty bacterial infections.. it happens to the best of us. if it happens to you in America, you're just a whole lot more screwed than if it happens about anywhere else in the Western world.

Jojan
11-02-2007, 08:35 AM
http://www.maltelewan.com/blog/uploaded_images/reinfeldt-789197.png
Fredrik Reinfeldt suck!

wheelchairman
11-02-2007, 10:46 AM
GBH2, now I'm most certainly a cynic when it comes to American politics. I generally don't like the democrats or the republicans. However if you want to know which ones have clear views, and which ones have rhetoric, go to their websites. Hillary has clear views, Obama has a lot of general rhetoric. Now in practice they would both probably be largely similar presidents (this can be debated as a good or bad thing.)

But what I really hate is people who identify with one party almost to a point where it defines them (in America, not in the the rest of the world, I don't really care about other countries.) First and foremost are the fact that both parties have such wide varieties and such crossover opinions that no one party can truely identify or be embodied in one person. Both have to appeal to a large, contradictory group, and both do a damn good job at it. But when it comes down to people truly caring about someone so much that they writhe and twist in frustration when they see the opposing candidate talk, that's weird. But I also find it hard to believe that anybody finds the prospect of another republican government to be nice. Even the republicans I know (and some who've been republican for 30 years) have switched their registration to Democratic.

But mostly, in a two party system, I wouldn't say that I'm apathetic or support apathy, but I find it harder to get excited about Hillary (who I plan on voting for, first time I've ever voted for a major party candidate, I'm getting old) when I really feel that it simply doesn't matter which democrat gets in. Oregon will still be a forgotten state, lost in it's economic decline (like most states actually). So you know, I'm really hungry so this is simply turning into a rant with no real direction.

skaterpunke
11-02-2007, 11:18 AM
we need sumone like Wonder Woman, Mr.T or Chuck Norris for president

ruroken
11-02-2007, 11:20 AM
An unreliable politician? Surely y'all are kiddin'!
I vote Ricardo Almonte for president!

She won't change anyone's mind about anything.
Wrong. She'll make them change their minds about not voting. Now everyone will vote for anyone but her. A nation united!

Little_Miss_1565
11-02-2007, 11:22 AM
/\ What Bella said. Though, as a point of order, American hospitals must by law provide emergency care regardless of the patient's ability to pay.

I'm chronically ill and I can testify that unless you have great insurance (which, thank god, I now have) the health care system in the US sucks and you will go into insane debt. GBH2, do you have any idea what an emergency room visit costs when you don't have insurance? Without insurance, people end up having to use the ER as their primary care provider since they can't get an appointment with a regular physician without paying in full in advance--though most physicians now take credit cards, and that's how I paid my amazing specialist before I got the awesome insurance. So that's $250+ per sore throat, etc.

No one seems to realize how important your health is until you lose it. I would gladly see more of my paycheck withheld in taxes if I knew it meant health care was totally covered. No one should complain about anyone's health care system being too comprehensive.

Rag Doll
11-02-2007, 12:42 PM
No one seems to realize how important your health is until you lose it. I would gladly see more of my paycheck withheld in taxes if I knew it meant health care was totally covered. No one should complain about anyone's health care system being too comprehensive.

completely agreed. my dad had cancer like 10 years ago. he was diagnosed before the medical benefits for his new job kicked in. helloooooo tens of thousands of dollars of debt from doctor's bills and hospital bills.

wheelchairman
11-02-2007, 12:44 PM
Shit, I never went to a hospital until I moved to Denmark. Not even when I burned my hand. My family couldn't afford the extra cost. Now I can pretty much go whenever I want. For something as small as a rash if I wanted to. And you know, you might not use it but it's certainly reassuring for those of us who can't afford NOT to have free healthcare. Even if I only paid your low taxes.

Marco
11-02-2007, 01:02 PM
I think that America is ready for a woman president, but my dear american friends, please don't vote Hillary Clinton.

JoY
11-02-2007, 01:04 PM
yes, yes & yes. that's what I'm talking about. it frustrates me. just imagining I would be studying medicine in the US, instead of the Netherlands, to become a doctor... dude, I wouldn't even be studying medicine. how in the name of god can you refuse someone a treatment he/she really needs & that's going to save their life, or the quality of it, which is about the same in some people's cases. I couldn't. I just wouldn't.

wheelchairman
11-02-2007, 01:28 PM
I just don't get it, how is Hillary particularly worse than any other Democratic candidate (or Republican for that matter). Election promises are more like wishful hopes than anything else. Especially if it can be promised knowing full well it won't happen due to the other check's and balances.

GBH2
11-02-2007, 02:54 PM
wow, i got slammed for not supporting socialism. i forgot this forum is about 80% weed-smoking eurotrash. you think i am blissfully unaware that america's healthcare system is fucked up?

i stand by my point. hillary is a dumb bimbo who would make a terrible president. "hillary care" was [and will be if it re-emerges] retarded:

Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said:

“ In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.”

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."

to clarify, i'm not slamming your happy little european healthcare systems, i'm saying hillary is retarded.

GBH2
11-02-2007, 02:57 PM
GBH2, now I'm most certainly a cynic when it comes to American politics. I generally don't like the democrats or the republicans. However if you want to know which ones have clear views, and which ones have rhetoric, go to their websites. Hillary has clear views, Obama has a lot of general rhetoric. Now in practice they would both probably be largely similar presidents (this can be debated as a good or bad thing.)

But what I really hate is people who identify with one party almost to a point where it defines them (in America, not in the the rest of the world, I don't really care about other countries.) First and foremost are the fact that both parties have such wide varieties and such crossover opinions that no one party can truely identify or be embodied in one person. Both have to appeal to a large, contradictory group, and both do a damn good job at it. But when it comes down to people truly caring about someone so much that they writhe and twist in frustration when they see the opposing candidate talk, that's weird. But I also find it hard to believe that anybody finds the prospect of another republican government to be nice. Even the republicans I know (and some who've been republican for 30 years) have switched their registration to Democratic.

But mostly, in a two party system, I wouldn't say that I'm apathetic or support apathy, but I find it harder to get excited about Hillary (who I plan on voting for, first time I've ever voted for a major party candidate, I'm getting old) when I really feel that it simply doesn't matter which democrat gets in. Oregon will still be a forgotten state, lost in it's economic decline (like most states actually). So you know, I'm really hungry so this is simply turning into a rant with no real direction.

not sure what you're getting at. please summarize in one sentence or less.

ruroken
11-02-2007, 02:57 PM
holy shit, you did not just source wikipedia...

GBH2
11-02-2007, 02:58 PM
wow, that was an insanely fast response. hell yes i sourced wikipedia. you think someone just made up those quotes within the article?

ruroken
11-02-2007, 03:02 PM
it's wikipedia. do you not fully understand what that is?
besides, you should be able to find the article from the Washington Post's website directly. Which is far more reliable than wikipedia.

wheelchairman
11-02-2007, 03:14 PM
wow, i got slammed for not supporting socialism. i forgot this forum is about 80% weed-smoking eurotrash. you think i am blissfully unaware that america's healthcare system is fucked up?
Actually the fact that you resort to unwarranted personal attacks is a sign that you really don't have any knowledge on the subject as is. I'm an American, so is Rag Doll, so is 1565. So one person (who is a med student and should have some knowledge of the subject) was European. We think you are blissfully unaware of how easy public healthcare is to implement.


i stand by my point. hillary is a dumb bimbo who would make a terrible president. "hillary care" was [and will be if it re-emerges] retarded:
The first part about Hillary is not a point, it's a claim you've yet to confirm, because it's incomfirmable. "Hillary-care" as you call it (and that's a name I see you got from the wikipedia article) was a program from 1993, do you really think that's relevant? It's a 14 year old bill... So well, no points for you here.


to clarify, i'm not slamming your happy little european healthcare systems, i'm saying hillary is retarded.
To clarify, I'm not slamming your "neo-con" opinions, nor your red-neck miller lite drinking white trash insecurities, I am re-iterating that ad-hominems and straw men arguments (like the one above mocking yours) are not actual points, and don't prove anything, other than your lack of information on the subject at hand. I'm sure you know what an ad hominem and a straw man attack is, but if you don't you can find the information on wikipedia.

Furthermore wikipedia is not a source as is, if you read wikipedia you will see that it has sources to other articles. What you should've done is use the source provided by wikipedia, instead of quoting it. But that's not entirely important since you quoted someone else's opinion of Hillary care from '93. Which again, is not relevant.


not sure what you're getting at. please summarize in one sentence or less.
Why care so passionately when in practice there is not likely to be any significant long-term changes? As likely as not there will be no health care bill passed if Hillary is president. Why believe that Hillary is more untrustworthy than any other candidate? (Or less untrustworthy for that matter).

GBH2
11-02-2007, 03:15 PM
it's wikipedia. do you not fully understand what that is?
besides, you should be able to find the article from the Washington Post's website directly. Which is far more reliable than wikipedia.

fuck, do you honestly think i care?

wheelchairman
11-02-2007, 03:15 PM
it's wikipedia. do you not fully understand what that is?
besides, you should be able to find the article from the Washington Post's website directly. Which is far more reliable than wikipedia.

You're wrong.

GBH2
11-02-2007, 03:35 PM
The first part about Hillary is not a point, it's a claim you've yet to confirm, because it's incomfirmable. "Hillary-care" as you call it was a program from 1993, do you really think that's relevant? It's a 14 year old bill... So well, no points for you here.
you've got to be kidding. are you really suggesting that a healthcare plan hillary herself crusaded will have no "relevant" impact on what she would attempt to do as president?


(and that's a name I see you got from the wikipedia article)
nice try, jackass. incorrect.


To clarify, I'm not slamming your "neo-con" opinions, nor your red-neck miller lite drinking white trash insecurities
that's hilarious. i was actually considering reffering to Obama's healthcare plan to show something that made sense, but i decided not to. From where you get the notion that i live in a double-wide and go hunting in my spare time i have no idea. Hillary is just a slimy, smarmy politican, and i personally would like to see obama come out of the caucus and primaries in the lead.



Why care so passionately when in practice there is not likely to be any significant long-term changes?

it's not that i'm all that passionate. i'm just trying to defend my views against several who are trying to discredit them.

wheelchairman
11-02-2007, 03:55 PM
you've got to be kidding. are you really suggesting that a healthcare plan hillary herself crusaded will have no "relevant" impact on what she would attempt to do as president?
Well let's see. one was in 1993 and was a failure. She was also the first lady at the time and only head of a commission. This time she's a presidential candidate and the year is 2007 and she has all of her past experiences. So no, you have yet to point out the relevancy?


nice try, jackass. incorrect.
Again with the ad hominems. Have you learned nothing?


that's hilarious. i was actually considering reffering to Obama's healthcare plan to show something that made sense, but i decided not to. From where you get the notion that i live in a double-wide and go hunting in my spare time i have no idea. Hillary is just a slimy, smarmy politican, and i personally would like to see obama come out of the caucus and primaries in the lead.
It was underlining the fact that when you called us pot smoking, socialist, eurotrash was an equally fallacious mistake. I don't actually know anything about you. I just took the opposite terms you used and applied them to you, in the hopes of showing you how retarded it looks. And then I went further and said "like what I said above" to show that it was not an actual statement, but mocking the statement you made. However you don't seem to know how to read and comprehend texts. And I'm not sure how to make it more obvious. :/


it's not that i'm all that passionate. i'm just trying to defend my views against several who are trying to discredit them.
You've discredited yourself by not providing any arguments whatsoever to defend your position. You've relied on insulting us, making assumptions of our background, and then belittling what we know. While we have provided real life examples, we had a med student offer an opinion, and we've countered everything you've said. Now please try and respond with some decency if you wish to prove any point whatsoever. Make sure you source yourself properly, and most importantly, quit acting like a petulant child.

GBH2
11-02-2007, 08:14 PM
why should i bother searching for different sources to support myself when you're so full of yourself you wouldn't even listen? just because you and your fellow crackhead "intellectuals" think differently than i do doesn't make you any more right than me. i recall in one post you said you would probably vote for hillary. may i ask why?

Little_Miss_1565
11-02-2007, 08:29 PM
There's really no need to be so defensive. Clearly he and several other people here, myself included, are listening and that's why something like sources are paid attention. When ad hominem attacks and "That's your opinion!!" is all you have to come back with, it doesn't make you look like you are very secure in what you're saying. All anyone is trying to do is engage conversation. You could even potentially nuance your argument on healthcare by thinking about the other side. I'd invite you to stop resorting to kneejerk defensive postures and come back with respect to the people engaging you with respect.

Sin Studly
11-03-2007, 01:22 AM
Health care is for sissies. I saw this movie one time, where this badass guy got shot by evil jewrat commies, and he didn't run to the hospital and whine for socialised health-care. He filled up the wound with fucking gunpowder and then he lit it. Yes, you heard right. He gave himself first aid by exploding parts of his own fucking body!

I think you Americans should all take a page from his book. Because when you've elected a fucking cowboy actor as president, you're expected to treat your own gunshot wounds with explosives. Seriously, a fucking cowboy actor.

I don't even know how people can debate American politics with a straight face anymore.

JoY
11-05-2007, 06:39 AM
wow, i got slammed for not supporting socialism. i forgot this forum is about 80% weed-smoking eurotrash. you think i am blissfully unaware that america's healthcare system is fucked up?

i stand by my point. hillary is a dumb bimbo who would make a terrible president. "hillary care" was [and will be if it re-emerges] retarded:


to clarify, i'm not slamming your happy little european healthcare systems, i'm saying hillary is retarded.

to clarify; I am slamming your unhappy huge American healthcare system. not you, the system that is currently used in the country you live in. it's absolutely nothing personal. & most replies you got were from native Americans, sorry. besides that point, I live in a capitalistic society, I vote right wing & am certainly not in favour of socialism.

for god's sake, your healthcare system is freaking horrible, so it needs improvement, right? what is wrong with fucking improvement? what, does it make you feel like you, as a country, have failed? because as long as you leave it this way, refuse your own healthcare system the treatment it needs, the way it has refused millions of people in need of care treatment, it just continues to fail. yes, your healthcare system does fail. so fucking fix it, or it just keeps on failing. is admitting that other countries do better at this particular thing so fucking horrible, are you really that petty?

if you can admit your healthcare system sucks balls, then you're apparently aware it needs a change. you can adjust a thing or two here & there, but let's face it; if it stays the way it is now, even with a few adjustments, it's going to suck maybe less balls, but it's still going to suck balls. again, American healthcare is ranked number 37, just slightly ahead of Slovenia, & America pumps more money into it's healthcare, than any other country anywhere else on this planet. it's going to need a pretty dramatic, drastic change.

if you want to "slam" Hillary's ideas, her suggestions to improve your healthcare system- which would be, let's just be honest, in your own benefit -then what do you suggest? what do you think will work in America & with the American (capitalistic, of course) mentality? you don't like it the way it is, you don't like her suggestions.... you can't just sit back & slag everyone's suggestions without proposing anything yourself, or at least think about it. it's not constructive &, in the case of an existing dysfunctional healthcare system, even destructive. because it leaves you, but more importantly, your country with nothing. it'll leave everyone with no options left & then nothing will be done & it'll just be the same sucky healthcare system it's been for years & years.

so, what makes her idea a bad idea & what would be a better idea? it's a very basic question that should be easy to answer for someone who seems so surely opposed the ideas of Hillary Clinton.

perfectly capitalistic countries have socialised healthcare systems & they function just fine for everyone. you don't need to be some kind of Leninlover to socialise medicine & socialising healthcare is not the same as socialism. if you can't keep the two seperated, you're extremely unintelligent. there are plenty of things that are already socialised where you live. what about the mail, for instance. & does that make you socialistic, or unhappy, or disappointed in the quality of your mail delivery?

yes, indeed, weed-smoking Eurotrash with a peachy healthcare system, where everyone has health insurance, no one is kicked out on the street, because they couldn't afford a treatment, or had to watch their baby die, because a simple infection couldn't be treated, because oh, they knocked on the door of the wrong hospital with their particular insurance. thank you for the compliment.

not to mention this weed-smoking Eurotrash studies medicine herself, like already has been pointed out. I don't mean to brag, I just mean to say I wouldn't want to be in the position of either a patient, or a doctor in a healthcare system like that of America. of course I don't want to be sick anywhere, but particularly not in America of all Western countries. & I study medicine with a massive passion, with an enormous will to become a doctor, but if I had to become a doctor in America with the way it is, I wouldn't do it. just, no way. that is not why I'm hoping by the end of my studies to take the oath of Hippocrates, to swear by God, that I will protect patients from harm & injustice & will treat them all the same as well as I can, blindly, no matter what their colour or paycheck is. it has nothing to do with America, it has to do with the system. the system is breaking the oath, that binds doctors all over the world, guards the ethics & formulates the principles that are the foundation of medical care.

also, this weed-smoking Eurotrash comes from a country that will welcome Michael Leavitt this week, sent by Bush for help & advice on this exact matter.

Sin Studly
11-05-2007, 08:05 AM
Uh, hello? America doesn't need health care. Once I saw this movie where this guy had a bad tooth, and he didn't run to a dentist like a whining little pussy. He stuck a motherfucking ice skate in his mouth, all jammed up against his molar. And then he slammed a fucking rock into it. Who the fuck needs socialised health care when you can knock your own teeth out with ice skates?

JoY
11-05-2007, 08:27 AM
sounds easy, cheap & very unpleasant. ;p

not to mention kind of risky. but it's reality. no matter how ridiculous it sounds (& pretty much is), a few friends of mine have already had to take medical care into their own hands. it didn't always end up very pretty.

Sin Studly
11-05-2007, 07:47 PM
I saw this one movie where a guy was all delusional-schitzophrenic and having fucked-up hallucinations full of torture and death. Did he run crying to a psychiatrist and whiiiine? Did he sob that the government wouldn't pay for his mental health requirements? Fuck no. He dealt with delusional schizophrenic hallucinations the way a real man would. He clawed his own motherfucking eyes out and was all like "Where we're going, you won't need eyes to see!". Then he piloted his spaceship right into Hell, and there were demons flaying people alive and tortured people hanging from chains just like in his visions and he grabbed Lawrence Fishburne and was all like "DO YOU SEE????? DO YOU SEEEEEEE?????". Then he shot a bunch of people with an oversized nailgun and I think there was an explosion afterwards.

TBD
11-05-2007, 10:00 PM
I saw a dude shoot out his brains with a shotgun on live tv because his HMO wouldn't pay his bills.

No one should ever even have to think twice about going to the doctor for care. Tax increase or whatever, I don't think anyone should ever have to worry about going to the doctor because they lack money.

JohnnyNemesis
11-05-2007, 10:53 PM
From where you get the notion that i live in a double-wide and go hunting in my spare time i have no idea.


wow, i got slammed for not supporting socialism. i forgot this forum is about 80% weed-smoking eurotrash.

And then I lol'd.

Sunny
11-06-2007, 07:15 AM
makes two of us, Rickypants. lols all around.

zsk
11-06-2007, 09:00 AM
do you think this country is ready for a woman president??


It works not in germany and you'll see it'll not work in america!

Moose
11-06-2007, 09:11 AM
I'd vote for Wikipedia.

We all know America has a health care problem, but no one has a very good solution for it. From what I understand (although I could be wrong,) a lot of people come to this country for medical help because apparently, we have some of the best doctors and people in the medical field. Some say under a socialist health care system, this drive for great doctors and such would dwindle because everyone would be making a similiar salary in their fields, and therefore, why even try to bust your ass when the other guy is making the same as you putting in very little effort, but just has the same job title as you.

I'm not sure of anything, so I'm not going to pretend, like most people on this board, that I know all and have all the right answers. Many people are from outside of the U.S., but act as if they live here and know how everything works and flows...But correct me if I may be wrong on any point, I don't mind.

However, it does seem that, at least in New York, things are dictated by benefits. A good job is dictated by whether or not it has good benefits and early retirement...And since health care is so expensive, many of us are semi-forced (or willing) into taking these jobs (city jobs) and never reach for anything higher or even dreamlike.

It just seems like it's the "new slavery"...Work in Sanitation or in the NYPD, not because you want to, but because you have to.

And yes Hilary would make an awful president, but I wouldn't mind voting for anyone that I felt capable of helping this country...But honestly, is there anyone on this board thrilled about any of these candidates?

Sin Studly
11-06-2007, 09:34 AM
But America doesn't have a health care problem. I saw this one movie where this alcoholic ex-doctor was all like, chugging down whiskey. Then he dunks a scalpel and forceps into his glass of whiskey and pours whiskey all over Mel Gibson. Then he just slices Mel Gibson up and pulls two 44. bullets out of him, without anaesthetic. Seriously, how much could it possibly cost to hire that guy?

ruroken
11-06-2007, 09:40 AM
I saw this one movie where a guy was all delusional-schitzophrenic and having fucked-up hallucinations full of torture and death. Did he run crying to a psychiatrist and whiiiine? Did he sob that the government wouldn't pay for his mental health requirements? Fuck no. He dealt with delusional schizophrenic hallucinations the way a real man would. He clawed his own motherfucking eyes out and was all like "Where we're going, you won't need eyes to see!". Then he piloted his spaceship right into Hell, and there were demons flaying people alive and tortured people hanging from chains just like in his visions and he grabbed Lawrence Fishburne and was all like "DO YOU SEE????? DO YOU SEEEEEEE?????". Then he shot a bunch of people with an oversized nailgun and I think there was an explosion afterwards.
What. Movie. Is. This. OMG

Sin Studly
11-06-2007, 09:48 AM
Sam Neill in Event Horizon.

JoY
11-06-2007, 11:50 AM
What. Movie. Is. This. OMG

I wanted to say; "you probably don't want to know", but there's your answer.

Moose, this week Michael Leavitt is visiting Switzerland & the Netherlands for advice & help on how they can improve American healthcare. we're not superior, the Netherlands is number 17, Switzerland is number 20 in healthcare rankings out of 190 countries. not bad, but apparently there are loads of countries that do better in this area. I think the reason is, that we've capitalized healthcare as much as we thought could be justified without any harm is done to the ethics that are so important in medical care. the Netherlands didn't fully socialize healthcare, so yeah well, I guess it would fit better with the American mentality & all.

anyway, it's all baby-steps, but it's definitely a step forward. maybe something good will come of it.

also, Moose, where are you from? anyway, if I would be thrilled about any of the candidates, I'd be thrilled about Hillary. obviously because she was the first to register a problem in healthcare, or at least bring it out in the open. wide open. of course, with my interests, you'll understand that gets me excited. I don't want to slag America, or American systems, I just want people to be helped when they're in need of medical care.

nieh
11-06-2007, 11:53 AM
<3 Justin's posts in this thread. I had to try so hard to restrain myself from lolling like an idiot at work when I read the Event Horizon one.

wheelchairman
11-06-2007, 12:42 PM
Sam Neill in Event Horizon.

I haven't seen this movie in years. :( And your reference to using a film as a source of reference is gladly taken.

That aside, Moose, it's an ideological question. I couldn't really care if the best doctor's left America. I could never have afforded them while living there (or more correctly, my parent's couldn't have.) Now I live in Denmark, and it's quite reassuring that I could go to the hospital without having to pay a thing, have a doctor listen to my ailment and then offer treatment. All for free. Sure if I had millions then I would be sad if the best doctor left. Not really my problem though.

JoY
11-06-2007, 01:01 PM
the poor should rot, or have worked harder!!!!!!!! the rich deserve to own millions, for they have earned it!!! moneyz is what it is all about, baby!



....dude, who really is *that* right wing, if they have a decent job, work hard, but couldn't afford a doctor if their life depended on it. (crazy how that sentence turned out)

edit: exactly, the 1% of the people that do have that kind of cash is. & I'm not sure if them having shitloads of dollars always guarantees they've proportionally studied, worked & achieved that much more than the avarage "middleman". though in some cases this IS the case & those people do deserve some props.

wheelchairman
11-06-2007, 01:02 PM
You can work two jobs on minimum wage in America without being able to afford health care. Let alone doctor's fees. But I'm not entirely sure what your last sentence means....

JoY
11-06-2007, 01:13 PM
when your life depends on it, literally, treatment most often costs a lot more, than if you were asking for, let's say, something for stomach acid.

normally "not if life depended on it" means you could go out of your way as much as you possibly can, but you won't achieve what you need/want anyway. right? well, if life does depend on it, then you would absolutely go out of your way to get treatment, but that's pretty much when you'll be the least likely to be able to afford treatment.

Bazza
11-06-2007, 02:09 PM
you don't really think it works that simple, do you?

I know sod all about the US electoral system, all I know is that if you're not liked then you won't get the votes. So a good starting point would be with people liking you. Sure not everyone wants a female president, but if she is strong enough (and dare I say it, man enough) then people will vote. Look at Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, people voted for her because of her bullish approach.

JoY
11-11-2007, 04:47 PM
I understand your point. being liked, striving for goals that are within reach & make an improvement & opening discussions that start a constructive process, that indeed increases your chances to get votes. & with reason.

but if a man calls out; "I want to president of the United States!", he's should be an exceptional person, who will come up with exceptionally good standpoints to actually become the president of the United States. after all, (even if you're cynical about the fact we're talking about a country with a cowboy actor voted president & wonder if people are even capable of making a sensible decision on the subject) we're still talking about the position as a president & it's not just for anybody.

now we happen to discuss a country that is a) conservative, also in the area of the position of men vs. women, b) has never known a female president. these things are of course related. but if it takes an exceptional man to become president in the United States, it takes an even more exceptional woman.

Little_Miss_1565
11-11-2007, 06:05 PM
Sure not everyone wants a female president, but if she is strong enough (and dare I say it, man enough) then people will vote. Look at Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, people voted for her because of her bullish approach.

It does seem that qualities perceived to be feminine are seen as a handicap rather than an asset. The way I see it, wouldn't a whipsmart knockout hourglass-figured crackerjack babe do a better job of negotiating world peace by combining good diplomacy and crisis management skills with a killer set of sweater puppies?

JoY
11-11-2007, 06:07 PM
oh duuuuude, hahahaha, that's taking it far!

I'm not saying "too far", I'm just saying.

Sin Studly
11-12-2007, 01:44 AM
It does seem that qualities perceived to be feminine are seen as a handicap rather than an asset. The way I see it, wouldn't a whipsmart knockout hourglass-figured crackerjack babe do a better job of negotiating world peace by combining good diplomacy and crisis management skills with a killer set of sweater puppies?

No, because fundamentalist muslims are going to be offended from day one that they have to deal with a woman. And I seriously doubt the Putins and Jintaos of the world are gonna be sidetracked by something so simple as a nice pair of jubblies. Best bet would be a moderately attractive white man aged 40 to 50, dark hair turning to a dignified grey, who looks good in a two-piece suit. It doesn't matter how stupid he is, as long as he looks the part and can recite bland non-offensive politispeak, and can fake emotional turmoil whenever there's a terrorist bombing, school shooting or natural disaster he has to make a speech about.

JoY
11-12-2007, 08:02 AM
the only women I've ever seen in truly leading positions on a national, or international level were manlier than Arnold fucking Swartzenegger. talking about actors in political positions....

Bazza
11-12-2007, 02:06 PM
the only women I've ever seen in truly leading positions on a national, or international level were manlier than Arnold fucking Swartzenegger. talking about actors in political positions....

But Thatcher was a hottie...... seriously only kidding there.

JoY
11-12-2007, 02:08 PM
even if she was, I could be talking about her character & not her appearance.

Bazza
11-12-2007, 02:21 PM
even if she was, I could be talking about her character & not her appearance.
Fair point, I'll give you that one. But then again what is a femine character...? Are we talking about the normally perceived female character (if there is even such thing?). I really don't know where I'm going with that so feel free to ignore it!

JoY
11-12-2007, 02:33 PM
you were the one calling her approach bullish. bullish ain't called "bullish" for nothing; a bull after all is a male cow.

Bazza
11-12-2007, 02:36 PM
Damnit, you got me again, oh wells.

Sin Studly
11-13-2007, 03:34 AM
They also called her "The Iron Bitch", and a "bitch" after all, is a female dog...

JoY
11-21-2007, 05:00 AM
They also called her "The Iron Bitch", and a "bitch" after all, is a female dog...

you have to give her actual gender some consideration, right?

sKratch
11-22-2007, 01:33 PM
I like how people who seem to dislike Hilary have very, very vague reasons why. These are the same people that based on minimal TV coverage of debates and short commercials formed their opinions that Gore will raise taxes and Kerry flip flops on issues.

I'll never understand why rightist rhetoric sticks so easily and is so effective in ruining democratic politicians.
That's besides the fact that 90% of all politicians are fucking douches anyways.

Ron Paul Vs. Dennis Kucinich 2008

Llamas
11-22-2007, 09:33 PM
I was for Obama about a year ago, but now I'm really leaning toward Kucinich. Ron Paul does seem like a pretty decent option for the Republican party, but it honestly would take something pretty special for me to vote Republican.

smash212
11-27-2007, 02:02 PM
i think we are if the right woman comes along but none that i can see soon

Jakebert
11-29-2007, 10:04 AM
The people that say they won't vote for Hilary because "she's a stupid bitch" are people that shouldn't be voting.

Not that I like Hilary. She's way too inconsistant in what she says, and you can tell that most of what she says is purposely said to get votes from different groups rather than her saying it because she believes in it, even more so than your average presidential candidate.

But those people that simply call her a "bitch" just hear everyone else say it and assume it's true. But this gives me an idea for a thread.

Jack the Tripper
11-30-2007, 07:34 PM
I don't know if the country's ready for Bill Clinton to be back in the white house. (That'll happen if Hilary Clinton is president).

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 12:10 PM
Those who consider Hilary just because she is female shouldn't be voting. It's just this kind of discrimination that makes feminists hypocrites.

What JoY said made her(?) argument lose all credibility.

Don't think as Hilary the prospect for the first female president, look at her as her intellectual characteristics evince. And what I see is another fake politician.

JohnnyNemesis
12-02-2007, 12:40 PM
Those who consider Hilary just because she is female shouldn't be voting. It's just this kind of discrimination that makes feminists hypocrites.

And this is the kind of shit that makes me not wanna post in this section of the BBS. I hate hate hate when people use the word "discrimination" without even knowing what it fucking means.

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 12:56 PM
And this is the kind of shit that makes me not wanna post in this section of the BBS. I hate hate hate when people use the word "discrimination" without even knowing what it fucking means.

dis·crim·i·na·tion (d-skrm-nshn)
n.
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

What did I mean by discrimination: a mental separation or distinction from a group.

What I meant by my sentence: that feminists seperate (or discriminate) the males from females in a hypocritical manner.


I was very sure I was using it in the correct manner, and to be honest, I also loathe the word, but I think you're just making premature assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

wheelchairman
12-02-2007, 01:04 PM
It usually implies placing another person or group of people at a disadvantage based on their status (in this case female). Not placing an advantage to a person of this status. That in fact is not discrimination at all.

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 01:12 PM
It usually implies placing another person or group of people at a disadvantage based on their status (in this case female). Not placing an advantage to a person of this status. That in fact is not discrimination at all.

I was leaning more to the "seperating" definition of mathematics, and the dictionaries' definition of prejudice.

What would be a more appropriate term? Psychological segregation? I'm just asking so I can avoid this kind of issues.

My point still stands, doesn't it? :/

wheelchairman
12-02-2007, 01:23 PM
No. Unless you also don't really know what feminism or hypocritical means.

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 02:04 PM
No. Unless you also don't really know what feminism or hypocritical means.

Were those meant to be separate sentences?

First of all, what I was referring to as feminism is the current general label. The term "feminist" is ambiguous, thus it relies on the speculative interpretation of the invididual.

The characteristics I would target to attribute "feminism" to a person are those of possessing a biased and skewed perspective in regard to the feminine gender that imply the prejudicial generalization that women are superior to men. That's the general concept, albeit sometimes implied subconsciously.

Another concept of femenism is the one that strives for equality, but this one is underused given the former definition I described.


The term "hypocrisy" is a fallacy applied when a person opposes a certain concept (sometimes a flaw or characteristic) when they essentially possess an affinity for it in a conversely variable context. That's a definition not even you could deny.


Let me re-state my argument for those who always need it spoon-fed.

My point was implying that JoY's preference for Clinton for the presidency ,based or appointed on the irrelevant factor that is her gender, was analogous to the feminist mindset (which is fundamentally fallacious). However, I was not implying that JoY is indeed a feminist. I then proceeded to suggest that the aspects that should be taken into account in these matters are those of an individual's intellectual properties, thus basing a system on intelligent decisions.

I still don't see how this is supposed to not be viable. [The double negative is obviously intended, just so those pathetic smartasses can know.]

wheelchairman
12-02-2007, 02:47 PM
First of all, what I was referring to as feminism is the current general label. The term "feminist" is ambiguous, thus it relies on the speculative interpretation of the invididual.

The characteristics I would target to attribute "feminism" to a person are those of possessing a biased and skewed perspective in regard to the feminine gender that imply the prejudicial generalization that women are superior to men. That's the general concept, albeit sometimes implied subconsciously.

Another concept of femenism is the one that strives for equality, but this one is underused given the former definition I described.


You can define feminism however you want, it doesn't change the fact that a feminist supporting a female president would not be hypocritical. Nor would a female supporting a female president be a feminist.



The term "hypocrisy" is a fallacy applied when a person opposes a certain concept (sometimes a flaw or characteristic) when they essentially possess an affinity for it in a conversely variable context. That's a definition not even you could deny.
It's cute when you try and take the intellectual high ground by using big words, and then you make rather simple typos. That's one aspect to hypocrisy (the one where I quoted you) though, I agree.



Let me re-state my argument for those who always need it spoon-fed.

My point was implying that JoY's preference for Clinton for the presidency ,based or appointed on the irrelevant factor that is her gender, was analogous to the feminist mindset (which is fundamentally fallacious). However, I was not implying that JoY is indeed a feminist. I then proceeded to suggest that the aspects that should be taken into account in these matters are those of an individual's intellectual properties, thus basing a system on intelligent decisions.

I still don't see how this is supposed to not be viable. [The double negative is obviously intended, just so those pathetic smartasses can know.]
undoubtedly sir gentlemen. A most parsimonious intellect should be capable of ascertaining the basic and fundamental dichotomies presented in your discourse.
Douche.

You're still wrong. There are many poor reasons for choosing a candidate, the fundamental one being poor candidates in general. Although a woman choosing a female candidate because she supposes that the only female candidate for presidency might take a special consideration towards females in general, is not crazy. It would actually make sense.

But if you wanna choose a president based on who you think is the smartest, well good luck, but you won't get far. They naturally try to make themselves feel smarter and the other candidates dumber. I mean generally I suppose the idea of voting would be to vote for people who most agree with your personal values. But this would be my crazy shot in the air, I'm sorry I didn't use phrases like

appointed on the irrelevant factor that is her gender, was analogous to the feminist mindset (which is fundamentally fallacious).
this one. I hope you can understand my slow paced droolings.

Rag Doll
12-02-2007, 03:27 PM
First of all, what I was referring to as feminism is the current general label. The term "feminist" is ambiguous, thus it relies on the speculative interpretation of the invididual.

The characteristics I would target to attribute "feminism" to a person are those of possessing a biased and skewed perspective in regard to the feminine gender that imply the prejudicial generalization that women are superior to men. That's the general concept, albeit sometimes implied subconsciously.

Another concept of femenism is the one that strives for equality, but this one is underused given the former definition I described.


You know, the only concept of feminism that I really encounter on a regular basis *is* the one that strives for equality....based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. Not the idea that "booo the mens are bad down with them!!!!!"

JohnnyNemesis
12-02-2007, 03:34 PM
The characteristics I would target to attribute "feminism" to a person are those of possessing a biased and skewed perspective in regard to the feminine gender that imply the prejudicial generalization that women are superior to men.

So, in other words, you learned about feminism from American sitcoms? Cute.

That definition is patently and completely fucking false, by the way.

Sham
12-02-2007, 05:11 PM
He was right about one thing though, some people say that "it's time we have a woman president" so they vote just for that. But these people are idiots, and you can assume there are a lot of idiots.

Rag Doll
12-02-2007, 05:18 PM
i don't think voting for a woman solely because she's a woman necessarily makes someone an idiot. someone that already replied to this (Rick? Per?) said someone may vote for a woman because they think a woman may be more in tune with their views/interests. How is that stupid?

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 07:05 PM
You can define feminism however you want, it doesn't change the fact that a feminist supporting a female president would not be hypocritical. Nor would a female supporting a female president be a feminist. Hahah. That doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue, but it's just as irrelevant to what you just said. Never did I say that a woman voting for a woman was hypocritical, genius.

However, a woman criticizing men for rejecting a woman for presidency while she will vote for a woman because of her gender is indeed hypocritical.

You really need to start understanding what you read before you say start ludicrous statements like these. You really boosted my confidence with that one.



It's cute when you try and take the intellectual high ground by using big words, and then you make rather simple typos. That's one aspect to hypocrisy (the one where I quoted you) though, I agree. Those weren't even big words. The sentence was just a little complex, but it saves me writing redundant walls of text like others'.

How nice, typing in someone else's defective, sticky keyboard makes me a hypocrite. What a superb argument.



undoubtedly sir gentlemen. A most parsimonious intellect should be capable of ascertaining the basic and fundamental dichotomies presented in your discourse.
Douche.

You're still wrong. There are many poor reasons for choosing a candidate, the fundamental one being poor candidates in general. Although a woman choosing a female candidate because she supposes that the only female candidate for presidency might take a special consideration towards females in general, is not crazy. It would actually make sense.

But if you wanna choose a president based on who you think is the smartest, well good luck, but you won't get far. They naturally try to make themselves feel smarter and the other candidates dumber. I mean generally I suppose the idea of voting would be to vote for people who most agree with your personal values. But this would be my crazy shot in the air, I'm sorry I didn't use phrases like

this one. I hope you can understand my slow paced droolings.

You said it, they're poor reasons. You're forcefully agreeing with me. A woman voting for such thing does make sense. That's because the intelligence standards are just that low. Like Sham said, most people are idiots. It's futile to discuss that because it'd be like saying that giving a kid a candy is more important than ending world hunger. In case you didn't understand, by that I meant that giving special consent to a gender is trivial in comparison to the other affairs the country is involved in.

At least, your argument was at least somewhat understandable, you still gave it another reason. You're still out of context. It's painfully hard to miss that I'm talking of people who choose Hilary specifically because she is female with no further thought into it.

If we all look back into the thread, that's what JoY said aside of how much she loves medical care or something.

Your shot was too far-fetched, it's more amusing when you don't look like an idiot. Yeah.. I'm gonna like this place.


You know, the only concept of feminism that I really encounter on a regular basis *is* the one that strives for equality....based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. Not the idea that "booo the mens are bad down with them!!!!!"
That's what they say, but I included that they sometimes imply privilige or superiority subconsciously. If you carefully listen to what they say or write, they often show marks of this.

Woman are already equal, but they still don't shut the fuck up about how they want the salary of a man that does a better job than her and about how that's supposed to be sexist. All they're doing is being sexist themselves.

You never see a woman saying that not only men should go to war as part of the land infantry, but that women should do too. I even heard of a law being considered in Europe that you could get arrested for looking at a woman and that she finds it offensive.

I want equal rights, does that make me a feminist? All I find is these egotistical and imbecilic bitches. Let's not turn this into a feminist debate.


So, in other words, you learned about feminism from American sitcoms? Cute.

That definition is patently and completely fucking false, by the way.
Why in the world would you watch sitcom's? :l

Your logic is amazing. "ur mother is fucking false by the way."

Sham
12-02-2007, 07:11 PM
omeone that already replied to this (Rick? Per?) said someone may vote for a woman because they think a woman may be more in tune with their views/interests.

That's a different reason than what I stated.

Rag Doll
12-02-2007, 07:54 PM
That's what they say, but I included that they sometimes imply privilige or superiority subconsciously. If you carefully listen to what they say or write, they often show marks of this.

Woman are already equal, but they still don't shut the fuck up about how they want the salary of a man that does a better job than her and about how that's supposed to be sexist. All they're doing is being sexist themselves.

You never see a woman saying that not only men should go to war as part of the land infantry, but that women should do too. I even heard of a law being considered in Europe that you could get arrested for looking at a woman and that she finds it offensive.

I want equal rights, does that make me a feminist? All I find is these egotistical and imbecilic bitches. Let's not turn this into a feminist debate.

Wow, you seem a little angry. You keep saying "what THEY say" (emphasis obviously my own). As if it's some grand conspiracy by feminists to take over by attempting to seem all inclusive, and yet secretly plotting against the mens.

Woman are NOT already equal in society's eyes. I see women wanting equal pay for equal work. I guess it's impossible for women to do as good of a job as a man though, so they should make less even in the same position? And I won't even begin to explain how it's impossible for the target group of an -ism to use that -ism again the dominant group.

I'd like you to show me proof of this law as well as the context surrounding it (such as the group that actually wanted to put this into place).

I actually don't think you want equal rights. I think you're pretty anti-woman for whatever reason. And if anyone is trying to start a "feminist debate", it's you, since you made such a big deal about it for a few posts =)


Sham -

I know what you stated. I was just saying why some people might say they're voting for her just because she's a woman. Maybe that's kind of what's going on in their heads.

HeadAroundU
12-02-2007, 08:53 PM
Those who consider Hilary just because she is female shouldn't be voting. It's just this kind of discrimination that makes feminists hypocrites.

Hahah. That doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue, but it's just as irrelevant to what you just said. Never did I say that a woman voting for a woman was hypocritical, genius.
Yes, you did. Those = feminists (you have said it, not me, look at the first quote) = male or female (woman).

You can define feminism however you want, it doesn't change the fact that a feminist supporting a female president would not be hypocritical. Nor would a female supporting a female president be a feminist.
You are right. His post implies that. But he can't see it. He reminds me of 'ilovellamas'. Just slowly twisting what he stated in the initial post.

JohnnyNemesis
12-02-2007, 09:33 PM
Your logic is amazing. "ur mother is fucking false by the way."

Fair enough. But I dare you to answer this honestly:

Have you ever actually taken the time to read or learn about feminism? Because honest to goodness, you asking me to disprove you with logic on your assumptions concerning feminism is akin to...well, to use your language, asking me to break down why the sky is blue. Because honestly, your definition of feminism has absolutely no basis in reality.

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 09:43 PM
Yes, you did. Those = feminists (you have said it, not me, look at the first quote) = male or female (woman).

You are right. His post implies that. But he can't see it. He reminds me of 'ilovellamas'. Just slowly twisting what he stated in the initial post.

And I thought this couldn't get any more stupid. I said that those who vote for that reason fall in the same idiocy that feminists do, not that they're feminists. I've stated that a couple of times right now. It's right there in my posts, yet you fail to see it. You just get the phrases you want to distort the meaning of my argument.

Why is this dumbass even quoting me? Go read first.


Wow, you seem a little angry. You keep saying "what THEY say" (emphasis obviously my own). As if it's some grand conspiracy by feminists to take over by attempti..

That's enough to make me stop reading..









eh.. I'll guess I'll be a nice guy or whatever and read the rest of it.


I actually don't think you want equal rights. I think you're pretty anti-woman for whatever reason.
And what rather than completely arbitrary conceptions makes you think that I don't want equality? It's just all the feminist bullshit that makes me complain. I just loathe idiocy in general.

Yeah, but now that I think of it, I've never seen a female intellectual. Yeah, there's the plethora of pseudo-intellectuals around, but never a real smart woman. You're not helping it either.

I believe I've seen more than you. And no, I don't have any source for my claim. It was just something I heard and the first thing that came to my mind to type.

Some feminists even spell "woman" "womyn".

Scythe Death
12-02-2007, 09:52 PM
Fair enough. But I dare you to answer this honestly:

Have you ever actually taken the time to read or learn about feminism? Because honest to goodness, you asking me to disprove you with logic on your assumptions concerning feminism is akin to...well, to use your language, asking me to break down why the sky is blue. Because honestly, your definition of feminism has absolutely no basis in reality.

I'm not lying, I've read plenty of things about them, and it just irks me to the point I wish they just died. I know about the original feminist movement that strived for equality, but it's this 'neo-feminism' (for the lack of a better word) that is such a big pain in the ass.

I've always tried to make equality every time. Basing these kinds of things off of gender or race is plain idiocy even when giving them privileges.

If a woman is running elections don't give her special consent or disapprove because of her gender. If people really want equality, make the system fair and let her true qualities be taken into account rather than her gender.


I think a better word would be "radical".

wheelchairman
12-03-2007, 03:54 AM
Hahah. That doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue, but it's just as irrelevant to what you just said. Never did I say that a woman voting for a woman was hypocritical, genius.
Actually you did say that. People have pointed it out. Now you are saying that even though you did say it, it's still stupid. That however was not the point. But to move on to that. You said:



However, a woman criticizing men for rejecting a woman for presidency while she will vote for a woman because of her gender is indeed hypocritical.

How so? Would you say the same thing of a black man voting for a black man? The entire history of presidential elections has been a history of getting as many people as possible to relate to you in order for them to vote for you. It's not an election of issues, and policies. Of responsibilities and duties. That's simply not possible in the American system. Now what is Hillary's trump card? She's a woman. And she's not one of those woman-hating women, so it makes a whole lot of sense for women who want more visibility for women's issues, to vote for a woman who will bring them forward.

You see I get where you're coming from, but it's stupid. The reason it's not hypocritical is due to the nature of the conflict of interests here. Equality is more visible today. You and I can both agree that woman are our equals. This however is an attitude that has only existed for a generation or two. Largely due to the civil rights movement. That was directly a movement of pro-equality for woman (fought mostly by woman, if you believe men rule the world then it's ridiculous to ask men to help convince other men to let you help rule the world. It would take simple activism like that of the civil rights movement.) Now naturally if you're a woman, and all you can see is rich white guys running for president as far as the eye can see, then wouldn't you assume that the one woman there would likely have some interest in women's rights. Seeing as she fought so hard to get there?





You really need to start understanding what you read before you say start ludicrous statements like these. You really boosted my confidence with that one.

Pathetic.



How nice, typing in someone else's defective, sticky keyboard makes me a hypocrite. What a superb argument.
I made a point of saying that the quoted example was hypocritical, and not your typos. I suppose you should not be the one lecturing people on their ability to read and comprehend.


You said it, they're poor reasons. You're forcefully agreeing with me. A woman voting for such thing does make sense. That's because the intelligence standards are just that low. Like Sham said, most people are idiots. It's futile to discuss that because it'd be like saying that giving a kid a candy is more important than ending world hunger. In case you didn't understand, by that I meant that giving special consent to a gender is trivial in comparison to the other affairs the country is involved in.
Indeed it is. But then we're talking about our personal influences in politics in a two-party system like the one we have. There isn't a lot of choices. You can ask anyone in America to describe the election and you will get the same answer every time, "choosing between two evils." It's not a matter of people being idiots. It's a matter of people being apathetic due to the divorce between government and population. Why care about politics when it doesn't really matter? Election promises are just hot air, everyone knows this. Presidential candidates can promise anything knowing full well that when it comes to it, they can even force a bill to fail in congress. So people go for accountability. Women go for Hillary because they don't believe she will directly hurt women's rights and maybe even improve them.



At least, your argument was at least somewhat understandable, you still gave it another reason. You're still out of context. It's painfully hard to miss that I'm talking of people who choose Hilary specifically because she is female with no further thought into it.
I don't see where you get this high ground though. People vote for single reasons all the time. I would say voting for a woman to improve woman's rights makes a lot of sense. Much better than voting for some religious nut because he hates abortions and gays just as much as you do (when these issues are "trivial to the affairs of the country") as you put it.

Ah now to get two birds with one stone. You mention a complete lack of Female intellectuals AND you defined neo-feminism. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist. But Chantal Mouffe is a well respected post-marxist "neo-feminist." She doesn't hate men. She's actively working to make the system fair. She's written several works. And she's one of the most respected people inside Critical Discourse Analysis.

Seriously though, there are an assload of intellectual women. Perhaps you don't have access to the right databases?

Also you take the high road quite often. Assuming you are smarter than everyone else because they disagree with you. It's unbecoming and also makes you look retarded because so far you've convinced no one. And everyone's pointed out the contradictions in the things you've said.

Scythe Death
12-03-2007, 05:05 PM
Actually you did say that. People have pointed it out. Now you are saying that even though you did say it, it's still stupid.
That's just delusional. For instance if I would have said "That's just the same logic that makes Neo-Nazi's (or aleatory group that would fit in the description) hypocritical, you'd force yourself to believe that I'm calling her a neo-nazi or whatever. That's what you're doing- misinterpreting my statements so they can fit your argument. That's just pitiful.


That however was not the point. But to move on to that. You said:
quote

How so?


It's impossible that you couldn't discern the hypocrisy in criticizing men for rejecting a woman candidate because of her gender when the woman who's criticizing will vote for the woman just for the gender. Even though it's again painfully hard to miss, you still answer with "no, it's not o_o".

However:


Would you say the same thing of a black man voting for a black man? The entire history of presidential elections has been a history of getting as many people as possible to relate to you in order for them to vote for you. It's not an election of issues, and policies. Of responsibilities and duties. That's simply not possible in the American system. Now what is Hillary's trump card? She's a woman. And she's not one of those woman-hating women, so it makes a whole lot of sense for women who want more visibility for women's issues, to vote for a woman who will bring them forward.

You are just agreeing with me, but with the blatant attempt to pretend you're using that as a refute to what I say.



You see I get where you're coming from, but it's stupid. The reason it's not hypocritical is due to the nature of the conflict of interests here. Equality is more visible today. You and I can both agree that woman are our equals. This however is an attitude that has only existed for a generation or two. Largely due to the civil rights movement. That was directly a movement of pro-equality for woman (fought mostly by woman, if you believe men rule the world then it's ridiculous to ask men to help convince other men to let you help rule the world. It would take simple activism like that of the civil rights movement.) Now naturally if you're a woman, and all you can see is rich white guys running for president as far as the eye can see, then wouldn't you assume that the one woman there would likely have some interest in women's rights. Seeing as she fought so hard to get there?

That's what I meant by conversely variable; they still virtually fall into the same 'fallacy'.

Since we both know that women are our equals, electing a woman for her gender falls to the simple affair of representation. The whole propaganda is a matter of representation and does not go beyond interests. Equality is a must in the U.S.; that argument is just an empty excuse.

Hence, it is hypocritical for a woman to criticize a man who wants a man for representation because she wants a woman for representation.

Rag Doll may say "there's still much discrimination", take them to court.



Pathetic.Even more ludicrous. It seems you esteem yourself too much.



I made a point of saying that the quoted example was hypocritical, and not your typos. I suppose you should not be the one lecturing people on their ability to read and comprehend.
Oh, my mistake. I was like in a hurry. 0|

Still, you're stubborn with your belief about what I said of feminists.



Indeed it is. But then we're talking about our personal influences in politics in a two-party system like the one we have. There isn't a lot of choices. You can ask anyone in America to describe the election and you will get the same answer every time, "choosing between two evils." It's not a matter of people being idiots. It's a matter of people being apathetic due to the divorce between government and population. Why care about politics when it doesn't really matter? Election promises are just hot air, everyone knows this. Presidential candidates can promise anything knowing full well that when it comes to it, they can even force a bill to fail in congress. So people go for accountability. Women go for Hillary because they don't believe she will directly hurt women's rights and maybe even improve them.
That's just you. Just because that's your perspective of things, it doesn't mean it's everyone else's. That's a fallacy in debate.

Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music isn't popular.



I don't see where you get this high ground though. People vote for single reasons all the time. I would say voting for a woman to improve woman's rights makes a lot of sense. Much better than voting for some religious nut because he hates abortions and gays just as much as you do (when these issues are "trivial to the affairs of the country") as you put it.Yeah, but religious people believe otherwise.

That's just what I was talking about when I mentioned the intellectual attributes of a person. You vote for the one with the best resolutions.


Ah now to get two birds with one stone. You mention a complete lack of Female intellectuals AND you defined neo-feminism. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist. But Chantal Mouffe is a well respected post-marxist "neo-feminist." She doesn't hate men. She's actively working to make the system fair. She's written several works. And she's one of the most respected people inside Critical Discourse Analysis.

Seriously though, there are an assload of intellectual women. Perhaps you don't have access to the right databases?
I still can't judge about her. You know there are a lot of pseudo-intellectuals out there.

Even then, the ratio compared to males is probably too low though. I've met a couple of intellectual males, but females are nowhere to be seen. But you're right, I probably don't have the right databases.


Also you take the high road quite often. Assuming you are smarter than everyone else because they disagree with you. It's unbecoming and also makes you look retarded because so far you've convinced no one. And everyone's pointed out the contradictions in the things you've said.

Isn't this the same thing that GBH2 guy said? All of a sudden, you come out with the "opinions aren't wrong" claim. It's just sad when someone pulls this out. This fits you more by the way.

I'm always open-minded. And I was actually expecting better from you. Not that I was condescending at default. I was kind of looking up at you.

It seems that this is more of a popularity contest though. That Headaroundu seemed biased in your favor, even when he still managed to understand anything.

If I recall correctly, Sham agreed with me at some point. We agree too to a degree. (No pun intended.)

HeadAroundU
12-03-2007, 05:36 PM
Lolz, I can't wait to see him in General Chat. People are going to love him.

I have read a couple of paragraphs of yours. I'm not trying to understand what you are saying. I'm not really interested in you. I just wanted to prove that you are a walking contradiction. But you definitely have some potential. My recommendation, be nice. :D

Scythe Death
12-03-2007, 05:47 PM
Lolz, I can't wait to see him in General Chat. People are going to love him.

I have read a couple of paragraphs of yours. I'm not trying to understand what you are saying. I'm not really interested in you. I just wanted to prove that you are a walking contradiction. But you definitely have some potential. My recommendation, be nice. :D

lol u stfu nub1

And no, I'm not a walking contradiction u fag. :l

wheelchairman
12-04-2007, 01:48 AM
That's just delusional. For instance if I would have said "That's just the same logic that makes Neo-Nazi's (or aleatory group that would fit in the description) hypocritical, you'd force yourself to believe that I'm calling her a neo-nazi or whatever. That's what you're doing- misinterpreting my statements so they can fit your argument. That's just pitiful.

Did you misquote me? This isn't a reply to what I said in the slightest.



It's impossible that you couldn't discern the hypocrisy in criticizing men for rejecting a woman candidate because of her gender when the woman who's criticizing will vote for the woman just for the gender. Even though it's again painfully hard to miss, you still answer with "no, it's not o_o".
As I mentioned I see where you are coming from. I do believe however that it is not hypocritical when set into it's historical context. Then it makes perfect sense.



You are just agreeing with me, but with the blatant attempt to pretend you're using that as a refute to what I say.
How could I possibly be agreeing with you when I'm saying the opposite? You simply refuse to debate anything. Half your replies are "you're agreeing with me." And no, I'm not. I am trying to make it clear and logical why I don't see it's hypocritical for a chick to vote for a female candidate as opposed to a male to not vote for a female candidate. (And this is underlined by the fact that there are several male candidates and 1(!) female candidate.)

Do you truly not understand?



Since we both know that women are our equals, electing a woman for her gender falls to the simple affair of representation. The whole propaganda is a matter of representation and does not go beyond interests. Equality is a must in the U.S.; that argument is just an empty excuse.
You're doing it again. Ignoring what I said. I am talking about the historical justification for feminism and why it's still relevant. And why women feel it's still relevant.

It's not a matter of equality, it's a matter of interests, lobbies and power. A person votes for whoever will best protect their interests, which brings us to:


That's just you. Just because that's your perspective of things, it doesn't mean it's everyone else's. That's a fallacy in debate.

Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music isn't popular.


Wrong. It's not a fallacy, it's how democracy works. Granted there is no mathematical formula for figuring out who will represent you best. People vote for who they *feel* will represent them best. It's basic theory really. You can see it in the way all political groups use focus groups, and base their marketing on this to reach the greatest amount of people.



That's just what I was talking about when I mentioned the intellectual attributes of a person. You vote for the one with the best resolutions.
Now you're agreeing with me. But you're outlook is too shallow. Take politicians as products. You as a voter want the most useful product. To see how useful it is to you let's take it at face value. Most of the products in this market are pretty much the same with slight variations (let's say they are tooth brushes). They all would brush and clean teeth about equally. However some have different variations on the brush part to clean different areas better. This is the first dimension of usefulness. (A metaphor for their political program. You pick the program or collection of resolutions you feel best solves the problem. But often the differences are minimal. ESPECIALLY in practice.)

The second degree then becomes how much the toothbrush fits your lifestyle. (now the metaphor gets abstract, a toothbrush was perhaps a bad choice of product) But imagine it came with different accessories as well. Perhaps a wall attachment for in your shower in case you are a late worker and need to save as much time as possible in the mornings (so you brush while showering). Etc. You would then choose the toothbrush most compatible with your lifestyle. (The tone of the politician comes in here. Tone/Personality etc. takes the 2nd dimension. As the compatibility of the politician to your personality would hopefully ensure that the politician would make the same decision as you.)

The 3rd then is the handgrip. Everyone has a generic hand with a slight variation. You need the handgrip that fits. This would be in the form of interests. Women would vote for women interests. Business for business interests. Labor for labor interests. (all these groups have lobbies or organizations which donate to one person or another (or sometimes both)).

Now I don't think you'll agree anyways. But a woman assuming a woman has a woman's interests at heart makes perfect sense right? Whereas a man assuming a woman would not have men's interests at heart makes no sense. (It would be extremely politically disadvantageous).


I still can't judge about her. You know there are a lot of pseudo-intellectuals out there.

Even then, the ratio compared to males is probably too low though. I've met a couple of intellectual males, but females are nowhere to be seen. But you're right, I probably don't have the right databases.

What? She's a professor. If people who've written ph.d dissertations aren't intellectuals, then who is?

Now intellectual is a tricky term that has a different definition for everyone. I suppose I've met a handful of intellectuals but even at university I don't traverse those circles so much. (I suppose my father is one, he wrote a masters. But I don't think of him that way. And that was before I was born.)

Generally I limit intellectuals to people who've made their masters or a ph.d. I've certainly met very intelligent people who have not made these things. But I always figured intellectual implied some sort of university career.


Isn't this the same thing that GBH2 guy said? All of a sudden, you come out with the "opinions aren't wrong" claim. It's just sad when someone pulls this out. This fits you more by the way.

I'm always open-minded. And I was actually expecting better from you. Not that I was condescending at default. I was kind of looking up at you.
No I don't think he said that. In fact I think someone said that to him.

I've said nothing about opinions. Again you are not reading what I wrote and replying whatever you feel like. I'm saying specifically you are wrong and that your analysis is shallow.

Also this is no popularity contest. It's mostly you and I arguing now. Rag Doll and JohnnyNemesis posted a few small things a few days ago. And HAU is doing what HAU always does. In that he's a commentary to things that not all of us understand. But what's most likely so far is that more people agree with me and are willing to say so. But there have been no pats on the back or anything. Christ this took forever.

Scythe Death
12-04-2007, 04:20 PM
Did you misquote me? This isn't a reply to what I said in the slightest.


As I mentioned I see where you are coming from. I do believe however that it is not hypocritical when set into it's historical context. Then it makes perfect sense.

What an idiot..

I'm saying that I never said that a woman voting for a woman was hypocritical as you delusional faggots are trying to make it seem. Talking to you is like talking to a little child when this one is stubborn with the idea that you did something when you didn't.

"OMG u wrote penis dats a bad word"

"No, I said pennies. You can't read."

"No u wrote penis"


How could I possibly be agreeing with you when I'm saying the opposite? You simply refuse to debate anything. Half your replies are "you're agreeing with me." And no, I'm not. I am trying to make it clear and logical why I don't see it's hypocritical for a chick to vote for a female candidate as opposed to a male to not vote for a female candidate. (And this is underlined by the fact that there are several male candidates and 1(!) female candidate.)

Do you truly not understand?

How are you saying it is the opposite when all you're doing is trying to justify, although acknowledging what I'm just trying to point out?

I understand that you're trying to make it sounds logical, it is, but it still doesn't change that it is hypocritical. You're in denial; by your logic, nothing is hypocritical.

It's not shallow, you douche; it's called abstract. That's the most effective way of making explanations. Learn how to use it. You believe that explaining something with psychology proves it's not hypocritical, but it does not relate.

This also includes:


You're doing it again. Ignoring what I said. I am talking about the historical justification for feminism and why it's still relevant. And why women feel it's still relevant.

It's not a matter of equality, it's a matter of interests, lobbies and power. A person votes for whoever will best protect their interests, which brings us to:



Wrong. It's not a fallacy, it's how democracy works. Granted there is no mathematical formula for figuring out who will represent you best. People vote for who they *feel* will represent them best. It's basic theory really. You can see it in the way all political groups use focus groups, and base their marketing on this to reach the greatest amount of people.
"my stooped generalization r not a fallacy nub"

In the last post you made, you stated a specific thought and said that everyone thought that way.



Now you're agreeing with me. But you're outlook is too shallow....
This also fits the part where you try to make it seem like if everything with an explanation is not hypocritical.


What? She's a professor. If people who've written ph.d dissertations aren't intellectuals, then who is?

Yeah, our outlook is different. Mine is less.. 'lenient'.

By the way, I am almost sure that the term for the feminism I'm describing is "radical". "Neo-feminism" was just a wild guess, but then you say I described it.


No I don't think he said that. In fact I think someone said that to him.I checked, someone said to him that his argument was basically "that's ur opinion", the same stunt you tried to pull out.

I've said nothing about opinions. Again you are not reading what I wrote and replying whatever you feel like. I'm saying specifically you are wrong and that your analysis is shallow.
You said "..anyone who disagrees with you.." which is virtually the same.

I'm analyzing further into your argument rather than just taking out words from my text and make your own incriminating sentences like HAU and you (you agreed with him condoning the rest just to feel a support for your argument).


Also this is no popularity contest. It's mostly you and I arguing now. Rag Doll and JohnnyNemesis posted a few small things a few days ago. And HAU is doing what HAU always does. In that he's a commentary to things that not all of us understand. But what's most likely so far is that more people agree with me and are willing to say so. But there have been no pats on the back or anything. Christ this took forever.

Yeah, there's too many idiots around, and this does show you're full of yourself.


This went from something slightly amusing to just a pathetic display of denial in your part. Listen, you lack the methods for a debate. Sympathizing and denial will get you nowhere. You're trying to something that could be called "naturally correct" with a bunch of sympathizing that will get you nowhere. I don't even know why you're denying things, who are you trying to please?

You may have potential, and you certainly have the knowledge, but maybe you're too old by now. By that I mean that your attitude is more likely not to change.

wheelchairman
12-05-2007, 02:09 AM
Ha. You understand nothing about anything. I'm not going to reply just to have you repeat yourself anymore. You are not even arguing the subject at hand anymore. You refuse to acknowledge any arguments made by other people, and when you do actually reply to a comment it's usually not relevant. Christ.

JoY
12-05-2007, 06:27 AM
Let me re-state my argument for those who always need it spoon-fed.

My point was implying that JoY's preference for Clinton for the presidency ,based or appointed on the irrelevant factor that is her gender, was analogous to the feminist mindset (which is fundamentally fallacious). However, I was not implying that JoY is indeed a feminist. I then proceeded to suggest that the aspects that should be taken into account in these matters are those of an individual's intellectual properties, thus basing a system on intelligent decisions.


awesome! I love it when I'm dragged into a retarded argument that fails to make a valid point!

ps. I said I was enthousiastic about the idea of attempting to fundamentally improve the American health care system, since it's desperately needed. points on health care, health care in general actually, I personally value a great deal, as mentioned. not surprising at all, it's after all the entire focus of my study & I wouldn't study the subject if I didn't believe it's important. but also considering the current situation in America, it certainly wouldn't hurt if health care was put near the top of the list of priorities.

the one person, presently running for president, who happens to focus on the issues of American health care with a passion that fits the magnitude of the problem, is Hillary. I don't know if she still cherishes the same ideas she used to, or to which extend she has sugar-coated them to fit the general American public & their irrational fear of "socialism", but I have always & will always dig the way she made an attempt at proposing suggestions to improve the American health care system. props to her. it's ashame she's always gotten so much shit for it, because she deserved better. not because she's a woman, but because she as the only person ("person" = neutral) had the balls (it's a man's world after all) to step forward with (for American standards) mind-blowing & controversial suggestions to make a fundamental difference in a dysfunctional system. seeing I find the topic this important, I really don't give a shit about her gender & would give Hillary just as much credits for this, if she were a man.

furthermore I said women stand less of a chance in the elections for presidency in America, period. if you need reasons for this statement, read what I said. I didn't name this as a reason to vote for a female candidate, or suggested a female candidate earns any form of preference/privilege treatment ("positive discrimination", however you define it), or said a female candidate would deserve the position any more than a male candidate. not taking any other arguments into consideration, certainly not. she does.. if she'd do a better job at representing the people & running the country, than the male candidates at hand.

on this note; with the options I've had in past elections, I have never voted for a female candidate for anything in my entire life.

I realise I didn't need to explain myself, I didn't have to. but I seriously resent the idea of the simple minded riding my ideas, using them as a vehicle for their pathetic dysfunctional arguments. next time you use me as an example, make sure it fits into context. & that you've actually read what I said.

JoY
12-05-2007, 08:52 AM
That's enough to make me stop reading..

[...]


eh.. I'll guess I'll be a nice guy or whatever and read the rest of it.


And what rather than completely arbitrary conceptions makes you think that I don't want equality? It's just all the feminist bullshit that makes me complain. I just loathe idiocy in general.

Yeah, but now that I think of it, I've never seen a female intellectual. Yeah, there's the plethora of pseudo-intellectuals around, but never a real smart woman. You're not helping it either.

I believe I've seen more than you. And no, I don't have any source for my claim. It was just something I heard and the first thing that came to my mind to type.

Some feminists even spell "woman" "womyn".

my jaw just dropped...

besides acting like an utter douche & being incredibly inpolite & disrespectful.. why didn't I see this, BEFORE wasting words on someone who assumes every single woman cherishes femenist ideas implying the female gender is superior, rather than considering the option a woman can possibly be an objective person? & who believes there are little to no intelligent females out there & rather thinks of any woman who develops herself in the field of science as a "pseudo-intellectual".. holy shit.

for you, from Wikipedia, one of the worst sources imaginable, but at least additions to articles are made by people who genuinely think it should be mentioned;
Other opponents of the terms see the adjustments as an example of excessive political correctness. Still others note that, given that word etymology shows that the word "woman" is not sexist to begin with, unnecessarily eliminating "men" from it exhibits an anti-male gender bias or outright misandry. Further, many feminists themselves object to using "womyn," noting that it serves as an unnecessary distraction from what they consider more important feminist goals.


you loathe idiocy in general?
shit man, it's sad that you should hate yourself so much.

HeadAroundU
12-05-2007, 09:01 AM
And HAU is doing what HAU always does. In that he's a commentary to things that not all of us understand.
Well, that's good. That means that somebody understands. :d

So you didn't get that proof where he contradicted himself? Well, I'm very technical/mathematical, that's because of my school. :(

Ha. You understand nothing about anything. I'm not going to reply just to have you repeat yourself anymore. You are not even arguing the subject at hand anymore. You refuse to acknowledge any arguments made by other people, and when you do actually reply to a comment it's usually not relevant. Christ.
It wasn't very smart to talk to a guy who hates The Offspring's teenyboppers.

Rag Doll
12-05-2007, 09:16 AM
my jaw just dropped...

besides acting like an utter douche & being incredibly inpolite & disrespectful.. why didn't I see this, BEFORE wasting words on someone who assumes every single woman cherishes femenist ideas implying the female gender is superior, rather than considering the option a woman can possibly be an objective person? & who believes there are little to no intelligent females out there & rather thinks of any woman who develops herself in the field of science as a "pseudo-intellectual".. holy shit.


That's why I stopped replying. He couldn't have a discussion with me without resorting to insults directed at me and/or women in general. He's not worth having a discussion with at all.

JoY
12-05-2007, 11:02 AM
yeah, well, I was just on way back to edit my previous post away.. frankly, I feel too intelligent for discussions of this sort, but like I said; my words will not be twisted into a vehicle to feed a... "fallacious" argument.

Scythe Death
12-05-2007, 04:00 PM
Yeah, why don't you stop wasting your words BEFORE ASSUMING THAT I WAS ASSUMING THAT I am "someone who assumes every single woman cherishes femenist ideas implying the female gender is superior, rather than considering the option a woman can possibly be an objective person".

Shit, what a stupid person..

I also mentioned that you were in favor of the Health system, so why do I need to explain that? I was mentioning the completely different concept of favoritism for women. Somewhere you said that it was very frustrating that there was no women before bla bla.

You instantly give me the notion of this other guy who pretends to be smart making redundant walls of text for the sake of it while there's virtually no content in your post, always acting so pretentious.


And yeah, Rag Doll, you're not helping it. And no, you dumb broad, I am not against women, you fuck. I also recommend you to stop posting.. completely. You're not worth having a discussion at all if you can't block yourself to what you arbitrarily conceive as insulting. Bitch.

(That was intentionally flagrant, just in case..)


Ha. You understand nothing about anything. I'm not going to reply just to have you repeat yourself anymore. You are not even arguing the subject at hand anymore. You refuse to acknowledge any arguments made by other people, and when you do actually reply to a comment it's usually not relevant. Christ.
That's what you've been doing from the start.

I've acknowledged everything you've said, but even with all the sympathizing details, it falls into the same thing. Actually, you started saying that after I did.

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2007, 04:12 PM
In other news, I hate the fuckin' Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity because they seem to imply that homeless people are inherently superior.

Llamas
12-05-2007, 04:40 PM
Wow. I thought Scythe's argument in GOD about "offspring can't get famous again cause I hate teeny boppers! and their concerts will sell out! omgENDOFWORLD!" was pathetic... Scythe reminds me of a cross between Maria and Venom.

Scythe Death
12-05-2007, 04:57 PM
Wow. I thought Scythe's argument in GOD about "offspring can't get famous again cause I hate teeny boppers! and their concerts will sell out! omgENDOFWORLD!" was pathetic... Scythe reminds me of a cross between Maria and Venom.

You surely aren't one to judge.

Llamas
12-05-2007, 05:03 PM
I surely am! And you don't even know jack about who I am, so you're in no position to determine whether or not I'm fit to judge... you just jumped to that conclusion because I insulted you. Oh noes, did I hurt hims feewings?

Scythe Death
12-05-2007, 05:10 PM
I surely am! And you don't even know jack about who I am, so you're in no position to determine whether or not I'm fit to judge... you just jumped to that conclusion because I insulted you. Oh noes, did I hurt hims feewings?

That last sentence reminds of myself, except yours was too blatant and out of context. You have the complex of those pretentious 13-year old wannabe gangstas that try to hard to be offensive. Please go on.

By the way, JohnnyNemesis. Where can I post threads about religion? Here?

PaintPhone
12-05-2007, 05:41 PM
I don't want a woman president. She might declare war during PMS. :(

Scythe Death
12-05-2007, 05:43 PM
I don't want a woman president. She might declare war during PMS. :(

Dis post r full of trooth

Jakebert
12-05-2007, 05:50 PM
Was Venom IP banned? Because if not...

Llamas
12-05-2007, 07:06 PM
That last sentence reminds of myself, except yours was too blatant and out of context. You have the complex of those pretentious 13-year old wannabe gangstas that try to hard to be offensive. Please go on.
hahaha, what?? You whined because I insulted you... my sentence was in no way out of context. And 13 year old wannabe gangstas that try to be offensive... between this and that other thread, you sure seem to know a lot about 13 year olds. Interesting.




Was Venom IP banned? Because if not...
I don't think it's venom. This guy tries too hard to sound mature.

Jakebert
12-05-2007, 07:19 PM
But I could easily picture Venom coming back and trying very hard to sound mature and get away from his old stereotype.

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2007, 08:54 PM
And I could also see him failing miserably just like this guy is. But I dunno if I buy it.

Scythe Death
12-05-2007, 09:20 PM
hahaha, what?? You whined because I insulted you... my sentence was in no way out of context. And 13 year old wannabe gangstas that try to be offensive... between this and that other thread, you sure seem to know a lot about 13 year olds. Interesting.


When did I whine, you shithead? I was stating that you're obviously mentally incapable of judging. Fuck. Stop living in that pink world of yours.

Yeah, I tend to observe human attitude. That was a picture even you could get into mind, I think.

Wait, how old are you?

Llamas
12-05-2007, 09:45 PM
All I have to say is that, if this guy is already being compared to Venom by multiple people, the path to being banned shall not be a tiresome journey.

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2007, 10:26 PM
Wait, how old are you?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eZEIDTog2_o

http://www.italo-disco.net/html/lyrics/lmiko.html

Where is your harbooooooor.

Jakebert
12-05-2007, 10:29 PM
When did I whine, you shithead? I was stating that you're obviously mentally incapable of judging. Fuck. Stop living in that pink world of yours.

Yeah, I tend to observe human attitude. That was a picture even you could get into mind, I think.

Wait, how old are you?

Someone referring to someone as "shithead" and proceeding to insult them like crazy really shouldn't be judging someone else's maturity.

And really, no one here will be impressed by your aggressiveness. It all just looks like a sad cry for attention to everyone else, no matter how you think it looks. I know you'll just spout out a condescending rant that has little to no actual content in it, but still, I figured it's worth a shot to help.

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 01:29 PM
Someone referring to someone as "shithead" and proceeding to insult them like crazy really shouldn't be judging someone else's maturity.

And really, no one here will be impressed by your aggressiveness. It all just looks like a sad cry for attention to everyone else, no matter how you think it looks. I know you'll just spout out a condescending rant that has little to no actual content in it, but still, I figured it's worth a shot to help.Since when is being vehement being immature? I'm just mocking them. There's a big difference between that and ad-hominem, in case you didn't know. You aren't to pretend my post is made of pure insults when it contains logic.

There's such a big diversity of this pseudo-intellectual crap in this place. It's almost stereotypical. I don't think I have a set label for the way you speak. You're apparently the kind of guy that would say "cover yourself in the coat of sarcasm". As impartial and objectgive you think your illogical claims like "cry for attention" is, it just shows you're a naive, delusional idealogue. You have misconceived what you believe are the appropriate standards of debate, and speaking the way you do doesn't make you any more credible.

You need to analyze the things better before making preconceived statements.


All I have to say is that, if this guy is already being compared to Venom by multiple people, the path to being banned shall not be a tiresome journey.
They compared me to you first, you dumbass.

Can someone block this guy from the thread for being so pretentious and just plain dumb?

He's the kind of person that spews hot-headed words and believes he's making a point. He's probably trying too hard to fit in.

@JohnnyNemesis: :l


Uhh.. it's sad to see all these guys talking like if they knew something.. They took bias for wheelchairman initially as well, you can just tell with these jackasses jumping in.

JoY
12-06-2007, 02:36 PM
Was Venom IP banned? Because if not...



I don't think it's venom. This guy tries too hard to sound mature.

oh really? I don't think he's trying that hard to sound mature, I just think he's trying really really hard to get his vapid point across.. (excuse me, not being disrespectful, but even you have to admit, buddy, this is getting tiring & going very muchly towards the oposite of constructive) & even if he is, I don't remember Venom doing anything BUT trying to sound mature.

Scythe, when you started bitching to Sam, the first girl to step forward with an outspoken opinion, I really didn't get why you'd get so aggressive & defensive. like an inpolite, disrespectful, chauvinist asshole with a very tiny penis. you seem to react this way to every single female creature who has replied to you in this topic. if you would for once answer the posts of female members calmly, with respect & decency... I think this entire board would take you a whole lot more seriously. see, people don't take you seriously, when you come across as extremely subjective & prejudiced, filled with in-your-own-world-unrealisitc views.

you never said referred to me being in favour of health care. you mentioned me in an example for women who vote for women for their gender. (question: would you only vote for men, because of their gender?) I never said it was frustrating there never has been a female president before.. I said that's the reason for & the cause of conservatism in America, why women today will stand less of a chance to become president.

I'm not pretentious, I'm long-winded.

wheelchairman
12-06-2007, 02:47 PM
Oh Bella his only method of communication is to be condescending and insulting. That right there lends weight to the shallowness of his views.

Llamas
12-06-2007, 04:40 PM
They compared me to you first, you dumbass.
They compared me to you? Who did? When?


Can someone block this guy from the thread for being so pretentious and just plain dumb?
I'm pretentious for thinking you're going to get banned from the offspring bbs? How wrong you are. I am merely making an observation based on your posts as compared with posts of a previous person who was banned.


He's the kind of person that spews hot-headed words and believes he's making a point. He's probably trying too hard to fit in.

Yes. I'm an 11 year old male who wishes he could fit in, because nobody here already likes me. omg. :( Aren't you embarrassed that you've been outsmarted by an 11 year old?


Uhh.. it's sad to see all these guys talking like if they knew something.. They took bias for wheelchairman initially as well, you can just tell with these jackasses jumping in.
Actually, I realized your low level of intelligence before this thread started. I thought you were an idiot before it became popular. All these fagz jumped on my bandwagon. :(

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 05:11 PM
They compared me to you? Who did? When?
I'm pretentious for thinking you're going to get banned from the offspring bbs? How wrong you are. I am merely making an observation based on your posts as compared with posts of a previous person who was banned.

No, you dumbass, you're pretentious due to the way you talk. Is it really hard for you to relate?



Yes. I'm an 11 year old male who wishes he could fit in, because nobody here already likes me. omg. :( Aren't you embarrassed that you've been outsmarted by an 11 year old?
And here's an even bigger example of your pretentiousness. When did you ever outsmart me? Seriously, are you really 11 years old? It's kind of pointless when I find myself talking to your type of kids that think they're all badass.



Actually, I realized your low level of intelligence before this thread started. I thought you were an idiot before it became popular. All these fagz jumped on my bandwagon. :(
How so? All you had seen from me was my contempt for stupid people like you. Damn, you're ludicrous. Grow up.


Scythe, when you started bitching to Sam, the first girl to step forward with an outspoken opinion, I really didn't get why you'd get so aggressive & defensive.
I wasn't aggressive at all at my first post directed towards her. Then she showed me how intelligent she was by posting what she did.

I did mention something along the lines of "That was the base of JoY's argument apart from she saying that she likes the Health Care system or something". I was addressing a different thing But it's fine, I'll say you never said you wanted a woman for presidency. Still, a lot of people still think that way.

Are you really so stupid to think that I've been particularly aggressive to women the rest of the shit you spew? If you haven't noticed, I've also insulted every man in this thread, so shut your stupid mouth (yeah, it's figurative).


Oh Bella his only method of communication is to be condescending and insulting. That right there lends weight to the shallowness of his views.
Weren't you and that mod guy those who started condescending because according to you "discrimination" only has one meaning? Even then, I just let it pass by because an argument about the meaning of a word would be even more pointless.

But seriously, by the way you put it, nothing in this world is hypocritical because you think that describing it makes it not so. You're full of yourself.




No, I'm not that guy Venom. I'm not trying to act mature. Unlike Ilovellamas, I'm not trying to act like a badass kid. And unlike the rest of you, I don't really care if you conceive what I say as insulting.

HornyPope
12-06-2007, 05:15 PM
You're not discussing politics anymore.

Llamas
12-06-2007, 05:21 PM
No, you dumbass, you're pretentious due to the way you talk. Is it really hard for you to relate?
lol... that is hilarious!




And here's an even bigger example of your pretentiousness. When did you ever outsmart me? Seriously, are you really 11 years old? It's kind of pointless when I find myself talking to your type of kids that think they're all badass.
Even more lol! You should go back and read the post I made to you in the topic about the Offspring, where you said they shouldn't get popular again.




How so? All you had seen from me was my contempt for stupid people like you. Damn, you're ludicrous. Grow up.
No, actually I'd seen you act like you knew what you were talking about in regard to a band's fame, when all you had was a silly illogical prejudice.

You weren't aggressive in your first post, but you did say:


Those who consider Hilary just because she is female shouldn't be voting. It's just this kind of discrimination that makes feminists hypocrites.
You called all feminists hypocrites.


What JoY said made her(?) argument lose all credibility.
You judged Joy's entire argument based on something you misinterpreted. There was nothing about what she said that should make her entire argument lose credibility.

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 05:37 PM
lol... that is hilarious! Lol that is hilarious.





Even more lol! You should go back and read the post I made to you in the topic about the Offspring, where you said they shouldn't get popular again.Even more lol. Your post almost made no sense, I only agreed with you in the part where you said you wouldn't have known they existed if you hadn't heard of them, but how does that matter to me? Does it lower your idiocy?





No, actually I'd seen you act like you knew what you were talking about in regard to a band's fame, when all you had was a silly illogical prejudice.
Prejudice? Hah, do you even know what that is?


You weren't aggressive in your first post, but you did say:


You called all feminists hypocrites. And I stand firm on my statement.



You judged Joy's entire argument based on something you misinterpreted. There was nothing about what she said that should make her entire argument lose credibility.
Didn't she edit her posts? In case I did misinterpret it, let JoY have my apologies, that however doesn't mean I don't think she's really stupid. Still, my point stands.

JoY
12-07-2007, 03:26 PM
what's with the "her(?)"??

...dude, there's a picture of me right next to every single post I make.

anyway.. I edit every single one of my posts. well, almost all of them. I'm a chaotic perfectionist. & besides that point, I'm Dutch & English is my second language. it's not always that easy to get your point across in a language that isn't your mothertongue. I guess both points also explain why I can be extremely long-winded. in essence, my posts really never change a bit. it's just that I often try to make them shorter, or filter out typos I overlooked.

Scythe Death
12-07-2007, 08:35 PM
what's with the "her(?)"??

...dude, there's a picture of me right next to every single post I make.

anyway.. I edit every single one of my posts. well, almost all of them. I'm a chaotic perfectionist. & besides that point, I'm Dutch & English is my second language. it's not always that easy to get your point across in a language that isn't your mothertongue. I guess both points also explain why I can be extremely long-winded. in essence, my posts really never change a bit. it's just that I often try to make them shorter, or filter out typos I overlooked.Yeah, english is my second language too, that's why I speak so gay. And how can I tell? As far as I know, that could be your girlfriend.

JoY
12-08-2007, 09:26 AM
I did mention something along the lines of "That was the base of JoY's argument apart from she saying that she likes the Health Care system or something". I was addressing a different thing But it's fine, I'll say you never said you wanted a woman for presidency. Still, a lot of people still think that way.


I'm sorry, I never saw you saying anywhere that you said I dig the health care-thing.

& you don't need to do me any favours; you don't have to say anything about wanting anything.. I didn't say it.




Didn't she edit her posts? In case I did misinterpret it, let JoY have my apologies, that however doesn't mean I don't think she's really stupid. Still, my point stands.

you misinterpreted a very elaborate, thorough post which clearly explained exactly what I meant. not me, you. I haven't made a single slip in this thread yet.


Yeah, english is my second language too, that's why I speak so gay. And how can I tell? As far as I know, that could be your girlfriend.

my girlfriend..

seriously...

Scythe Death
12-08-2007, 09:32 AM
& you don't need to do me any favours; you don't have to say anything about wanting anything.. I didn't say it. I was trying to find the thing in your post that said abut it being frustrating for women to have been in a certain position or whatever, but I couldn't.





my girlfriend..

seriously...
Ok, I don't give a fuck. There's no way I could be sure.

iPunk247
12-18-2007, 07:57 PM
do you think this country is ready for a woman president??

Anything is possible in this world, so yeah...sure why not have a woman for President for once man. This could be a positive change or i don't know? It all depends though; like if a woman knows how to walk in high heels then so be it ...she'll do great running on heels for President, no!?

Llamas
12-25-2007, 07:50 PM
So... anyone else for Kucinich?

XYlophonetreeZ
12-25-2007, 07:54 PM
No, but I'm surprised you are since you're a self-described moderate.

I'd be OK with Hillary or Obama. I'll go on a fucking killing spree if Edwards gets the nomination. I'm actually a really really enthusiastic Joe Biden fan. Too bad he'll never win. I guess straight talk will never work in politics.

Llamas
12-25-2007, 08:05 PM
What do you hate about Edwards?

Being moderate doesn't mean that I like other people who are moderate, too... it means that half my views lie right and half lie left. Many of Kucinich's top priorities are ones that I lie left on. My biggest priority is reunifying the US with the rest of the world. I really like his views on the world being inter-dependent. Plus I'm against the war in Iraq, for social security after 65, for education being a priority, for clean energy, and for the repeal of the patriot act.

There are many things I am more conservative on, but these things are generally not his priorities, or they're things that I don't think are as important as others.

Dead Kennedy
01-05-2008, 04:29 AM
It would be nice if one of the Playboy girl would run for presidency...she would have my vote:D