'Assassination' schedule announced for Congress

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 4 2007, 03:17 PM) [snapback]370998[/snapback]</div>

Immigration is a non-issue. This country was built on immigration. The vast majority of immigrants come here to work, and Mexicans, specifically are hard workers, which makes them much in demand by employers. We have an enormous economy and can easily absorb the number of people who come here from Mexico to make a better life for themselves, exactly as your ancestors did (unless you are 100% pure-blooded American Indian). Our economic problems are not immigrants: Our economic problems are: 1. a disastrous and expensive war we could not afford; 2. corrupt tax cuts for the super-rich; and 3. an abysmally-low national savings rate, requiring us to borrow trillions of dollars from people who do not like us (like the Chinese and the Saudis).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 5 2007, 01:16 AM) [snapback]371146[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. Which is why our immigration laws need long overdue and drastic revision.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 5 2007, 01:16 AM) [snapback]371146[/snapback]</div>

Again, spot on. I think of govenment as being no different than running a household, just on a larger and more intricate scale. No one would run their household like the Federal Government does, robbing food to pay utilities and borrowing against the mortgage to make the car payments. Those that have no healthcare and don't save at all, spend beyond their means every month increasing their credit card debt higher and higher. What do we call this? If it was a person going borrowing from one PayDayLoan place to pay the next and the next, taking out a third credit card to pay for the first and second....what do we call this? Yet on a grand scale this is exactly what the government does. On the Federal level and less so on the State and Local level (at least in my State and my City.)

Maybe it's time we *do* put women in charge. In most societies it is the wife that takes care of the finances. The man hands his paycheck to the woman and she pays the bills and budgets the money.

Let's put women in charge for the next 12 years and then see where we are. It couldn't be any worse than what we've had.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 4 2007, 10:25 PM) [snapback]371150[/snapback]</div>

There may be something in this. On the other hand, think of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher. Women (especially in politics) can be as ruthless, nasty, and corrupt as men.

I say, put cats in charge. They never have wars, and they know what's really important in life: food, petting, and a warm place to sleep. A world ruled by cats would be hell for the mice, but great for everyone else. ... (And they say I have no sense of humor! )

Seriously, women in U.S. politics seem, on average, a little bit more sensible than men, but there's plenty of women you wouldn't want in charge.

During the sufferage movement, it was often said that if women could vote there would be no more wars, because no woman would allow her own sons to be sent to war. Giving women the vote was the right thing to do, but they vote only very slightly to the left of men, on average, and plenty of women are as rabidly pro-war as the worst men, and plenty of men are as liberal as any woman. Opening politics to women is the right thing to do, but it's not going to make any great sea-change in U.S. politics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 5 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]371231[/snapback]</div>

To succeed in politics, you HAVE to be ruthless, nasty, and corrupt.

You've never seen my cats Bruno and GrayM.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 5 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]371294[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I was in the middle of a cat explosion once: A friend had asked me to carry his two cats upstairs so he could hold the door open for his arthritic dog to come in. I had had both these cats on my lap at different times, so I was unaware that they didn't get along. I picked them up and all was well until they saw each other. There was what I can only describe as an explosion. A tremendous shock wave. Both cats went flying up the stars at about 90% of the speed of light, and when I became aware of my surroundings again, my shirt was torn.

Still, cats don't travel halfway around the world to drop bombs on each other.

 

Women understand discipline.

You don't make a rule you're not willing to enforce. Rules and consequences must be clearly stated. Check for understanding. There must be consistency. There must be follow through. Consequences, good or bad, should be immediate. Immediate praise when earned. Immediate consequences when standards are not met.

They don't call it the "good ol' boys" for nothing. Women remember. Women hold grudges. Women won't forgive and forget because of a good business deal. It's not healthy to piss off a women.

Women may be slower to go to war, but once the decision is made there will be no half measures. It will be swift and direct. Any country unaware of this will learn the lesson fast. Those observing will either point and snigger or be grateful they weren't first and reconsider their positions.

The Greeks hated fighting women warriors because once pushed to fight, they were totally ruthless.

This might be a good thing. I think the lesson would be learned quite quickly not to mess with the woman in charge. She's not bluffing.

I think everyone should vote for me for President.

Even better, how about Supreme Dictator of the Universe for Life?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 3 2007, 09:35 PM) [snapback]370489[/snapback]</div>

This goofball sounds like he's encouraging sedition. That's mortal sin #1 here. Throw his a$$ ion Guantanemo right away.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 5 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]371634[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry, Godiva, but statements like that are pure hogwash. While our culture does indoctrinate boys and girls differently concerning socially-expected gender roles, human nature is human nature, and given similar education, and similar opportunity, women are neither more nor less fit to hold positions of political authority.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 6 2007, 12:50 AM) [snapback]371665[/snapback]</div>

Tell me, if human nature is human nature, how come those voting Democratic have higher numbers of women? How come women aren't fairly evenly split between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party? How come each political party isn't composed of 50% men and 50% women?

I'm not saying it's genetic. But...men and women are not equal. Not physically, not mentally, not emotionally. (I'm NOT talking about IQ here!) I will say that even with more education women are not given similar opportunity.

Women are the ones raising the children. They're the ones that have to teach the little ones to function in society. That requires discipline. Some are better at it than others. (Witness the success of The Nanny.) But as a whole, I think we could use more Mothers and Grandmothers in leadership roles.

I think they are more fit to hold positions of political authority. Remember the old joke? Ginger was a better dancer than Fred because not only did she have to do everything he did... but backwards and wearing high heels.

But it's not a matter of skills. Women have different leadership styles. That is what is needed....a different leadership style.

"I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough." ~Clarie Sargent, Arizona senatorial candidate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 6 2007, 12:39 AM) [snapback]371696[/snapback]</div>

Men and women are socialized differently. But the difference in voting patterns is a fairly small statistical difference, with lots of women voting for war and lots of men voting for peace.

Are you going to vote for or against a candidate solely based on the candidate's gender? You'd vote for Condoleezza Rice, and you'd vote against Dennis Kucinich.

I vote for candidates based on their values, not their genitalia.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 6 2007, 12:39 AM) [snapback]371696[/snapback]</div>

This is true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 6 2007, 03:39 AM) [snapback]371696[/snapback]</div>

Like, oh, Margaret Thatcher?

Just what we need; Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly in office...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 6 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]371726[/snapback]</div>

You've chosen outlier examples.

We're not discussing Global Warming.

Have all women leaders had the leadership styles of thatcher, Coulter and Schlafly? Unfortunately, women have had to learn and use men's leadership styles to rise to the top in the past. I'm saying this is not a good thing.

No, I'm not saying just vote of any woman. I'm not saying 100% of women govern the same. And, quite frankly, I'd vote for Rice over some of the other Republicans that have been named as possible candidates. But I wouldn't vote for Rice over an acceptable Democratic candidate.

There *are* differences. Men are stronger in math, but not all. About 80%. Women are stronger in language. About 80%. Why are there so many white male serial killers? No women? Where are the blacks, asians, latinos? Human nature is human nature only on the very broadest of terms. There are differences.

I'm saying let the 80% of women with the leadership skills I'm talking about to the top rather than the 20% represented by the Thatchers, Coulters and Schlaflys.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 6 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]371752[/snapback]</div>

Then I want more money, because I'm not married and the dog isn't going to change the flat or get up in the middle of the night. I expect I'll get to the lifeboat after the married men, too.