SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : World Affairs Discussion
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (163)7/10/2002 12:07:02 AM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (1) of 3959
 
A country with a 200+ years of history, a country whose citizens criticize the treatment of women in other countries and cultures because their view and treatment of their womenfolk emantes from their "enlightend and progressive approaches" is why I used those examples. The women I mentioned were all democratically elected by the men folk and their women folk. Nobody came to power through a bloody coup or a deposition.

And you mention about dynastic rule. I think saying so is an insult to the people who have chosen democracy as their form of government. If dynasty was the name of the game, then how do you explain the assasination of Indira Gandhi, the deposing of Benazir Bhutto. A violent overthrow of a peacefully won election is surely not because of dynastic rule. It is purely because they are meritorious, they are peaceful. Saying that the US women are not there yet (200+ years) and hence we cannot have a woman President is something that I would allow to rest as is.

terra.es
terra.es
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News