Sparkle Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Oh, speak it! Palin/Jindal! Oh my goodness. My heart is all aflutter! That would be awesome. :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Well, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. I've read the article you linked twice now and I guess you'll have to spell it out for me. Do you think that a woman cannot be in charge of our military? Do you think she'll make decisions without regard to any advice she has received from her advisors? Could you be more specific as to what your trying to say? She's saying it's against scripture to allow a woman to be the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, people shouldn't vote McCain/Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 But if my point holds, then it's too bad the Brits didn't have a man who could have done the same. Phred? Phred? Is that YOU, Phred? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Well, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. I've read the article you linked twice now and I guess you'll have to spell it out for me. Do you think that a woman cannot be in charge of our military? Do you think she'll make decisions without regard to any advice she has received from her advisors? Could you be more specific as to what your trying to say? Good question. I think a woman "can" be in charge of our military and even do a better job than any man. But I agree with the main point of this article, i.e., that when God appoints a woman to hold a political office, it can be interpreted as part of His displeasure with that nation generally, and with the men in that nation particularly. If, as the article points out, a political office is a function of the sword, then its a sign of a people's weakness for a woman's hand to be the strongest to wield it. Unfortunately, women are regularly called upon to do the job of abdicating men. Shame on the men who abdicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I don't get the Palin/Jindal thing Are people planning for McCain to keel over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 She's saying it's against scripture to allow a woman to be the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, people shouldn't vote McCain/Palin. Uh... not really. I'm not sure who we should vote for and don't pretend to offer my advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I get the impression (and maybe I'm wrong) that nobody is worried about the law changing. I think they are worried that the Religious Right won't vote for a woman VP when the male presidential candidate is 75. Nah. Not a chance. Not many are *that* far right. Only mostly right. (You know what to do when they're all the way right, don't you? You go through their pockets and look for loose change.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Uh... not really. I'm not sure who we should vote for and don't pretend to offer my advice. If you don't agree with the link and its implications then why did you post it? Expounding for yourself when you post something helps avoid these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I don't get the Palin/Jindal thing Are people planning for McCain to keel over? No, I think that they are forward-looking folks. In four years' time, the dream ticket. I don't know more than five things about either of those people. But stranger things have happened. We elected Jimmy Carter once upon a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Nah. Not a chance. Not many are *that* far right. Only mostly right. (You know what to do when they're all the way right, don't you? You go through their pockets and look for loose change.) If only that were true. I know some of the people that far right....not that they come over and drink my Mike's with me or anything but I know some of them in passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura in VA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Good question. I think a woman "can" be in charge of our military and even do a better job than any man. But I agree with the main point of this article, i.e., that when God appoints a woman to hold a political office, it can be interpreted as part of His displeasure with that nation generally, and with the men in that nation particularly. If, as the article points out, a political office is a function of the sword, then its a sign of a people's weakness for a woman's hand to be the strongest to wield it. Unfortunately, women are regularly called upon to do the job of abdicating men. Shame on the men who abdicate. Just curious, was this gentleman as concerned when Hillary Clinton was running? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Or maybe I'm naive. Not at all. I think you are spot on correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Pam, that must be true, because I am always going through dh's pockets. Jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 If you don't agree with the link and its implications then why did you post it? Expounding for yourself when you post something helps avoid these situations. I wholeheartedly agree with the link. I just disagree with your conclusion that I think it implies "don't vote for McCain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Just curious, was this gentleman as concerned when Hillary Clinton was running? Hillary is a Democrat, the Religious Right isn't voting for her, anyway. So, she's a moot point. :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I don't get the Palin/Jindal thing Are people planning for McCain to keel over? nah --we're just waiting for the Republican party to actually back a CONSERVATIVE ticket. The running joke is that not only are the two Presidential candidates senators, they are also Democrats ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura in VA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Phred? Phred? Is that YOU, Phred? :lol: :lol: I was thinking the same thing. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Just curious, was this gentleman as concerned when Hillary Clinton was running? More so, but for more reasons, too - namely, I disagree with Hilary's political views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 If only that were true. I know some of the people that far right....not that they come over and drink my Mike's with me or anything but I know some of them in passing. Sure, I know some as well. But the groundswell mainstream for whom this pick was picked? No. Not IMO, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 :lol: I was thinking the same thing. :D Phred's wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Mrs. Mungo and Pam, you guys are cracking me up. Quick Draw McGraws. Jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 :lol: I was thinking the same thing. :D Turns of phrase, choices of words, a certain... parry and thrust. Tease and scoot out of the way. BUT I'm probably wrong. I'm batting not-so-well today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura in VA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Hillary is a Democrat, the Religious Right isn't voting for her, anyway. So, she's a moot point. :tongue_smilie: Yes, I get that. I was asking if the author of the article had voiced concerns when she was running. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Phred's wife. Are you kidding or telling the truth? Jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Phred's wife. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Phred's wife. No way. Really? You finally decided to join us? Very nice. :lol: Great opening lunge, by the way. Oh, the many personalities we enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Turns of phrase, choices of words, a certain... parry and thrust. Tease and scoot out of the way. BUT I'm probably wrong. I'm batting not-so-well today. Pam, you are coming in late in the game, but battin 1000 in my eyes. Jet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Are you kidding or telling the truth? Jet I'm kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Sure, I know some as well. But the groundswell mainstream for whom this pick was picked? No. Not IMO, anyway. Oh, I agree with you there, no question. So...would it be wrong to discourage this sort of thing only because I'm a Dem? I see the faulty logic, it can even be argued Biblically (look at the women who won battles for the Israelites like Jael or women leaders like Deborah or the women in Christ's ministry). But, I'd rather play along. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yes, I get that. I was asking if the author of the article had voiced concerns when she was running. That's all. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. No, I don't think the author voiced any concerns. That may be because he didn't think Hilary had a chance, and so his concerns were not so pressing. Or it may be that he's new on the blogging scene. I'm pretty sure, though, that this has been his longstanding position since it seems pretty thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Oh, I agree with you there, no question. So...would it be wrong to discourage this sort of thing only because I'm a Dem? I see the faulty logic, it can even be argued Biblically (look at the women who won battles for the Israelites like Jael or women leaders like Deborah or the women in Christ's ministry). But, I'd rather play along. :lol: I'd rather play along, too. But then, I already cited Thather and Maier. Those who would answer the Biblical argument would say that only because there were not righteous men who were committed to service did God allow woman to step out of their usual place. It was a temporary thing and not to be referenced as doctrine or example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Pam, that must be true, because I am always going through dh's pockets. Jet *snort* Me, too. He's starting to approach center, but it's a S-L-O-W process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I'd say Palin is an bold, interesting choice for sure. However, the choice only solidifies my opposition to McCain. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I'd rather play along, too. But then, I already cited Thather and Maier. Those who would answer the Biblical argument would say that only because there were not righteous men who were committed to service did God allow woman to step out of their usual place. It was a temporary thing and not to be referenced as doctrine or example. As true as I know this is, it makes me cranky and I can't make fun of it like I wish I could. :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 No, the point is your point does not hold. I'll not be voting for McCain/Palin but her gender in no way disqualifies her serving as Vice-President in this man's option. Bill I agree. Her gender does not disqualify her. You must have missed the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 She appeals to me for many more reasons than that she's a she. Heck, if you were to put Lieberman in that dress, I'd be just about as happy. :lol: If only she were Lieberman. Or even someone approaching a Lieberman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I agree. Her gender does not disqualify her. You must have missed the point. Sometimes people miss the point, sometimes people fail to make one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I agree. Her gender does not disqualify her. You must have missed the point. If that wasn't the point, then, pray tell, what was the point. Of the linked article, I mean. Women should be keepers at home. They should not be ruling nations. It bodes ill for a nation that selects a woman for high (highest?) office. Where does "does not disqualify her" fit into that? You mean legally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I agree. Her gender does not disqualify her. You must have missed the point. Can you help us out? What was the point? :auto: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Sometimes people miss the point, sometimes people fail to make one. Dang. Another great phrase I have to squeeze into my signature line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 If that wasn't the point, then, pray tell, what was the point. Of the linked article, I mean. Women should be keepers at home. They should not be ruling nations. It bodes ill for a nation that selects a woman for high (highest?) office. Where does "does not disqualify her" fit into that? You mean legally? A woman may be legally qualified, i.e., according to the law of the land (as in our nation). And she may be qualified in terms of her ability to do a good job in said office. But what does this "mean?" The author of the article seems to think that it means the nation is compromised when such a situation arises. Thus the title of my first post "celebration or mourning." Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 A woman may be legally qualified, i.e., according to the law of the land (as in our nation). And she may be qualified in terms of her ability to do a good job in said office. But what does this "mean?" The author of the article seems to think that it means the nation is compromised when such a situation arises. Thus the title of my first post "celebration or mourning." Hope that helps. Come on, stop being a chicken and take a stand. Would you vote for a woman for president assuming there was a male for whom you could vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 A woman may be legally qualified, i.e., according to the law of the land (as in our nation). And she may be qualified in terms of her ability to do a good job in said office. But what does this "mean?" The author of the article seems to think that it means the nation is compromised when such a situation arises. Thus the title of my first post "celebration or mourning." Hope that helps. I got your post title. I think the point that was made that you said was missed is that her sex disqualifies her, because it would then compromise the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Come on, stop being a chicken and take a stand. Would you vote for a woman for president assuming there was a male for whom you could vote? I think we should have a king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I think we should have a king. And I think we should all have free Mike's every Friday. Except for the fundamentalists. They can have grape juice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I think we should have a king. *backs away from thread before I get the ban hammer* eta: Pam, I was cracking up so hard all of my kids came upstairs to see what the heck was so funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Mrs. Mungo let up already! Good grief...she's a new poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura in VA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I think we should have a king. Ok, I'm getting out of this one. :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 *backs away from thread before I get the ban hammer* eta: Pam, I was cracking up so hard all of my kids came upstairs to see what the heck was so funny. My point exactly - a woman is not made to fight. :D Key phrase "made" - not to imply that they're not good at (as our little frackas demonstrates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura in VA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 And I think we should all have free Mike's every Friday. Except for the fundamentalists. They can have grape juice. Hey, wait a minute. I may lean towards being a fundamentalist, but after these last few posts, I think I'd like to try a Mike's. May I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts