Posted on 04/16/2018 11:19:00 AM PDT by sevinufnine
'I wanted a woman president really badly and I supported Hillary Clinton,' she told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. 'A lot of my friends worked for her. I was devastated when she lost,' she added. The Comey children were also ready for Hillary.
'Oh yeah,' Comey said, asked about his wife's support for Clinton. 'I didn't take a poll among all the kids, but I'm pretty sure that at least my four daughters, probably all five of my kids, wanted Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president.' 'I know my amazing spouse did. My wife and girls marched in the women's march the day after President Trump's inauguration,' he said.
The network flashed a photo of Patrice and the Comey daughters taking part in the march that drew hundreds of thousands of protesters the day after Trump's inauguration. Comey's wife holds an apparently hand-made sign that says 'Stand Up For Women.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
You are not impressing me with your sagacity nor with your discerning ways. You seem to be a guy with a hammer who thinks he is surrounded by nails. Platitudes be d***ed.
You have no facts, merely opinions, a common plight.
The righteous man is armored by his/he own choices. Treat others with respect as you would be treated. Associate with people who respect you & themselves. It is ridiculous to suggest that there are no honorable women or honorable men for that matter. Again I hope that you will find peace.
Actually I was being generous in spirit rather than calling you out...my mistake.
Jeez, that picture ...I need a picture of the SI swimsuit models...please...my eyes needs it...
I am not sure we will be able to actually have an intellectual discourse. I wasn’t kidding when I said your point of view is alien to me.
Bulverism is a liberal concept, a way of attacking someone who disagrees with you because they were wrong to “assume” you were wrong, rather than that they disagree with you for reasons that seem sufficient to them. Your statements are what I was responding to, not some assumption that you were wrong.
Your bulverism stance is a defense mechanism that prevents you from needing to examine the issues being raised in discussion.
Any time someone wants to void the contributions and worthiness of 50% of the human race, they have a problem. So many scientific discoveries, so many other contributions ignored because of the few vocal liberal nuts who have been allowed to destroy the social fabric of our Nation.
Lots of women are silly and greedy...lots of men too..its called human nature. McCabe’s ladies are fools and proud of it. It’s fine to despise them however it is logical fallacy to suggest that they are the definition of what women are or are capable of.
More dirty looking hippies.....She’s a beaut Comey.....
Your responses lead me to believe you had already checked out. If you're indeed willing to debate, mores the better!
Your statements are what I was responding to, not some assumption that you were wrong.
Nonsense. I directly referred to your "You must have faced..." statement. That comment is a total non-sequitur except as a proposition speculating on how I "feel" the way I do. I assure you, "feeling" has nothing to do with it as you will see by my responses to your other posts.
Your bulverism stance is a defense mechanism that prevents you from needing to examine the issues being raised in discussion.
You've got it backwards. I have said nothing about "why" you think as you do (something you don't seem to be able to argue without), and thus can not be guilty of Bulverism.
Any time someone wants to void the contributions and worthiness of 50% of the human race, they have a problem.
So your stance is "a billion chinamen can't be wrong?" Please elaborate.
Further, I asked you to demonstrate your thesis which you have steadfastly refused to do in several exchanges. I am prepared to back up my thesis, but see no reason to do so until you move beyond the gratuitous assertion stage and provide some real evidence.
Lots of women are silly and greedy...lots of men too..its called human nature.
If you are willing to acknowledge "human nature," by what mechanism do you deny the human nature of men and women must be the same in character and magnitude? You can't have it both ways.
By all mean! Call me out!
Oh, rest assured I have more than enough facts, and am only waiting for you to provide some of your own as I'm not in the habit of getting into unfalsifiable arguments.
But you know what else is a common plight? Flagrantly misstating what your opposition claims to avoid the crux of their contention. (E.g. "It is ridiculous to suggest that there are no honorable women or honorable men for that matter.")
argued not ordered...
Ha!
Crouch and hold up a sign for women.
You've got it backwards again.
My contention is this:
You acknowledge there is such a thing as "human nature."
In acknowledging the existence of human nature, you must further acknowledge that "nature" may indeed differ in character and magnitude when comparing men and women.
If you will not acknowledge that possibility, please explain by what mechanism you deny it.
I visualize the situation as normal curves. Men & women have different normal curves but there is overlap and in the area of overlap the individual differences overwhelm any difference due to being male or female.
In the aggregate men are stronger for example but in that region where the normal curves of men & women overlap on strength a particular woman can be stronger than a particular man.
Human nature is defined by the lowest depths & highest reaches a human can achieve. The normal curves for the various attributes of human nature are different for men & women. In those many facets which make up human nature, some sets of curves overlap more than others. Yet in all cases there still is overlap ergo in the final analysis the deciding factor for human nature is the individual not the sex.
Neither girl nor power.
You’re not answering the question; you’re trying to redefine it which is similarly disingenuous.
Nevertheless, in keeping with your model, do you deny the possibility that spikes on the behavior curve for one sex may be vanishingly small blips on the curve for the other sex.
If so, why not.
I don’t know if you’ve realized it yet, but you’re in the unfortunate position of the proverbial young lady who accepted the old man’s offer of a million dollars to sleep with him, but rebuffed him when offered $50.
Patrice just became a formal co conspirator.
No I am not.
I am remaining true to my frame of reference and you are making comments and demands that are incongruous & not germane. Do you know what a normal curve is? IDTS
So failing to provide the requested validation, you question my intelligence while deploying a word salad that would require its own thread to refute.
Now where do I recognize that tactic from?
And while we’re at it, pray tell what is your “normal curve” describing? Are you telling me you’re plotting forcible felonies on the same curve as painting toenails?
I’m sure you’re very proud of your intellect; I’m just not sure you’ve tested it’s limits.
The normal curve or normal distribution is a basic scientific concept that defines the distribution of a given characteristic for a set of individuals. It can also be called a bell curve because it’s shape is like a bell with 1/2 of the population above the center line & half below. The further you are from center the greater the standard deviation.
A standard deviation is a unit of measurement that can help you with figuring out where data items are likely to fall. For example, 68% of all measurements fall within one standard deviation either side of the mean.
In other words, the bulk of your data will fall between -1 and +1 standard deviations from the mean. If you go out to two standard deviations, that percentage rises to 95; almost all (99.7%) of your data will fall within three standard deviations.
So if we were to plot any one of the characteristics involved in the human condition, greed, ambition, loyalty, kindness, cruelty, strength, intelligence etc and we were to do two curves, one female, one male, each population would have a normal curve for that characteristic. The curves for the two populations would overlap to a different degree depending on the characteristic being examined, as I explained before.
In the area of overlap even though the men’s curve was to the right or left of the women’s curve the individuals at the left hand tail, where tail is defined as greater than 1.5 standard deviations from mean, might have more of that characteristic than the ones in the right hand curve.
I illustrated this with strength in my prior post. At the tail end, men who are less strong than most men might not be as strong as the strongest women.
If instead we used the human race (including all subsets, male female, whatever) again we would generate a normal curve where the characteristic examined would distribute itself in a bell shape.
There is nothing odd or esoteric here. This is very basic science, 1st year level. I was explaining to you why generalizations on women vs men are erroneous. I have not evaded, dissimulated, or waffled. I believe you are not approaching the subject rationally but that is your right & privilege. In using the term “word salad” you betray your unfamiliarity with basic concepts again since that term has a specific meaning and is reserved for advanced schizophrenia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.