Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What If Women Ran the World?
BusinessWeek ^ | Tue Apr 15, 2003 | Thane Peterson

Posted on 04/15/2003 12:23:32 PM PDT by WaveThatFlag

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-310 next last
To: MacDorcha
I truly believe that ends and means can be balanced. To me, this produces the quality of "excellence." But when either the "means" or the "ends" are dishonest, then I have a problem. But I agree with you, there are times when the ends can justify the means. Just, not all the time. Thanks for your note. Regards.
181 posted on 04/15/2003 3:00:04 PM PDT by noname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dutchgirl
Two points: Hillary is hiding her true agenda. She knows she cannot run on her ideas for this country, so she does create her own illusions to satiate the American populace.

As for Dr. Rice, she is not an unwed/divorced mother who made poor choices and is being bailed out by the state via social programs paid for by me.

She worked for everything she has, was careful, and deserves respect.

The two cannot even be compared.
182 posted on 04/15/2003 3:00:38 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
The post I was responding to said WOMEN had sympathy for socialism. I note you exchanged the word "feminism" for women. You do know they are not synomous I hope.
183 posted on 04/15/2003 3:03:08 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Name one Republican who said women shouldn't vote?

I am a women, and I've said if a woman is receiving a social program of any type, she should not be allowed to vote. Her greater concern is receiving more of my tax money, and I am made irrelevant because of it.

The East and West Coasts will always be liberal, but as soon as they get married, have kids and move to the suburbs, then they are in my territoy.

The Liberals cannot keep this voting block, as it is churned every ten years.
184 posted on 04/15/2003 3:03:19 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Name one Republican who said women shouldn't vote?

There are plenty on this very site! Furthermore there are many websites devoted to repealing the 19th Ammendment. These are all conservative/republican men, though not surprisingly men with any political clout, for obvious reasons. I cannot name a Republican of any note who has said women shouldn't have the vote, because if one had, he would not be of any note! He would have committed political hari-kari! Funny how that works isn't it? :)

185 posted on 04/15/2003 3:09:12 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"It's not about women per se, it is the entire concept of individual liberty and equal opportunity for the greatest number of citizens put into practice which creates relative prosperity"

Sure, I agree with that, if we would really follow the concept of individual liberty, there could be no "minorities." Yeah, I believe that the concept of individual liberty has allowed the U.S., and before it, the UK, to have reached prosperity and greatness unparalleled in history.

186 posted on 04/15/2003 3:11:52 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
If this bozo read Deborah Tannen's work, on men and women in the work place, he would know that man are interested in following the rules and women want everyone to be able to play. That is the difference between Rats and republicans too. Rats have given up their alpha male in order to follow the lead of Rodney King.
187 posted on 04/15/2003 3:12:08 PM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Actually, I consider that "feminism" and socialism are synonomous, although they shouldn't be.
188 posted on 04/15/2003 3:14:12 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
That post just relegated your ideas to "I can't prove it, but I did see it" Hillary type of VRWC garbage.

I am disappointed.
189 posted on 04/15/2003 3:18:03 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
"All the great socialist leaders and writers have been MEN !"

True, most of the great leftists have usually been males, as have the great classical liberals and advocates of individual liberty, or the great musicians, chefs, or anything else, for that matter.

I kind of think there is a female tendency to sympathize with socialism because women natually look for a protector, and then, while being mothers, spend a good bit of their time regulating someone else's life (children's) in minute and intimate detail.

However, I might attempt to get off of the thin ice onto which I have walked by noting that my mother was, and my wife and daughter are, staunch, no nonsense conservatives.

In fact my daughter cast her first vote for W. She had registered and done it without so much as discussing it with me, I was quite proud of her.

190 posted on 04/15/2003 3:20:51 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
I have read that young single females tend to vote left, while older married ones vote more conservatively.
191 posted on 04/15/2003 3:22:02 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Well stick around you'll hear the sentiment expressed here many times that women should not be allowed to vote. I don't have to "prove it" to you. You'll see it.

The fringe elements of any group (and this applies to Liberals as well) hurt their prospects with the vast and more reasonable middle.
192 posted on 04/15/2003 3:25:37 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Not necessarily.

See my posts on the husband/father-state.
193 posted on 04/15/2003 3:25:39 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I highly doubt a person who may vote Conservative would run to the DNC because someone said they wanted to repeal a woman's right to vote.

I've seen it posted here several times, but that still does not make it a mainstream idea that is going to turn off women voters.

It also doesn't mean men within the Republican party have that view.

However, I have made the case for it, and, again, I am a woman.
194 posted on 04/15/2003 3:27:44 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: BagCamAddict
.
195 posted on 04/15/2003 3:34:38 PM PDT by BagCamAddict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
I am confused. Aren't women allowed to run for office? Aren't they allowed to vote? Don't they make up the greater pct of voters?

Is our writer suggesting that we should AAP for elected officials?
196 posted on 04/15/2003 3:35:03 PM PDT by DougF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Toilet seats would be spring loaded so men would have to hold them up with one hand while they pissed.

Urinals would be banned along with the high-flow flush toilets.

197 posted on 04/15/2003 3:35:28 PM PDT by Mark Turbo (The saga continues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
You're right, I should've said a majority of women "voters" gave us eight years of Clinton and a majority of male "voters" voted against Clinton.
198 posted on 04/15/2003 3:36:40 PM PDT by Nephi (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
I didn't claim repealing women's right to vote was a mainstream idea. I said such sentiments coming from self-identified Republicans, politially hurts Republicans.

More voters are swing voters than are stict party loyalists. If there is a perception that one party OR the other is slipping too far toward their extreme fringe elements, a correction occurs. Again, this applies equally to Democrates and Republicans.

199 posted on 04/15/2003 3:45:01 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: WaveThatFlag; All

What If Women Ran the World?

When I look at the news these days, I can't help but wonder: Wouldn't we be a lot better off if women were in charge

How about every person run the world as they see fit so long as they abide by the brief constitution posted below. Obviously most people would be ruling their own world which in turn would benefit the rest of the world in their own small way. Other people would become giants in the realm of bring technology advancements to market. In that way they'd rule a bigger world while brining more benefits to people and society.

 

* The purpose of conscious life is to live happily. 
* The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that let individuals fulfill their purpose.  Those conditions can be guaranteed through a universal constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual. 

***
Article 1

No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property. 

Article 2

Force shall be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1. 

Article 3

No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2. 

The above is from: http://www.neo-tech.com/pax-b1/a1.php

Introduction

Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How can so many people thinking they're right be so wrong?

Before voting for a politician make sure that they address Issue 101. Demand that of media outlets too.

Issue 101 -- The House of Cards

How is it that people and society in general have prospered and increased their well being for decades yet the politicians and bureaucrats say we must have another 3,000 laws and regulations each year on top of the 100,000+ laws already on the books... That without them people and society face "disaster". People and society have done quite well without next year's 3,000 new federal laws and regulations. Why all of a sudden can people and society not continue to do quite well without them? The fact is, they'd be better off without 99% of them.

So who really benefits from 3,000 new laws and regulations each year? -- not to mention state laws and regulations. Politicians and bureaucrats. They create boogieman problems and with a complicit media towing their boogieman problems cast a net of false fear and unwarranted despair in people.

Quite literally, they create problems where none exist. They're sick in that they chose to frighten people and foist false despair on them and do that to collect their unearned paychecks. Their job security is predicated on deceiving as many people as possible.

It cost more than just two trillion dollars a year to fund government abuse. That abuse hinders people's development, especially children being indoctrinated rather than educated, harms the economy and causes boom and bust cycles in markets.

Flushing that money down the toilet -- save for military defense spending -- would be better for individuals, their families and society. That's a different way of saying, can't we just pay congress to stay home and not leave their houses. Surely we'd be better off. Politicians and bureaucrats are sick and need your help.

Fully integrated honesty is key. That we have the government we have -- delivered by both Democrats and Republicans -- that has gone so far off course from the government the founders created, is a product of irrationality and dishonesty. Changing the laws via the system is almost completely useless. Politicians create dozens of unconstitutional laws before even considering repealing just one unconstitutional law. That is not a system -- it's a quagmire of deception, irrationality, fraud and abuse.

Politics is not the solution -- politics is the problem.

Who are the parasites?
Who are the producers?
Ostracizing the parasitical value destroyers
Praise the value producers

Step one for helping politicians and bureaucrats:
Get your head out of their sandbox.

Step two: Demand that they address Issue 101. Do the same with the media.

Step three: Ostracize government officials that fail to honestly address Issue 101. Do the same with the media.

Step four: Champion the science and business communities -- often under relentless attack by the government -- that create jobs, necessities, luxuries and ever greater advancements that support human life, family and society.

200 posted on 04/15/2003 3:47:48 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-310 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson