August 17, 2005

  • To The Feminists : Is This Who You Align Yourselves With?


    "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq." 


    -Howard Dean


         I spent my vacation in Vermont visiting friends. I read the comments left on the Operational Pause post. The term is modeled after Rush’s radio show, I don’t understand the outrage, Nor am I going to attempt to. Anyway, it appears Howard Dean has finally shown his true colors with this statement he made on some TV show. He said women are worse off now in Iraq then they were before. I mean. Anyone who’s intelligent knows this isn’t true, Howard Dean is intelligent, he knows his comments were insane and radical. You know this is a sign folks, this is a sign. Because you know, libs are very good at spinning the truth, its true, they actually practice at home, I’ve seen it! But every once in a while, every once in a blue moon, they fail in spinning the truth, they fail in sounding convincing. Howard Dean had a off day. He screwed up, its ok though, its not like anyone besides Fox News viewers will be aware of the insanity that spews out of the mouth of this lib on a daily basis. Howard will do better next time, he will put more spin on the ball, he will come through for the dems. Mark my words.



        Yesterday morning, my friends and I drove past the Dean residence in Burlington, Vermont. Ahh, Burlington, Vermont...possibly one of the most liberal cities in the nation, hosting a governor who could give a damn about the rights of women. This is supposed to be the pro women party! This is supposed to be the party that "realizes the threat of banning Affirmative Action", this is the party that will guarantee your right to kill your baby, this is the party that will do whatever is in their power to get the first female to the white house in American History.  Is this really who the feminists of America align themselves with? Its absolute hypocrisy. You know what? Its all BS. Democrats pretend to be the party for women, but when it actually comes down to protecting the rights of women around the world, democrats fail...miserably.


    Morrison

Comments (25)

  • 1. nice pic you look dashing.
    2. i don't get it mabye that's because i was to busy stuffing my face with with chicken wings

  • That pic makes you look dead sexay.

    I would figure you of all people would realize that the left has no sense of humor. That is why they are leftists.

  • Hahahaha "leftists." Well, that is funny at least. Feel free to mock Dean for the mistakes he has made - they are plenty. But the interview you are referring to occurred on a Sunday morning news program, and Dean was (inarticulately, as usual) expressing concern over the nascent Iraqi constitution and its potential to harm womens' rights in the country.

    As far as spinning the truth, you still have the "libs" outmatched... case in point, your conventiently modified "debate" in which you put the "wacky lib" in his place.

  • Wyoming, there are people from all parties and political beliefs who are credible, and who will spin the truth and lie.  Anyway, it's very possible it will be two women running against each-other in '08, I hope so at least.  The only person I would like more then Condeleza would be Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.  And also, democrats fail to protect the rights of all people around the world, not just women.

  • Hey, I'm really pleased that you started the Rushaholics blogring. Thanks for having the sanity to stand up to the libs. :)

  • Leftists make for horrible feminists.

  • "Wyoming, there are people from all parties and political beliefs who are credible, and who will spin the truth and lie."

    -Indeed. But judging from Morisson's generalization in the post, "libs are very good at spinning the truth," it should be him you are addressing with that little gem.

    "Anyway, it's very possible it will be two women running against each-other in '08, I hope so at least."

    -Possible, though I still doubt it. One female candidate would be quite impressive, I think.

    "The only person I would like more then Condeleza would be Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly."

    -A frightening proposition, to say the least.

    "And also, democrats fail to protect the rights of all people around the world, not just women."

    -With that statement, you are making a couple of insinuations that are disconcerting to me.
    1. This implies that somehow Republicans are more fit, or do a better job of protecting the rights of "all people around the world." If this is what you believe, I urge you to learn about what is going on in Sudan as we speak (the genocide in Sudan is merely a start, one example). I do not think that Democrats alone are indictable for their failures in protecting other people. This seems to be more of a universal problem - it does not abide by the lines of one party, or even a single nation. To me the failure to assist a fellow human being is an affliction that needs to be overcome by all.
    2. It also implies that it is the duty and responsibility of Americans (or Democrats at least) to protect the rights of "all people around the world." My feelings about such a notion are fairly ambivalent, and I would be curious what you would have to say to that, but I would also suggest that perhaps before we go off protecting peoples in far off places, we ensure that those among us who are in danger can be brought to safety.

  • "The new Iraqi constitution should be based on Islamic tenets with restrictions on women's rights on issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance laws, members of a committee drafting the document declared.

    Shia members are trying to make the new constitution less secular, insisting that is the wish of the majority of the electorate who voted for Shia-dominated and religion-based parties."

    WyomingSheepRanch is right when he mentions the failures the Iraq constitution has had on the women of Iraq. Rather than to help women in this so-called new found democracy, the Iraqi constitution has proved rather detrimental in ensuring the rights of the Iraqi women. And this is what I find quite interesting, the problem here when creating a constituion is not insomuch as political for the women but as cultural. They of course have lived under a culture with these "traditional values" where women have always played a subordinate part. This is all part of the culture of course since throughout history in ANY culture women have been viewed as subordinate. However as times progressed, thanks to the liberals in the progressive era, women have received civil rights. Some places, like the Middle East have been left behind because of their values, which although outdated they still hold dear.

    Now back to the issue at hand:

    "One of the critical passages is in Article 14 of the chapter, a sweeping measure that would require court cases dealing with matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion.

    Under that measure, Shiite women in Iraq, no matter what their age, generally could not marry without their families' permission. Under some interpretations of Shariah, men could attain a divorce simply by stating their intention three times in their wives' presence."

    As the Iraqi constitution missed its deadline in midst of civil chaos and war, we all know that it is difficult to create such a safe democracy under these circumstances. Of course as the old saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in one day." But I do not think Rome ever had to deal with a theocratic regime. It had the best intentions to ensure everyone at the republic would have a chance, and of course no civil war was going on between people of opposing religions that would create dissent.

    Oh ye who so truly hold religion close to heart, it is these issues that in fact are dividing the people in Iraq even more. WyomingSheepRanch said it best when he said, "the failure to asist a fellow human being is an affliction that needs to be overcome by all." So why go on bashing Howard Dean when he simply is concerned for the women in Iraq. I understand its the semantics of what he said that truly shocked you and of course every policitian screws up when they say something radical but perhaps mean something else. There is a whole word dedicated to Bush's screw ups, they're called Bushisms. Our own president has been recorded as saying such asinine comments.

    In fact your whole post is asinine for such generalizations and shameful attacks made on the left that really have no basis whatsoever. What harm can Howard Dean do? Send people into a war based on lies? Quite frankly thats the president's job. In any case, we're in the quagmire called Iraq and we have to finish it.

    Also let us analyze some aspect in history, and its irony. It has been said that Hussein's regime was quite secular. Now that he is out of power and a constitution for a new democracy is being created people actually want this new government and constitution to be less secular. Imagine that. Let us remember, though, secular government is only good so far as it advanced freedom and protects natural rights. Natural rights for men, women and children alike.

    So to you Morrison, who gets comments on his looks by 30 year old men, I say to you...

    quit copying Rush Limbaugh and listening to his opinions verbatim. Think for yourself.

    That is all.

    Your Faithful Libertarian,
           Francisco

  • "As far as spinning the truth, you still have the "libs" outmatched... case in point, your conventiently modified "debate" in which you put the "wacky lib" in his place."

    Let us not also forget the whole debacle with Neolibertarian....

    Morrison even modified that debate for his own benefit when he clearly lost. Oh and also he wont debate with me on AIM..

    What the hell Morrison?

  • Any right given to Iraqi women in the constitution will be an upgrade from Hussein's regime, any attempt to defend his comment would be utterly futile. 

  • It may be an upgrade but by no means the same rights given to the women in the western nations.

    A

  • And religion still wants to creep inside their government....its a democracy not a theocracy, get the prefixes right.

  • "Any right given to Iraqi women in the constitution will be an upgrade from Hussein's regime"

    So are we there merely for upgrades now? Whatever happened to the institution of freedom and democracy? Now any simple upgrade is sufficient? His comment was defensible in that, all partisan nit-pickery aside, there is - and should exist - a genuine concern for the future of the peoples of Iraq. We are there now, and as far as I am concerned, the only way to finish the job that has begun is to finish it properly. To me, that means genuine freedoms, not simply "upgrades from Hussein's regime."

  • And religion still wants to creep inside their government....its a democracy not a theocracy, get the prefixes right.

    Now that you have the prefixes right, Snake_Charmer, get the Athenian meaning right.  Democracy means "power of the people."  If the people are, of a whole, religious, shouldn't their government also be religious?
    Government can include religion and be democratic without being theocratic.

  • i still want my APOLOGY, mike.

  • "Now that you have the prefixes right, Snake_Charmer, get the Athenian meaning right.  Democracy means "power of the people."  If the people are, of a whole, religious, shouldn't their government also be religious?
    Government can include religion and be democratic without being theocratic."

    Yeah but when they want to add Sharia law to the constitution which is the biggest factor in curtailing women's rights then Im not gonna buy that. Religion here does not promote individual liberty in fact, as Ive stated many times before it is the reason for conflict and curtailing women's rights.

    This is my biggest problem with the issue of the constitution that such ideals, brought on by their beliefs, are being added to the constitution and denying a certain group's rights.

    So although you are correct that government can include religion and still be democratic without being theocratic, such ideals serve no place in the constitution, especially if they are curbing someone else's rights.

    Also not to mention there have been arguements to make the constitution LESS secular, and on a whole people are protesting against it.

    The will of the people my friend, they dont like a less secular government, democracy in action.

  • Westernization (often paired with democracy) has become synonymous with Americanization, and though Hussein's regime was utterly tyrannous, the women's rights that we have to offer are most likely not those of which Iraqi women would particularly enjoy to adopt ... consider abortion, access to birth control, and freedom of speech, all of which have been long drummed into Iraqi women as evil and unlawful. My point? If we use our model of women's rights -- rampant feminism, moral wrongdoing, and blatant disrespect for sexuality, how do we give the Iraqi women anything to look up to? Moreover, how do we give them any choice?

  • "[T]he women's rights that we have to offer are most likely not those of which Iraqi women would particularly enjoy to adopt ... consider abortion, access to birth control, and freedom of speech, all of which have been long drummed into Iraqi women as evil and unlawful. My point? If we use our model of women's rights -- rampant feminism, moral wrongdoing, and blatant disrespect for sexuality, how do we give the Iraqi women anything to look up to? Moreover, how do we give them any choice?"

    The point is that none of those have anything to do with "Womens' Rights" other than freedom of speech, and even freedom of speech is only protected from government intervention. On a personal or private level we have a right to restrict speech all we like. Abortion and birth control have only used "Womens' Rights" as a trojan horse. Nothing more.

  • I think you draw up a good point chevycharmer because you point out that these two cultures are in fact vastly different. However I was referring to other rights that were being denied by women in the previous constitution.

    "The new Iraqi constitution should be based on Islamic tenets with restrictions on women's rights on issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance laws, members of a committee drafting the document declared."

    Of course these are the basic rights given to women all around the world. Abortion and Birth Control all fall into the right to privacy issues. They are not necessarily basic rights but additional rights that are given unto women as a choice. Not everyone has to use birth control and not everyone has to do an abortion.

    Have you read the book The Awakening? Its a really good feminist book, but with a controversial ending. Well I think it is.

  • "Have you read the book The Awakening? "

    Had to read it in high school. I thought it was incredibly lame.

  • Hmm, I didn't think of that. Consider, however, that those issues, though private, are given the most attention in our society now. I still stand behind my point about the Iraqi view of "Western" women -- we, as American women, are given these rights and many abuse them to the max. I'm amazed that Americans on the whole aren't ashamed of what's in our media, because that's what's projected to the rest of the world ...

    Whole different box of frogs.

    Thanks for the corrections, guys

  • Actually I am fairly certain that most Americans are ashamed of our news media.

  • Okay, without being so naive as to assume that I know most Americans, I can say that the teenage generation isn't ashamed ... but that may be because they generally don't give a hoot.

    What makes you certain? I'd be more ashamed of the programming than what's on the news ...

  • Frankly I am ashamed of both.

  • I concur.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment