Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (481933)	5/18/2009 9:49:07 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574637

"You're right I don't get it. That's obvious, or you are ignoring the pertinent information ... again.

To: tejek who wrote (481933)	5/19/2009 4:19:45 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1574637

"See what happens when you lose site of purpose and principle. ... no, you probably don't get it." "You're right I don't get it." The significant other was never an issue. It was widely known that Hillary and Bill had a somewhat open relationship and he easily won elections because most of us did not see that as an issue. I pointed out to you that N.O.W., the most powerful social movement organization of the 20th century, desintegrated. The popularly supported term 'feminism' has been virtually dropped by those who backed it from the 60's to the 90's. You don't get it. When you sacrifice purpose and principle, as N.O.W. and the Feminist Spokesperson Gloria Steinam did, you lose nearly all legitimacy to exist as such an entity...as they did. The N.O.W. and the Feminist spokesperson had legitimacy in their declared purpose and principles which were to stand up for women with complaints of unequal treatment, harassment, abuse, assault, groping, rape etc. To you (and them it appears) principle and purpose can be discarded to support any old partisan candidate or pet peeve. But you are wrong as the history of their crumbled organisations should have taught you and them. What I ask, and you never answer is why? Why is a partisan candidate or partisan peeve which has no merit other than point counting against the other party mean anything to you. They can thrash a Supreme Court Judge over some youthful indiscretion in email correspondence while making excuses for a philandering rapist who has molested and abused women throughout his tenure. As can you, without regret. "I've never heard of a man's candidacy getting judged based on their relationship. You haven't listened to much. Men are always judged on their conduct with regards to other people and what that suggests about their character. Liars, theives, and silver tongued con men need not apply for candidacy if they want my vote. "Are their separate rules for women candidates?" Nope. "The National Organization for Women had an opportunity to endorse a brilliant and impressive married man named Barack Obama; a man who is a role model for what real men should be: (1) loving and protective fathers, (2) loyal husbands, (3) devoted family men, (4) concerned and caring citizens, and (5) intellectually developed men with social consciences. They didn’t endorse him, but preferred instead to signal women all over the world, that a couple (Billary) with a publicly dysfunctional marriage should be rewarded with another stint in the White house; this is sad; real sad; especially when women have taken so much crap from men, because too many of them lacked strength, morality, integrity, discipline and character. Too many of our social ills can be traced right back to the “missing father syndrome”, and to the heavy toll that divorce extracts from our society. The executive officers of NOW should be ashamed of themselves for endorsing Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, since it directly conflicts with their ideals, hopes, values and aspirations. " r8ny.com