WE NEED MORE WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT!

Interesting suggestion. I don't know how feasible it would be? I'm sure it would be challenged in Court as some kind of unconstitutional 'quota' or something. Surprising you didn't get more women respondents on this.
 
Teflon Don said:
If you believe that men and women are EQUAL then it stands to reason that they can make the same mistakes
Click to expand...

Equal but different. They deserve the same rights, and opportunities that men get. Our society and treatment of women, with their psychological and physical differences, suggests different results. Not the same mistakes. Even die-hard rightys see men nd women different. Perhps not you.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is my opinion that we need more women in the governing process.

I think the senate should be split down the middle…within the next couple of decades. A constitutional amendment requiring one seat for a woman and one for a man from each state should be passed. (Gender reassignment specifics could be included.)

States with two men or two woman at the time of passage could be grandfathered (grandmothered) in…so that the change does not have to be immediate...and does not have to impact on incumbants. (Funny thing: grandfathered in that sentence had no problem from spellcheck. Grandmothered got underlined.)

Same thing could be worked out for the House…although obviously that would present special difficulties.

We NEED more women involved in governance. I personally think governance would be improved with the inclusion of more women. Less testosterone may equal better government.

Time to make the move.

Your opinion?
Click to expand...

Women are better at compromise, working together, compassion, empathy. That's why there aren't that many in the Republican party. They shun that sort of stuff.
 
hvilleherb said:
Did you pay attention to the hearings? Kavanaugh felt violated by Ford, he had every right to be upset.
Click to expand...

Wow. She fell right on top of him, held him down, covered his piehole with her hand so he couldn't scream while the entire world watched and laughed on CSpan. And then Graham jumped on the podium and knocked them off and Brett escaped. Whew. That was close.
Yes I see your point now.
 
hvilleherb said:
Did you pay attention to the hearings? Kavanaugh felt violated by Ford, he had every right to be upset.
Click to expand...

Did you? he violated her. He accosted her. Even your ears can filter out facts. He was a big crybaby which shows no judicial temperament. We know you would have cried your eyes out, But supreme court judges should not. He merely tried to rpe her but missed becuse he ws so drunk. Wonder how often he escped fter doing it?
 
Both of my Senators are women. Each recently voted against a bill which would have allowed us to purchase pharmaceuticals from Canadian pharmacies at significantly reduced costs. Each claimed that it was about "safety" as though Canada is some third world nation.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is my opinion that we need more women in the governing process.

I think the senate should be split down the middle…within the next couple of decades. A constitutional amendment requiring one seat for a woman and one for a man from each state should be passed. (Gender reassignment specifics could be included.)

States with two men or two woman at the time of passage could be grandfathered (grandmothered) in…so that the change does not have to be immediate...and does not have to impact on incumbants. (Funny thing: grandfathered in that sentence had no problem from spellcheck. Grandmothered got underlined.)

Same thing could be worked out for the House…although obviously that would present special difficulties.

We NEED more women involved in governance. I personally think governance would be improved with the inclusion of more women. Less testosterone may equal better government.

Time to make the move.

Your opinion?
Click to expand...

My opinion? I think women can be far worse than men when it comes to cliques, lack of transparency, all around viciousness...
 
Controlled Opposition said:
Both of my Senators are women. Each recently voted against a bill which would have allowed us to purchase pharmaceuticals from Canadian pharmacies at significantly reduced costs. Each claimed that it was about "safety" as though Canada is some third world nation.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that women are perfect.

I AM saying that we need more women in government.

If you disagree with me on that...fine. That is your right.
 
How about you share a thought now? Why do you think men are more prone to be shitbags? I can quote the post if you want but you know which one I'm talking about.
 
Guille said:
How about you share a thought now? Why do you think men are more prone to be shitbags? I can quote the post if you want but you know which one I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

If you are talking to me...quote the post...and I will comment.
 
Guille said:
Here you go. This has not been my experience.
Click to expand...

You write:

Why do you think men are more prone to be shitbags? I can quote the post if you want...
Click to expand...

Then you quote:
I, for one, do not think they are equal.

Men are shitheads at a far higher rate than women.

Look at you, for instance.

And look at your avatar.
Click to expand...

Context is important...which is why I asked for the quote.

(Ummm...shitheads and stitbags are not identical, but I can get past that)

The context shows that I was being sarcastic...taking a shot at you.

Perhaps you did not see that...in fact, perhaps you are too much a shithead (!) to be able to see it.

So...in answer to your question, Shithead, I was just being sarcastic in that remark. Just pulling your chain.

Seems like it worked.

Good for me.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You write:



Then you quote:


Context is important...which is why I asked for the quote.

(Ummm...shitheads and stitbags are not identical, but I can get past that)

The context shows that I was being sarcastic...taking a shot at you.

Perhaps you did not see that...in fact, perhaps you are too much a shithead (!) to be able to see it.

So...in answer to your question, Shithead, I was just being sarcastic in that remark. Just pulling your chain.

Seems like it worked.

Good for me.
Click to expand...

First of all, you knew exactly what post I was talking about.

You were not taking a shot at me because that post was not in response to me, you were responding to Teflon Don.

For the sake of brevity; I have never seen the aggressive pursuit of diversity result in anything good.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is my opinion that we need more women in the governing process.

I think the senate should be split down the middle…within the next couple of decades. A constitutional amendment requiring one seat for a woman and one for a man from each state should be passed. (Gender reassignment specifics could be included.)
Click to expand...

Great! The party of gender "equality" and color blindness in its newest form believes that gender and color should not be infiltrated and mixed into society ignoring gender and color based on intelligence and qualifications "REGARDLESS " of gender and color of one's skin, but rather wedged and sorted into individual collective squads based solely on gender and color. Another reason why never to vote for a Democrat. Good Luck with that racist amendment, friend!
 
Nordberg said:
I always had the feeling that if we had more women we might have fewer wars. I would be disappointed if we had more women and they were as aggressive and wasteful as the men are. Hard to forget Thatcher.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton as SOS armed the Libyan rebels that turned out to be religious radicals, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who attacked the American embassy in Benghazi and killed 4 Americans including the American Ambassador. Thatcher was a pussycat compared to Madam Hillary.
 
Nordberg said:
Equal how? They are equal in rights and abilities. But women are much less aggressive than males. That is overall, not specific to a man or woman. However, we are discussing the impact of lots more women.
Click to expand...

So you admit that a woman President and women in the Congress voting on wars according to your "less aggressive" determination would be more likely to just let an enemy shit all over America and likely kick our ass in a war, correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top