Thanks Waggie for keeping a civil tongue. I appreciate that. And yes the gender card is important. Its called manners, respect. Not respect for my views necessarily, but respect for womanhood. Any woman who doesn't use a loggers tongue in the first place deserves respect. My "ramblings" are the views of women and whats important to them. Your views, a mans view, is not the total picture and the only one that needs to be considered. Think it absurd if you want, however women have long since realized we have to paint a picture of how we feel for a man to understand us. Its not that men are lacking in something, merely the fact we're talking about an area foreign to them. Instead of blowing up at you for not understanding, we paint a picture. Ashamed of myself? For what, telling the truth. Calling him a coward is being nice. How about "Traitor". You see Waggie, I'm a bit older than you. I was part of the Democratic Party leadership while Kerry and his friend Hanoi Jane were tearing the military efforts apart. I agreed the war was wrong, but his activities caused more damage and casualties. When you're in the thick of it, it leaves a lasting impression. When you're there when the boys come home to hatred, it leaves a lasting impression. When you're part of the drive to get our POW/MIA's home, or their remains, and you put such stock in the committee headed by a "war hero" Senator from Mass., only to find out he sold out to Hanoi, it leaves a lasting impression.
9/11 As Campaign Fodder A firestorm raced through the presidential campaigns last week over the use of ground zero images in televised ads to re-elect George Bush. The ads feature World Trade Center ruins and firefighters removing a victim's flag-draped remains. Some of the 9/11 families and a firefighters union condemned the ads as exploiting a tragedy for political gain. The president refuses to alter or drop the ads, arguing that the way the administration handled that day, and the war on terror, is "worthy of discussion." He is right, but he should proceed with caution. From the American Revolution to Vietnam, wars have defined presidents - for good or bad. As an issue requiring voter judgment, the war on terror is no different. The inclusion of 9/11 in Bush campaign ads is just as legitimate as, say, tax cuts. Both are signature aspects of his term, building a record on which to run, or stumble. Taste is an individual matter, but considering how gruesome the media can get with war imagery, the ads appear to pass the test of appropriateness. As for political exploitation, it's difficult to see how these ads differ from Democratic candidate John Kerry's emphasis on Vietnam. But here's a cautionary note. A senior Bush political strategist was recently quoted as saying the president "owns" 9/11. He does not "own" this event; the country does. The remark hints at the kind of arrogance that so often creeps into a presidency, and it bears watching as the campaign progresses, especially at the GOP convention in New York City. A double standard also seems to be at work here. The president approves the image of the ceremonial removal of a ground zero victim, but does not allow the media to film the arrival ceremonies of soldiers killed in Iraq as they are returned to the US. That speaks to a side of the war also "worthy of discussion." What might Mr. Kerry do with such footage?
I like how you dodged my post. It looks like Kerry is not the only coward here, so are you. BTW, how has your trading been lately? You making any money. Because according to you, your not. I'm sorry to hear that. If you need any help in that regard I would love to lend a helping hand. I'm a nice guy. I'll show you how you can start making money again on a consistent basis like you did back during the Clinton years. Just say the word.
Answer the question ART. Are you a woman?? If not, then how can you question whether other women feel as I do?? There is a certain thread that is common to women, just as there is a thread common to men. It is YOUR assertion that I speak for ALL women, I didn't say that. I merely said I was presenting a woman's view. And since I talk to other women about whats going on, I think I pretty much have a handle on it. So ART, are you a woman?????
Gender takes a back to humanity in my book. Those who lead with their gender haven't a third leg to stand on. That you or anyone plays the gender card is laughable as some foundation for an argument. Gender, race, religion, ethnicity should be irrelevant to issues that effect all Americans. You must be a woman, you are argue like one. However, you certainly don't speak for all of them. http://www.now.org/
Don't know how many times I have to say it ART, yes I am a woman. I've noticed you take the liberty of declaring the views of others as though its an absolute fact, and you aren't part of that group at all. That's pretty arrogant and foolish. Once again, I never said I was speaking FOR ALL WOMEN. That is YOUR assertion. Be that as it may ART, you have absolutely no basis on which to disqualify my remarks. You are not a woman, never will be a woman, don't think like a woman, don't have the heart and mind of a woman. Or is there something you haven't told everyone. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you aren't ART but ALICE.
You are a woman. Big deal. Hardly a unique situation. That means nothing more than saying you are a man, black, white, Asian, German, Hispanic, etc. in my book. You are a human being first, gender second. Useless as it relates to the topic at hand. Now, if we want to discuss pre-menstrual cycles, what it feels like to have a vagina, douching, breast feeding babies, what it feels like being a woman getting fucked by a man.... I will defer to your expertise in these areas that are uniquely female. However, when it comes to political discussions which are not uniquely female or male, your point of view of one woman is as meaningless or meaningful as the point of view of one man, or one black man, or black woman, or Christian man, or Christian woman.....etc, etc, etc.