cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Women in power


@johnaa wrote:

  Do you think that maybe the elected governors and presidents are not gods who actually run everything  that happens during their term of office?

 

I agee with that absolutely.

 

  The idea government controls the economy and morals of their subjects is a baseless claim used to keep the sheeple in the flock.

 

True enough, but to think the government has no effect, is like saying that the referee has no effect on the outcome of a game.  An honest ref, really doesn't, he just makes sure that everyone plays 'fair'.  However, a crooked referee, can skew things to any direction they want to.
I think government is much the same.  A decent government doesn't 'help' people, so much as allows them to do their thing, and keeps the playing field fair.  A corrupt government (or even one that is easily swayed by special interests) can skew things for their 'side', for a temporary victory, but it brings the honor of the whole system down.


 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Women in power

To nit-pick, the increase of the 'Alaska citizenship bonus' or whatever they call it, increased on her watch, so she actually DID do something. 


Just to clarify, I did not credit her for solving all of Alaska's ills, however, she at least did not screw things up, and create new ones, or make ones that they had worse.

 

To the 'women in power' thing, I wonder what the stats are of women Governors, and State budget deficits?  I don't know the answer, just speculating, as the states that I know of that had woman Governors, past and present, seem to be on stronger footing than average, but it could just be anecdotal.

 

 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Women in power

Exactly.  Alaska has NO State income tax, and, in fact, pays their citizens for living there.

As for the bridge, I know almost nothing about it, other than the money was sent there because of Pork-barrel Congressional earmarks.  A governor has no vote in money Congress allots.

Hawken Cougar
Senior Contributor

.

 
sw363535
Honored Advisor

Re: Women in power

Right Kraft,

And they did not need the money.----------I keep looking back through it and I cannot see any other "good" reasons for the choice.

 

This is what we get when "electability" becomes most important.  But IMO the election was determined with that choice.

 

Women in power--------with the right choices ------sex is not an issue.   Unqualified voters are a bigger problem that unqualified candidates.   

And of course our comfort level with voter fraud.

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Women in power

I still wonder if McCain and company did not see test polls showing him trailing Obama and with little chance of winning.  I wonder if because of this McCain's team decided to gamble and pick a female VP candidate in the hopes they could win over some of the female voters that may have become upset when Hillary lost out to Obama.

GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: Women in power

I googled, Alaska's economy, and read one little tid-bit I thought was interesting, the Federal gov. pays $1.84 more into Alaska than Alaska pays into the Federal gov. Hell, even you could run a state like that! LOL!!

sw363535
Honored Advisor

Re: Women in power

Dagwud,

Your last sentence is probably true, but so goofy to think that Palin is going to attract a Clinton voter.  But desperation brings on strange realities.

This reminds me of a discussion my son and I have occasionally about the "Grand Canyon" gap between political views in the "baby boom" generation.  I refer to it as the modern day uncivil war.

Many would like to think that there are the two extremes of a few and a  majority of middle roaders, wandering back and forth, making the decisions.

I just don't see that.  Living through it, it seems to me that neither side was willing to let the middle be "uncommitted"---(like a union man is going to accept a nonunion partner or a church member accepting a skeptic attender). -----

So the uncommitted middle either sell their votes to "whoever gives me the most govt dollars" or just check out.  What remains is majority extremes who do not cross the line.  For the most part both sides are upset because their candidates end up too close to the middle.

IMO our middle roaders are the young who leaned left last time----as i said---to the only choice they had.  In 2012 we will see if their political education has evolved and it what direction.

Problems political have to come back to the quality of the voters and our tolerance for fraud--------Do you think that 18% of voters for the republican primary in Florida actually voted early as reported 5 days before the election?  Or could that data have even existed??   Are the urban areas actually on opposite political extremes from rural population areas---if so we have a bad position for agriculture??  Property taxes will follow land values??  There are a lot of obvious questions about the election process that don't get addressed because the answers might not look good and politics, behind sports, is our greatest fundraising entertainment.

 

 

johnaa
Advisor

I'm not suggesting you are profoundly prejudiced.....

  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  Why are you asking me this stupid question?  But it's not a question, is it?  Just a childish and dishonest method of putting words into other people's mouth.

 

  There is nothing hidden or suggested in my statement-- stereotyping is prejudice, just look up the meaning of each of those words, just fact, pure and simple.  I did not aim my comment at anyone, you are clearly being dishonest. 

 

  You are so full of prejudice you cannot understand nor except reality, it is pathetic.  Grow Up!

hardnox604008
Advisor

Re: Women in power

Oh, I am guessing that back in the good old days there were plenty of nursing women carrying a decent BAC, it just wasn't talked about much and if they had a wreck on the way home  from the market (and hopefully the kid standing on the seat didn't go out the window) the cop didn't have a breathalyzer or a clear law to go by and probably took them home and maybe gave them a bit of a talking to.  Maybe talked the husband on the QT, at least the first time.

 

Stats on marriage, divorce, out of wedlock births were better but there was plenty of quiet desperation, abuse, and extra and pre marital shenanigans going on.

 

There are some current troubling trends but I don't idealize the past either.

 

But as to the gender thing, males have always been expendable and to some degree civilzation is about a culture that integrates males into families (and thus women have the greatest stake in civilzation- women and children suffer more when it breaks down).

 

I would think that if male religious leaders and experts on social morality really wanted to have a positive impact they'd be talking about how to encourage young (and not so young) males to be more responsible on sex and relationship matters rather than pretending that the world is going to hell if contraceptive options are included in basic health care.