A woman can be as effective of an executive leader as a man. What the **** is going on around here.
Old Army Metal said:Have you read the bible?nortex97 said:
their whole political/theological belief system disqualifies them from office in my opinion, as racist, evil, misogynist, antisemitic, and generally dishonest
raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
mazag08 said:
I took his "submissive to their husband" comment as the biblical meaning, not some current day sexist remark.
But I don't think he's understanding the context around the biblical meaning judging by the rest of his post and couldn't disagree with him more about his conclusion.
She was such a badass!nutmegger_aggie said:
and to follow up (start at 9:30 mark for greatness)
Great post! Exactly what I was thinking but couldn't quite type it into words. What's the podcast?NCNJ1217 said:raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
Ok, don't want to get too deep into this on a politics post vs a religion post, but just wanted to say that I think your statement here is too simplistic and you are misapplying it.
I listen to a particular Christian podcast and recently the topic has been marriage, and the "wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord" was one of the items.
#1, the "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" only applies in a covenantal marriage relationship, and further, in a God-centered marriage relationship. It doesn't apply to all women submitting to all men, or any such nonsense.
#2 really isn't relevant to the OP, but I feel obligated to continue to explain a little more for the benefit of bystanders to my post: the "submit to your husbands as to the Lord" doesn't exclude shared decision making, which should happen all the time, and maybe even arguing! The "submit" should really only come into play if there isn't an agreement, to "break the tie" so to speak. The speaker in the podcast's example was it had only happened less than 10 times in many decades of his own marriage.
There is a lot more here and if anyone is interested in listening to the podcast I'm referencing, PM me.
What if she wasn't married?raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
What in the world does that have to do with anything related to his post?Pumpkinhead said:raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?
First, you obviously didn't read the posts above that discuss the "submissive to your husband" comment. Second, I see nothing about race is his post. You are the first to insinuate anything about race, which tells me a lot about you.Pumpkinhead said:mazag08 said:What in the world does that have to do with anything related to his post?Pumpkinhead said:raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?
Lol, did you read the frigging thing? Was a post copied right out of the male chauvinist handbook. You think it likely that a woman wrote that?
mazag08 said:First, you obviously didn't read the posts above that discuss the "submissive to your husband" comment. Second, I see nothing about race is his post. You are the first to insinuate anything about race, which tells me a lot about you.Pumpkinhead said:mazag08 said:What in the world does that have to do with anything related to his post?Pumpkinhead said:raging_agaholic said:
The Jo Jorgensen thread made me think of this. While I believe that there are effective female business leaders and elected officials that have been good in their respective roles, I don't like the idea of our nation being lead by a woman as the executive. I believe that a wife should be submissive to her husband and in a role as commander in chief she would have a conflict in that regard. Are we electing her, or her husband? Not to mention, how would other nations (Middle Eastern and Russia/China to name a few) receive her in a potential negotiation?
I'm not trolling and feel free to flame away, but I don't think we should ever have a female president even if I agree with her politics and business acumen. Too many uncomfortable and unstable scenarios.
Anonymously posted but let me guess...you are a white male. Did I guess that correctly?
Lol, did you read the frigging thing? Was a post copied right out of the male chauvinist handbook. You think it likely that a woman wrote that?
Probably the only real badass the United Kingdom has had running the country post-Churchill.e=mc2 said:She was such a badass!nutmegger_aggie said:
and to follow up (start at 9:30 mark for greatness)
You assume that everyone has the same pyramid structure. I imagine that for minorities, racial issues are a lot farther up on the pyramid than they are on yours.TexAgs91 said:
The problem with any minority leading the country is that they would tend to make it all about the issues of whatever minority they are. Often at the expense of the rest of the country. Obviously they don't have to do this. There's plenty of great minority leaders. But the urge and pressure to do so as president would be too great.
Use the pyramid model. At the base you have your highest priorities. The Constitution. National defense. Law enforcement. Protection of basic rights. Mid-pyramid you have economy, etc. At the top you have the lower priority niceties. Going to the moon. Entitlements. Making sure every minority is happy. Etc.
Right now our Constitution and basic rights are under attack. So no. Not at this time.
This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.Old Army Metal said:Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.The Debt said:
Why do you assume he is white?
mazag08 said:This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.Old Army Metal said:Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.The Debt said:
Why do you assume he is white?
LOL "women can't be president because my book club said they should submit to their husbands" is OK but "I bet most of the posters on this forum are white" crosses the line.mazag08 said:This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.Old Army Metal said:Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.The Debt said:
Why do you assume he is white?
Providing color on the "submit to your husband" comment doesn't mean I agreed with his reasoning for using it. Go read my previous posts before you make a fool of yourself.Old Army Metal said:LOL "women can't be president because my book club said they should submit to their husbands" is OK but "I bet most of the posters on this forum are white" crosses the line.mazag08 said:This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.Old Army Metal said:Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.The Debt said:
Why do you assume he is white?
Fine, I'll edit it.
Race has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. But you guys threw it in. Therefore you've opened the door to examining the treatment and perception of women in America by other races and cultures.Old Army Metal said:LOL "women can't be president because my book club said they should submit to their husbands" is OK but "I bet most of the posters on this forum are white" crosses the line.mazag08 said:This is the kind of crap that doesn't need to be on this board.Old Army Metal said:Because it's F16, odds are pretty dang good.The Debt said:
Why do you assume he is white?
Fine, I'll edit it.