Ward and June Cleaver

I believe it was President Wilson who said at the end that his greatest regret was giving in to the banks. I'd look it up but who needs facts right?

Yup, Wilson, one of the greatest Presidents since Jimmy Carter -- or was it the other way around.

Overall, I agree with what you posted Colette however a woman cannot do anything a man can do just like a man cannot do anything a woman can do. That is the fallacy perpetuated by people like Gloria Steinem. Men and Women were never meant to be equal just as in the Asian thought of Ying and Yang. They will never be equal because they are on different sides - each is meant to compliment the other, not compete with the other. The two sides bring their own strengths and weaknesses to the table just as the two working together provide balance. That is what has been lost and is what we don't have presently -- balance.
Originally Posted by LonesomeDove

That is very true, and one of the reasons why the feminism that I grew up with failed to make an impression on me.The other reason, and the one that still bothers me the most is how the feminists of that time really had an us against them mentality.I could never understand the point of makeing one sex the bad one , and the other all good.

I do not think that anyone actually wants to go back , and live in the 1950s, but we can learn a lot from how people related to each other , and lived their lives in past times.

I believe it was President Wilson who said at the end that his greatest regret was giving in to the banks. I'd look it up but who needs facts right? Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world -- no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson

Of course you can believe the quote or not. That is since the progressivley biased site Slate seems to think it's a misquote, but then again they weren't around back then. Or maybe they've just stricken it from history...

I have a great memory, i's just very short. TY, DFW5Traveler.

quoted from dfw5traveler: Jackson, "killed the bank" as he stated on his death bed. Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, then threatened, "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.

I find it difficult to reconcile the above statement attributed to Andrew Jackson. He could have said it but not from a position of power, methinks, since his term as president didn't begin until 1829. Originally Posted by John Bull

From the Hermitage website.

Jackson distrusted banks in general, but he realized that they played an important role in the U.S. economy. However, Jackson believed the Bank of the United States held too much power and could wield it at any moment to ruin the U.S. economy. Furthermore, the Bank’s stockholders were mainly foreign investors with allegiances to other governments, so Jackson also viewed the Bank’s power as a threat to national security. The crux of the issue for Jackson was the never ending battle between liberty and power in government. In Jackson’s belief system, people sacrificed some individual liberty for the beneficial aspects of government, but if any government institution became too powerful it stood as a direct threat to individual liberty.

Ahh the 50's....

re: 1812 Quite a simplification to claim it was all about a central bank; I think there was the issue of impressment of US sailors into the British Navy, trade restrictions put in by the British w.r.t commerce with France, British help to Indian raids, and the firing upon the Chesapeake. But by all means go ahead and claim it was about a bank :roll:

I could never understand the point of making one sex the bad one, and the other all good. Originally Posted by Becky

I always figured any sex was good. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant? Nevermind. http://www.you-tube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

SR you are quite funny today

This is why Photoshop should be licensed like a car as a way to keep the public safe from disasters. Originally Posted by SR Only

I always figured any sex was good. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant? Nevermind. http://www.you-tube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0 Originally Posted by SR Only

re: 1812 Quite a simplification to claim it was all about a central bank; I think there was the issue of impressment of US sailors into the British Navy, trade restrictions put in by the British w.r.t commerce with France, British help to Indian raids, and the firing upon the Chesapeake. But by all means go ahead and claim it was about a bank :roll: Originally Posted by discreetgent

I wasn't clear in my statement in that I didn't quibble with Jackson's inherent dislike and distrust of central banks. My disagreement was that the War of 1812 would not have been started based on an official statement or action of Jackson's because he wasn't in a position of high political power at the time.

SR you are quite funny today Originally Posted by Becky

Shhhhhh. Don't let PJ know that!

I wasn't clear in my statement in that I didn't quibble with Jackson's inherent dislike and distrust of central banks. My disagreement was that the War of 1812 would not have been started based on an official statement or action of Jackson's because he wasn't in a position of high political power at the time. Originally Posted by John Bull

I wasn't clear that I was quibbling not with your post but with the original post that posited the war of 1812 was fought because a British financier was upset at the US not having a national bank.

step daughter equivalent???? that's a new one Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Long term live-in girlfriend's daughter. I'm put her through college and now though med school.

LD, I agree with you so much. My favorite saying is "Men and women were never meant to compete with each other; but to complement each other."

I believe women that don't realize their true worth and possibly feel they are beneath men, try to compete to show they are equal. If women understood their value as women, they wouldn't try to compete. Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

More evidence that I did in fact understand your argument. Women compete with men all the time. They do it in courtrooms, in law firms, in universities, for jobs in business, etc. To suggest that your line of reasoning is consistent with women having equal economic opportunity is ridiculous. Your notion of women being above men, but economically dependent on them, is likewise ridiculous. Freedom comes from the ability to make your own choices. While I agree that one should be able to choose to be a housewife, it is not a very empowering choice from an economic standpoint, and leaves the unemployed spouse at the economic mercy of the husband, at least until the woman has children with the man.

And what turns my stomach is not the exposure to unfamiliar arguments, but instead is to see repeated the same old arguments that should have been swept away by the broom of progress 40 years ago.

And for some of the guys posting here, I have a question. Do you have daughters? Do you tell them that they should be dependent on men and not have economic freedom and independence? And if so, how do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? Should your daughter find herself in an unhappy relationship and want to leave, don't you want her to have the ability to say "Fuck you, I'm out of here," and pick up her shit and go and live in a style to which she has become accustomed on her own income? Go buy a house, have a new car every few years, hire a nanny for the kids so she can have a profession, etc. without having to have someone else pay for it? I'm really curious what some of you tell your female children they should aspire to?

Long term live-in girlfriend's daughter. I'm put her through college and now though med school.



More evidence that I did in fact understand your argument. Women compete with men all the time. They do it in courtrooms, in law firms, in universities, for jobs in business, etc. To suggest that your line of reasoning is consistent with women having equal economic opportunity is ridiculous. Your notion of women being above men, but economically dependent on them, is likewise ridiculous. Freedom comes from the ability to make your own choices. While I agree that one should be able to choose to be a housewife, it is not a very empowering choice from an economic standpoint, and leaves the unemployed spouse at the economic mercy of the husband, at least until the woman has children with the man.

And what turns my stomach is not the exposure to unfamiliar arguments, but instead is to see repeated the same old arguments that should have been swept away by the broom of progress 40 years ago.

And for some of the guys posting here, I have a question. Do you have daughters? Do you tell them that they should be dependent on men and not have economic freedom and independence? And if so, how do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? Should your daughter find herself in an unhappy relationship and want to leave, don't you want her to have the ability to say "Fuck you, I'm out of here," and pick up her shit and go and live in a style to which she has become accustomed on her own income? Go buy a house, have a new car every few years, hire a nanny for the kids so she can have a profession, etc. without having to have someone else pay for it? I'm really curious what some of you tell your female children they should aspire to? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

TTH,

I commend you on being a successful attorney but what you wrote above certainly makes me question you and your values. It is perceptions like yours that I find both foolish and preposterous since it is borne out of the liberalism of the late 60’s/early '70's. To me what you wrote shows a lack of values that both sexes should have for each other. That crap should have died way back then instead of being carried forward to today. There is a reason why the family structure in this country has broken down like it has and the perspective you have illustrated certainly shows me that views like yours are at the heart of the matter. I made it very clear that women and men are not equal and never will be equal, period. Yet they are meant to be complementary to each other but the context I wrote that idea was within a Spiritual nature and in regards to a man and a woman being in a relationship, usually romantic. Your non-sequitur extrapolation of competiveness of the sexes was based on mainly the workplace or other social events. Consequentially, that was not something I was addressing nor considering since it was not germane to me at the time I made my post.

Frankly, I find liberal views like yours to be the heart of the matter being discussed in this thread and you are right in line with the likes of Gloria Steinem as well as other feminist leaders including Betty Friedan, Fannie Lou Hamer, Myrlie Evers, Shirley Chisholm and Bella Abzug. What you appeared to not have done is to wrap your legalistic mind around what was posted by me or some of the others and understand from where at least I was coming as it was Spiritual in nature not a humanistic. There is no real way around the fact that since God is no longer in school, that the mere mention of God at high school football games or in the Judiciary such as with the posting of the 10 Commandments creates drama when it should not. There are any number of other examples which I could provide but essentially what I have provided as examples has lead to a breakdown in how people act, treat others or handle their affairs in this country since there seems to be no hard moral compass like there used to be. In addition to the foregoing Atheism is the idea that it has been a leading issue in the breakdown of the American home and family structure due to its pernicious nature. There is far more to life than the almighty dollar but so many people have forgotten that fact and you appear to be a part of that group given how you negatively view a housewife from an economic standpoint. In my view, that is tunnel vision as it does not reflect what a woman does when she is holding down the home front but it is a typical argument for a liberal. I hasten to point out that all of this was being spoken about by Spiritual leaders who were writing and speaking to this Country before either you or I was past junior school. The unfortunate thing is how people interact with each other also dictates how the sexes interact and how the family structure goes also dictates how people interact with each other.

Now to answer your question about how my ex and I have reared our daughter, she was taught that she can do anything she sets her mind to do, within reason. This was also framed within a Spiritual mindset and she knows what her roles and responsibilities are. Since she went to a Northeast school like Lehigh, she is not some backwoods fundamentalist who has not seen the world. Rather she has had the opportunity to study abroad at Oxford as well as travel both England and France extensively in addition to doing Peace Corp like work in Central America. She is probably the only liberal I know who thinks the death penalty is a good thing and has her own guns who is also very capable of shooting a .22 shell casing at 50 feet with no scope and hitting it every time she tries to do so.

There is little doubt that you and I will ever agree on much of anything but you certainly are entitled to your opinions as am I.


** NOTE **
I realize what this board is meant for and what I just posted is going to upset some but that is life so get over it and yourself. You don't like what I posted then just move along to the next post, or thread, that makes you feel better.