Originally Posted By barboy Hey, at least nobody here likened her to a Rolls Royce hood ornament. (Compliments of Rush a few years back on the Dave Letterman Show)
Originally Posted By woody >For a long time, a majority of women opposed women being given the vote. It's called "internalized bigotry" and you see it in any historically marginalized or oppressed group of people. Somewhere inside you, you think "I guess I must really be what they say I am," in this case "I guess I'm really not 'ready' for the vote."< Don't you know women hate other women. They are very competitive, jealous, and envious of each other. They largely don't get along with each other. It's called being female. Irrational behavior thats usually accepted by most people because there's no choice. "Deal with it" as it was usually implied.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Yes, because it's mostly women who go around killing each other over ideological or religious differences. And starting wars over territory. And murdering other people - it's largely men who commit murder. Irrational behavior at its finest. Yes, there are women who are competitive, jealous, and envious. However, you could replace "women" with "men" and "female" with "male" in your post and it would be just as close to reality. For a while there I was reading your posts trying to see your point of view even though I don't agree with it. Now you're just being ridiculous.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >> Dole's campaign certainly was never as significant as Clinton's has been and it really is pretty much revisionist history to even pretend that it was. I never pretended it was. I noted the differences. But it is also revisionist history to say Clinton is the first woman to run. The media wants the public to think that Clinton is breaking the "marble ceiling" and that no woman but a liberal or Democrat could have done it. Nonsense ... which is why I brought-up Thatcher. Thatcher had strong support from conservatsives at home and in the U.S., so the idea that only the left is welcoming of women in leadership positions is a hilarious myth. America will probably have a female president, perhaps soon. But she has to be right for the part, as does any man, and she is not likely to be Hillary Clinton. >> It's odd how focused the right is on hillary and their efforts to derail her. She's the frontrunner. How is it odd to focus on the leading opponent? The left is doing it too, with Obama and Edwards both piling on. >> I'm left with the belief that this almost rabid GOP opposition to hillary is mostly based on their own fears and personal animosity. It's based on her character. She is dubious at best, slimy at worst. She said she voted for the Iraq war based on her own research and decision making, then blamed Bush for 'deceiving' her when the war turned unpopular. She has blamed other people (the right) for her husband's abominable behavior. She has walked ... no, trampled over people on her way to the top. She is lauded as the smartest, most powerful woman in the world and as an advocate for women everywhere, and yet she stands by and says nothing as her husband treats other women (fellow Democrats all) literally like trash. Her character is abysmal, and THAT'S why the right opposes her.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Don't you know women hate other women. They are very competitive, jealous, and envious of each other. They largely don't get along with each other.> Wow. I'd hate to live in your world. Sounds miserable.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Don't you know women hate other women. They are very competitive, jealous, and envious of each other. They largely don't get along with each other. It's called being female. > Comments like that are called "being idiotic." Methinks you're lucky more women don't hang around WE.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < But it is also revisionist history to say Clinton is the first woman to run. > It's also revisionist history to claim that Dole was the first woman to run.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Her character is abysmal, and THAT'S why the right opposes her.<< She's a Democrat, so I can't see a scenario under which they would support her regardless of character. Hating Hillary has been the favorite sport of the GOP long before Lewinsky happened. The right doesn't seem to have a problem supporting abysmal characters like Ann Coulter, that's for sure. The more over the line and crude her remarks, the more it seems her book sales surge.
Originally Posted By DAR And I could never see a scenario where the left would support Condelezza Rice.
Originally Posted By gadzuux But that would be based on her actual record of incompetence - not solely ideology.
Originally Posted By DAR As for Woody hating women that may or may not be true. I'm not going to make assumptions. But let me just add one caveat here. If you ever see a group of girls ages 10-19 and there's not an even amount. Run away, run away as fast as you can. Girls fight over the stupidest crap. I've seen it with my niece and some of her friends. I saw it with my sister and her friends growing up. My dad sees it at school with the sixth grade girls at his school. An even amount things will be okay, an odd amount chances are one person is going to be crying about something. As for guys that age, they just tell to each other to (NOT ALLOWED BY LAUGHING PLACE STANDARDS)
Originally Posted By woody >>You have to understand that Woody hates women...<< From what evidence? You haven't disputed the argument that women hate women. They are less likely to support women than men.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <You haven't disputed the argument that women hate women.> You've not provided any evidence to support what is a gross generalization on your part? What proof do you have that even a women hate other women? You're saying all women hate other women? Some women?
Originally Posted By woody Even rhetorically, people are very quiet about it. >>Some women?<< Okay, you agree slightly.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA >>Some women?<< <Okay, you agree slightly.> No, mine was a question. I'm trying to understand your POV on this subject.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No, mine was a question. I'm trying to understand your POV on this subject.<< Really? What on earth for - I think he's made his position quite clear, in all its glorious misogyny.
