# Hell has frozen over...



## hardheadjarhead (May 9, 2006)

Life is surreal at times.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1600694


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (May 9, 2006)

Holy Hot Tamales, Batman!  Do you think she'll run for president???


----------



## someguy (May 9, 2006)

Well on that note I think I'm off to stock up on supplies for the coming days.  
THE END OF THE WORLDIS NEAR.  REPENT...


----------



## Blindside (May 9, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Holy Hot Tamales, Batman! Do you think she'll run for president???


 
I may be forced to vote for a Republican, and that would be just weird.

Lamont


----------



## shesulsa (May 9, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I may be forced to vote for a Republican, and that would be just weird.
> 
> Lamont



Oh, I think it's like Sunkist -v- Oceanspray ... it's really the same crap, just a different label.


----------



## beau_safken (May 9, 2006)

I think I will gouge my eyes out and repent for my sins.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 9, 2006)

what?  this thread is about hillary clinton?

i thought that girl i asked out when i was 15 had finally gotten around to realizing how sexy i am.

seriously, though, i've heard a few other rumors about hillary impressing the conservatives here and there.  is there anybody who actually believes she won't run, either in 08 or in 12?

i'm not convinced i wouldn't vote for her.  both she and her husband were solid politicians and got some good things done.


----------



## beau_safken (May 9, 2006)

If that ever got into office...remind me to leave the country for 4 years as we get laughed off the world scene.  Singapore or Taiwan wouldn't be too bad...  I've always wanted to try living in Kyoto also..


----------



## Cruentus (May 9, 2006)

Who wants to join my Militia if Hilary runs? lol :lol:


----------



## beau_safken (May 9, 2006)

A minnesota + militia...sounds like a combination for a good gun club at least.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 9, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> I may be forced to vote for a Republican, and that would be just weird.
> 
> Lamont


 
In the last election there was one other party, besides the BIG two, that cared enough to spend the time and money to be registered in all 50 states for it's candidates. 

You can always pick a non major party to vote for. Do some research and find the party and or person you think best represents your wishes and or desires and then Vote.

And no it is not a waste, for each time the number grows, and sooner or later there will be an upset or the Electoral College will be used to decide, and when that happens the two major parties will have to stop and think about the people and not just what makes them scared and how to make them feel scared about the other major party.


----------



## Marvin (May 9, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Life is surreal at times.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1600694
> 
> ...


Just shows that the Reps and Dems are not so different. Bunch of rich folks telling us how we should live.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 9, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Life is surreal at times.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1600694
> 
> ...


 
:erg: ............ :rofl:


----------



## michaeledward (May 10, 2006)

A report was recently published that demonstrated the Rise of FOX News paralleled the rise in Republican Votes throughout the country between 1996 and 2000.

This report estimates that as many 10,000 new votes were added to, or changed to the G.O.P. because of Fox News being widely available in Florida. That is a state in which the final tally was approximately 600 votes in favor of G.W.B.

Further reports show that Karl Rove, prior to G.W.B.'s campaign announcement in 1998, met with Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric and informed him that candidate Bush's policies would be beneficial to the shareholders of G.E.

That an aspiring politician would court the power brokers of the media should not surprise anyone. The unspoken, or un published, quid pro quo should not be unexpected.


----------



## Swordlady (May 10, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> If that ever got into office...remind me to leave the country for 4 years as we get laughed off the world scene. Singapore or Taiwan wouldn't be too bad... I've always wanted to try living in Kyoto also..



Oh, puh-leeze.  Who did you think was the brains behind most of Bill Clinton's presidency?  Hilary is a smart lady, and certainly beats that dimbulb Dubya any day of the week.

Besides, the U.S. is long overdue for a female president.


----------



## beau_safken (May 10, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Oh, puh-leeze. Who did you think was the brains behind most of Bill Clinton's presidency? Hilary is a smart lady, and certainly beats that dimbulb Dubya any day of the week.
> 
> Besides, the U.S. is long overdue for a female president.


 
The only reason there would be need for a female president is due to the popularity of "Commander in Cheif".

I don't care what gender you are, but unfortunatly most world governments do.  I don't know how high our stock would rise with the Middle East, Asia or Africa in that respect.  Obviously, thats just an observation but its hard to argue that they aren't the most matriarcial places in the world.

The only thing the US is long overdue for is a person with the balls to change stuff, make the hard decisions and do some financial enema action to get us back on track.


----------



## Swordlady (May 10, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> The only reason there would be need for a female president is due to the popularity of "Commander in Cheif".
> 
> I don't care what gender you are, but unfortunatly most world governments do.  I don't know how high our stock would rise with the Middle East, Asia or Africa in that respect.  Obviously, thats just an observation but its hard to argue that they aren't the most matriarcial places in the world.
> 
> The only thing the US is long overdue for is a person with the balls to change stuff, make the hard decisions and do some financial enema action to get us back on track.



Honestly, our "stock" can't possibly sink any lower - thanks to GW.

And how do you know for sure how other countries would view a female U.S. president?  The one we've had for the past six years really has NOT made us look very good.

Maybe I'm reading you the wrong way, but your views *do* appear to be a bit sexist - and I have very little tolerance for male chauvanism.


----------



## beau_safken (May 10, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Honestly, our "stock" can't possibly sink any lower - thanks to GW.
> 
> And how do you know for sure how other countries would view a female U.S. president? The one we've had for the past six years really has NOT made us look very good.
> 
> Maybe I'm reading you the wrong way, but your views *do* appear to be a bit sexist - and I have very little tolerance for male chauvanism.


 
Point #1:  True, just a change of pace would be a good idea.

Point #2:  Read the Koron, social structures of most Asian countries(with exceptions obviously), and other countries with traditional values.  It's gonna be a hard road to walk to crack that egg.  Please try and convince me that places like Bhurma, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, etc...would elect a woman to power?

Point #3:  Honestly, I could care less.  I don't care what heat your packing, as long as you do the job its all good.


----------



## Swordlady (May 10, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Point #2:  Read the Koron, social structures of most Asian countries(with exceptions obviously), and other countries with traditional values.  It's gonna be a hard road to walk to crack that egg.  Please try and convince me that places like Bhurma, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, etc...would elect a woman to power?  Why?



*sigh*  You kinda missed the point (yes, I *have* read sections of the Koran and own an English translation).  I am well aware of how patriarchal other countries are.  Does that mean the U.S. should *never* elect a female president, just to save face with the other countries we deal with?


----------



## michaeledward (May 10, 2006)

Commander in Chief has been cancelled, which kind of means it is not very popular, right? 

Democratic Nations throughout the world have elected female heads of state for decades. In fact, the case can be made that we have had a female in the number 2 position for 10 years (Albright and Rice).

It seems kind of, oh, childlish, to just rule out half of the population for positions of leadership based on gender. It seems ever further foolish to disregard this population to satisfy the prejudices of minor countries in far off places.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20th/


----------



## beau_safken (May 10, 2006)

Ok Chill for a sec.

I'm not doing any anti-woman angle and all that, so lets nip that in the butt right now.

My point is that most of those countries are either a) Sources of resources vital to the United States (Oil, Labor, Products), b) Hot spots in the world that know little or no reason c) Some countries have male chauvanistic policy, rulers, laws, etc.  

In order to deal with these countries on a level basis, I can't see how we would be taken seriously or dealt with properly. I can call a ball square until i'm blue in the face, but its still round.  Some traditional views don't view woman on the same level as men, and until that changes or something major happens to shift the power...Sorry but most of those countries are hardly progressive.

As for here in the States, Great.  If a woman can get elected, good deal.


----------



## michaeledward (May 10, 2006)

For the moment, regardless of who is leading the nation, we will be taken seriously by everyone because we are the planet's remaining superpower (hyperpower). 

We're the big guns in economics. We're the big guns in trade. We're the big guns in the military.

We *are* the game in town.  (at least for the moment).


----------



## Carol (May 10, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> In order to deal with these countries on a level basis, I can't see how we would be taken seriously or dealt with properly.


 
Yeah it's not like we're a superpower or....oh wait....

And we don't have the largest economy in the...er...nevermind...

Nor are we the richest country on the planet...oh right, I forgot...

Yeah, Beau, you may be right.  Change one chromosome in one American and *poof* no one will take us seriously at all. :roflmao:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 10, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> I don't care what gender you are, but unfortunatly most world governments do. I don't know how high our stock would rise with the Middle East, Asia or Africa in that respect. Obviously, thats just an observation but its hard to argue that they aren't the most matriarcial places in the world.


 
Well, we've got nukes.  Might at as well make them give us there oil and accept our female leaders.  Imagine, another excuse for war?  Think Helen of Troy...


----------



## beau_safken (May 10, 2006)

Sucks not being PC sometimes..oh wait,..nope.

Just taking the path of most resistance to see where it leads sometimes.


----------



## CanuckMA (May 10, 2006)

Female leader in a Western Society: Maggy Tatcher

How about in an Islamic contry? Benazir Bhutto


----------



## Swordlady (May 10, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Female leader in a Western Society: Maggy Tatcher
> 
> How about in an Islamic contry? Benazir Bhutto



Don't forget Queen Noor of Jordan.

Seriously, Beau...you really need to brush up on your knowledge of world leaders before jumping to erroneous conclusions.  Check out this site: http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/


----------



## michaeledward (May 10, 2006)

I was thinking Indira Ghandi. I think India had a population of over 800,000,000 when she was last in office.

Was Queen Noor ever a functioning executive? I thought not.


----------



## Swordlady (May 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I was thinking Indira Ghandi. I think India had a population of over 800,000,000 when she was last in office.
> 
> Was Queen Noor ever a functioning executive? I thought not.



I'm not sure if Queen Noor was ever a *functioning* executive, but you can't deny her considerable influence.  Check out her personal profile; it's very impressive: http://www.noor.gov.jo/personal_profile.htm


----------



## Jonathan Randall (May 10, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Ok Chill for a sec.
> 
> I'm not doing any anti-woman angle and all that, so lets nip that in the butt right now.
> 
> In order to deal with these countries on a level basis, I can't see how we would be taken seriously or dealt with properly. I can call a ball square until i'm blue in the face, but its still round. Some traditional views don't view woman on the same level as men, and until that changes or something major happens to shift the power...Sorry but most of those countries are hardly progressive.


 
Then, what's your point, if it's not that we should adjust our own values to fit misogynist societie's ideals?

What about Margaret Thatcher? I was no great fan of the lady, but she did command respect on the world stage. The UK beat us to it by decades. What a shame that we are still so limited in our views.

Again, Beau, what's your point? You seem to want to have it both ways - say you don't care what sex they are but also that a woman wouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## crushing (May 10, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> What about Margaret Thatcher? I was no great fan of the lady, but she did command respect on the world stage. The UK beat us to it by decades. What a shame that we are still so limited in our views.



I guess we didn't realize it was a contest.

One thing's for sure, after that last few US presidents, we need real change.  If that means a woman, I'm certainly for that.  I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.


----------



## Swordlady (May 10, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> I guess we didn't realize it was a contest.
> 
> One thing's for sure, after that last few US presidents, we need real change.  If that means a woman, I'm certainly for that.  I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.



And what was wrong with Bill Clinton?  Sure, he was a real dog where Monica Lewinsky was concerned, but he was a good president.  And I'm pretty sure that Hilary had a lot to do with the success of his presidency.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (May 11, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> I guess we didn't realize it was a contest.
> 
> One thing's for sure, after that last few US presidents, we need real change. If that means a woman, I'm certainly for that. I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.


 
Same here. I want a woman President, but not Hillary - too much of a war hawk. I would like a Democratic President, though, because the GOP has gotten, IMO, too corrupt in power and has no checks on either its spending or power. A Democratic President would remind the Republican Congress that they are conservatives and not deficit spenders on a binge with our grandchildren's money.


----------



## Swordlady (May 11, 2006)

...and as much I would like to see a female president, I do NOT want her to be Condoleeza Rice.  She's too much of Bush's puppet.


----------



## Zepp (May 11, 2006)

> I'm just afraid Hillary is going to be to much like Clinton/Bush.


 
I still don't see how any thinking person can actually say that George W. Bush is similar in any way to Bill Clinton.  Is the mad cow disease in our beef causing short term memory loss amongst so many people already?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (May 11, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> ...and as much I would like to see a female president, I do NOT want her to be Condoleeza Rice. She's too much of Bush's puppet.


 
A Rice vs. Hillary Clinton ticket is my worst nightmare. I'd pick Sen. Clinton over Rice though, because, while they're both opportunists of the first order, IMO, Mrs. Clinton would most likely display more competence. I don't want either, though.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 11, 2006)

Fear not! Ross Perot to the rescue!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Sooner or later this 3rd party thing is going to take off!


----------



## beau_safken (May 11, 2006)

Ok so what is necessary to have an opinion?

Should I include imperical notes, case law refs, bibliography or what?

Let me know as I want to make sure I can just throw out a opposite opinion everyonce in a while.

Honestly, I don't care that you get a little irritated by my lack of research, backup, etc.  I'm just throwing out an idea.  No offense but I am not gonna take the high road just to make sure to not irritate someone, or go against the grain.

Reality Check, you could infer from the above posts regarding world superpower, nukes and force that the only way a woman could hold presence in the world stage is thru force.  Thanks for help make a point.  Saves me a little typing.


----------



## Swordlady (May 11, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Reality Check, you could infer from the above posts regarding world superpower, nukes and force that the only way a woman could hold presence in the world stage is thru force.  Thanks for help make a point.  Saves me a little typing.



Didn't you read any of the links at all?  There are PLENTY of female world leaders who DIDN'T have the benefit of "nukes" or "force" for them to reach their position.  In that regard, I would think the U.S. is actually a bit BEHIND where having a female head of state is concerned.

Really, Beau...you need to rethink your views before you dig your grave any deeper.


----------



## beau_safken (May 11, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Didn't you read any of the links at all? There are PLENTY of female world leaders who DIDN'T have the benefit of "nukes" or "force" for them to reach their position. In that regard, I would think the U.S. is actually a bit BEHIND where having a female head of state is concerned.
> 
> Really, Beau...you need to rethink your views before you dig your grave any deeper.


 
Why should I rethink my position?  Because it doesn't agree with yours?  Oh sure there are the joan of arcs, Queen Elizabeths, Mother Theresa's and the like.  I totally understand there have been famous female leaders, but how does that apply to what we are doing right now?  Why should there be such a dire need for a woman in office, because we have never had one?  

Here is a good one.  This seems like more an issue of equal treatment to me, than a woman in office issue you are going down.  That's great, if you would like to go down that road please let me know the following.  IF you want to go down the equal treatment road, please explain the following:

1)  Selective service...Why can't woman 18-25 be signed up as that would double the ranks in time of need.

2)  Why are there woman/men divisions in olympic sports, martial arts tourneys, and other sport events?  Shouldn't it be one division?

3)  Maturnity leave, woman choose to be pregnent so why should everyone else have to pay for that choice at work?  Should men get a like break for a chosen ailment, problem or the like?

Are the above fair and equal?  As for woman in Office, I'd love to see one make it all the way to being elected.  The honest answer is it will be a very tall order to make that happen in our country, complain to me about being unfair or whatever...that's life atm.


----------



## Swordlady (May 11, 2006)

Good grief...it isn't about me or my opinion at all!  It has everything to do with MODERN society, and how it still falls short in several ways.



			
				beau_safken said:
			
		

> 1) Selective service...Why can't woman 18-25 be signed up as that would double the ranks in time of need.



Personally, I think that the Selective Service Act is archaic, and *should* allow able-bodied women to be drafted.  It's not like ALL men between the ages 18-45 are physically capable of ground fighting.  I also think that women *should* be allowed to fight in the infantry.  And I know there are many women who would be ready and willing to fight in the trenches, if called upon.



			
				beau_safken said:
			
		

> 2) Why are there woman/men divisions in olympic sports, martial arts tourneys, and other sport events? Shouldn't it be one division?



Same reason why there are AGE catagories in most MA tourneys and other sporting events.  Remember the big Little League World Series scandal a few years ago?  One of the pitchers was a 14-year-old, and he was pitted against a bunch of kids who were 12 and under.  Not a very fair matchup, don't you think?



			
				beau_safken said:
			
		

> 3) Maturnity leave, woman choose to be pregnent so why should everyone else have to pay for that choice at work? Should men get a like break for a chosen ailment, problem or the like?



Don't you know how LIMITED maternity leave is nowadays?  Most mothers wind up returning to work after just about a month or two.  And it's not like most employers actually allot special time off for mothers.  Most of them wind up using a combination of short-term disability and sick leave.  Which is what a physically incapacitated male worker would use.

Check out this site for more info on maternity leave: http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/pregnancy/pregnantatwork/449.html



			
				beau_safken said:
			
		

> Are the above fair and equal? As for woman in Office, I'd love to see one make it all the way to being elected. The honest answer is it will be a very tall order to make that happen in our country, complain to me about being unfair or whatever...that's life atm.



Whether a woman can be drafted or not, separate gender competitions, and maternity leave are irrelevant to the topic of a woman being elected as president.  But with all honesty, attitudes like the one you displayed on this thread certainly don't help matters any.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 11, 2006)

The burning questions in my mind...How long till she takes and intern, and where WILL she put the cigar?

Dave


----------



## beau_safken (May 11, 2006)

You're absolutaly correct.  I can only come to one conclusion after that beatdown.

Woman are awesome and who are we to say they can't do anything ever.  

Woman running for office are the apex of our democratic process as that means the system is working.  

Woman should be given any and all considerations as they warrant it, regardless of social, political climate.  

As far as I can see, why shouldn't we have a mandatory 51% woman 49% male balance in all realms of politics.  I mean if mother nature deamed that the correct balance for the genders, who am I to argue.

Woman do have an extra chromosome then men, so that should say something right?  Now who is more capable of great wonders than someone who is biologically superior.

Woman just kick ***, I don't know why...must be the charm.

Ok so now back on the topic.  Yes, hell is going to freeze over...and its your fault Hilary.


----------



## Ping898 (May 11, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> 1) Selective service...Why can't woman 18-25 be signed up as that would double the ranks in time of need.
> 
> 
> 3) Maturnity leave, woman choose to be pregnent so why should everyone else have to pay for that choice at work? Should men get a like break for a chosen ailment, problem or the like?


 
As for 1) the only reason the Selective service doesn't include women is cause an overwhelming majority of people in power are men and God forbid a woman go in the military....Woman can't even serve on the front line in the army unless they happen to be in a support unit that is sent to the front line and even then she is sometimes removed....It is the good old boys in power that keep selective service as it is.

and as for 3) you will find that many companies with good benefit packages also include paternity leave and though it usually isn't as long as maternity leave it still exists.


----------



## michaeledward (May 11, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> 3) Maturnity leave, woman choose to be pregnent so why should everyone else have to pay for that choice at work? Should men get a like break for a chosen ailment, problem or the like?


 
If I am not mistaken, men can take maternaty leave in the same manner as women. The only 'pay' involved is that the employer must keep the position open for the worker to return at the end of 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Men can take this leave for the birth of a child, or for the care of an elder parent. 



> *Your Rights under the Family Medical Leave Act*
> 
> In February, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to enable workers to care for themselves or for family members without fear of job loss, harassment, or loss of benefits.
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (May 11, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> You're absolutaly correct. I can only come to one conclusion after that beatdown.
> Woman are awesome and who are we to say they can't do anything ever.
> Woman running for office are the apex of our democratic process as that means the system is working.
> Woman should be given any and all considerations as they warrant it, regardless of social, political climate.
> ...


 
Hyperbole is unbecoming on this topic. Your bigotry is your right. But combined with this hyperbolic response .. zingers at you ..


----------



## beau_safken (May 11, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hyperbole is unbecoming on this topic. Your bigotry is your right. But combined with this hyperbolic response .. zingers at you ..


 
Is that Bigotry for having a opposing position?  Or just to help with that Zinger?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 11, 2006)

beau_safken said:
			
		

> Woman do have an extra chromosome then men, so that should say something right?  Now who is more capable of great wonders than someone who is biologically superior.




News to me.  Last time I checked, they had 46.  Men had 46.  

A woman's chromosome complement is written as 46,XX.  A male's as 46,XY.  We men have the "Y" chromosome...but they have two X's in the match up of sex chromosomes.  

I kind of like Hillary's latest suggestion to increase Congressional pay ONLY if minimum wage were raised along with it, i.e., Congress could only vote themselves a raise if they automatically gave the low wage workers a raise.  

Zippy idea.  It might cause the fast food industry to throw a little cold water on Congressional pay raises.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ping898 (May 11, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I kind of like Hillary's latest suggestion to increase Congressional pay ONLY if minimum wage were raised along with it, i.e., Congress could only vote themselves a raise if they automatically gave the low wage workers a raise.


 
I hadn't heard that....be nice...would never fly but would be sweet!  I mean in theory you pay your elected officials well so they don't become corrupt....but um...I don't think that is working too good right now....


----------



## michaeledward (May 11, 2006)

Bigot - A person obstinately or *intolerantly* devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.



			
				beau_safken said:
			
		

> Is that Bigotry for having a opposing position? Or just to help with that Zinger?


 
Not an opposing position, but a personal opinion which you started by disclaiming. An earlier post says :


			
				beau_safken said:
			
		

> I don't care what gender you are, but unfortunatly most world governments do.


 
So, is your 'opposing position' that women can't your shouldn't be the chief executive in the country, or that other countries won't accept it?

Regardless of which argument you make, people here have shown that woman are capable of leading nations, and countries around the world have accepted it. 

Seems we have some 'truthiness' showing up here at MartialTalk. As Monsier Colbert would tell us, have a man as the leader of the free world just "*feels*" right, eh?


----------



## Hand Sword (May 12, 2006)

Based on the definition, I guess we are all Bigots then. We all stick to our opinions don't we?


----------



## shesulsa (May 12, 2006)

Websters New Standard Dictionary for Home, School and Office, pub. 1969 y McLoughlin Brothers, Inc., New York:

*bigot*: _n._ one obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular belief or creed; dogmatist.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 12, 2006)

Now, that sounds more *reasonable* for a definition.


----------



## Ray (May 12, 2006)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I kind of like Hillary's latest suggestion to increase Congressional pay ONLY if minimum wage were raised along with it, i.e., Congress could only vote themselves a raise if they automatically gave the low wage workers a raise.


Do you suppose that the people employing low wage workers will eat the increased outflow of money or do you suppose they will raise the price of the products they sell?

Perhaps, instead of those two alternatives they will find that mechanizing more of the labor becomes more economical to them considering the increased labor costs - and as a result, employ fewer workers?


----------



## michaeledward (May 12, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Based on the definition, I guess we are all Bigots then. We all stick to our opinions don't we?


 
Certainly, I am not using the term in a derogatory manner, but descriptive. If you can provide a more accurate adjective, I will be happy to employ it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 13, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Based on the definition, I guess we are all Bigots then. We all stick to our opinions don't we?



No.

An open minded person is one willing to change his/her mind in the face of better evidence and more reasoned arguments.  Further, they're willing to actually investigate those arguments and consider their merits before rushing to judgement.

Many of us (me included) bought into the WMD casus belli argument for the invasion of Iraq, only to change their minds later when they discovered the spin behind the spiel.  Polls clearly indicate Bush's supporters are abandoning him in droves.  Some of us have also come to accept that our planet isn't 6,000 years old and flat--while some today (a distressing number) still hold fast to the bronze-age method of geography.

Opinions change with changing data...unless, of course, the person holding the opinion is thickheaded, obstinate, and poorly educated.   


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 13, 2006)

" *'liberal' *New York Sen. Hillary Clinton" ???

Well, that's a good one.  I guess the country has finally lurched so far to the right that they're calling Hillary "liberal".  Here in NY, she's not considered a "liberal"


----------



## Raewyn (May 13, 2006)

Our leader here is a female, in fact she has been in office now for the last 3 terms!!  She must be doing something right.


----------



## bluemtn (May 13, 2006)

Raewyn said:
			
		

> Our leader here is a female, in fact she has been in office now for the last 3 terms!! She must be doing something right.


 
Well, that's one country right off the bat that isn't falling apart at the seams with a woman leader...  She's not waging war with every country that might be a "threat", and her popularity poll isn't heading south faster than -you name it-....


----------



## crushing (May 13, 2006)

tkdgirl said:
			
		

> Well, that's one country right off the bat that isn't falling apart at the seams with a woman leader...  She's not waging war with every country that might be a "threat", and her popularity poll isn't heading south faster than -you name it-....



Should we credit PM Clark, or the 50,000+ Jedi in NZ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2352142

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon


----------



## Marginal (May 14, 2006)

tkdgirl said:
			
		

> Well, that's one country right off the bat that isn't falling apart at the seams with a woman leader... She's not waging war with every country that might be a "threat", and her popularity poll isn't heading south faster than -you name it-....


 
Honestly, what does gender matter when it comes to getting elected into office? The days of arm wrestling solving matters of state are long past. Both sides are capable of thinking, which is really the only attribute needed. Whether or not they do is a reflection on their individual intelligence, not their gender.


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> Should we credit PM Clark, or the 50,000+ Jedi in NZ?
> 
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2352142
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon


 
It is important to remember that the Jedi kept the peace for thousands of years, originally. I wonder what that has to do with it all. 

Oh, and I heard there are some wizards living in New Zealand as well. If one can draw on the collected wisdom of Qui-Gon and Radagast the Brown .... well, New Zealand must be a very enlighted place, eh?


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 14, 2006)

_and Radagast the Brown .... well, New Zealand must be a very enlighted place, eh?_

Bah, Radagast was a tool for Saruman and lost his focus on their original purpose for being there.  Not a good example... : )


----------



## michaeledward (May 14, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Bah, Radagast was a tool for Saruman and lost his focus on their original purpose for being there. Not a good example... : )


 
That Radagast did wander, and was lost, is true. But, I am not certain that he was a "tool for Saruman". 

But, all that being said ... you got the reference. I didn't want to make it too easy.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That Radagast did wander, and was lost, is true. But, I am not certain that he was a "tool for Saruman".
> 
> But, all that being said ... you got the reference. I didn't want to make it too easy.



I know that he was concerend about Saruman the White while the Grey Wizard was talking to him, but I do not think that Radagast was an agent nor tool, any more than say The grey was. They had a Head of the Order, and until actions proved otherwise they respected his leadership and wisdom and guidance.


----------



## Raewyn (May 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is important to remember that the Jedi kept the peace for thousands of years, originally. I wonder what that has to do with it all.
> 
> Oh, and I heard there are some wizards living in New Zealand as well. If one can draw on the collected wisdom of Qui-Gon and Radagast the Brown .... well, New Zealand must be a very enlighted place, eh?


Yes, i guess you could say that!


----------

