Gloria Steinem

[fskimospy]

Everything surrounding the Hillary campaign is gross. It's amazing that her supporters hate the Republicans when they're practically indistinguishable from Trump, Cruz, and the rest of the clown car.

LOL Boberfett.

You try so hard to head butt this square peg into a round hole. It's embarrassing.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL Boberfett.

You try so hard to head butt this square peg into a round hole. It's embarrassing.

Your desperate spin as of late is a sad attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is the Hillary campaign. I can only imagine how butthurt you'll get if she actually loses. LOL eskimospy.

 

[fskimospy]

Your desperate spin as of late is a sad attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is the Hillary campaign. I can only imagine how butthurt you'll get if she actually loses. LOL eskimospy.

It will be unfortunate if she loses! Not because I have any attachment to her but because her loss makes a Republican win more likely.

None of that changes how stupid your claims are that she's no different than Cruz or Trump, which is what I was laughing at. You said something dumb and got called on it and there's no way you're going to win this one. I can keep making fun of you about it if you want though, as you react pretty violently when teased.

 

[BoberFett]

It will be unfortunate if she loses! Not because I have any attachment to her but because her loss makes a Republican win more likely.

None of that changes how stupid your claims are that she's no different than Cruz or Trump, which is what I was laughing at. You said something dumb and got called on it and there's no way you're going to win this one. I can keep making fun of you about it if you want though, as you react pretty violently when teased.

This is what you call violent? Poor precious little eskimospy, words are a form of violence. LOL eskimospy.

 

[bshole]

It will be unfortunate if she loses! Not because I have any attachment to her but because her loss makes a Republican win more likely.

Are you nuts? At any moment in the next year, the FBI could drop an indictment on her ass. You really think that isn't a real risk? I would put the probability at 25%. If that happens and she is the candidate, the Democrats are totally screwed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you nuts? At any moment in the next year, the FBI could drop an indictment on her ass. You really think that isn't a real risk? I would put the probability at 25%. If that happens and she is the candidate, the Democrats are totally screwed.

Rumor has it that Biden will jump in if this happens.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you nuts? At any moment in the next year, the FBI could drop an indictment on her ass. You really think that isn't a real risk? I would put the probability at 25%. If that happens and she is the candidate, the Democrats are totally screwed.

I think the odds are closer to 0%, but to each their own. (unless some major new evidence comes to light, which seems unlikely at this point)

Sanders would be the most ideologically extreme candidate the Democrats have ever run, or close to it. That's a significant handicap in races that are usually decided by a few percentage points. It's just not a good bet.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is what you call violent? Poor precious little eskimospy, words are a form of violence. LOL eskimospy.

Not everyone is going to see your 'outlandish vituperation' as the product of a deeply wounded sense of justice as I do and also love you for it.

 

[Spungo]

I remember when people tried to selectively quote a statement about war that when you looked at the whole thing she was pretty much right, haha.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-victims-of-war/

She is literally saying that being forced to leave your home and raise a child as a single parent is a punishment worse than death. I'm amazed any mother would agree with that sentence.
"Yeah! I hate my kids too, and I wish I were dead! Hillary is just like me!"

Sanders would be the most ideologically extreme candidate the Democrats have ever run, or close to it. That's a significant handicap in races that are usually decided by a few percentage points. It's just not a good bet.

Didn't Obama run as an extremist during a time of global economic depression? And he won by a landslide. Now Bernie is running as an extremist during a time of global economic depression. I think his odds of winning are fairly good. Trump is popular for the same reasons. Extreme economic conditions tend to lead to political extremism. IIRC, there are more Americans on food stamps than there are women with full time jobs.

 

[fskimospy]

She is literally saying that being forced to leave your home and raise a child as a single parent is a punishment worse than death. I'm amazed any mother would agree with that sentence.
"Yeah! I hate my kids too, and I wish I were dead! Hillary is just like me!"

That's actually not what she's saying at all. She's saying that most of the victims of wars are civilians, which is true, and women and children represent most of those people, which is also true.

These aren't particularly controversial statements, as mentioned in the Snopes article the UN has been saying this for years.

As quoted in the article from UNSC resolution 1325:

Expressing concern that civilians, particularly women and children, account
for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict, including as
refugees and internally displaced persons, and increasingly are targeted by
combatants and armed elements, and recognizing the consequent impact this has on
durable peace and reconciliation,

and

[C]ivilians account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict; women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group; and sexual violence perpetrated in this manner may in some instances persist after the cessation of hostilities.

Nowhere is it saying that the people who die in the war don't have things worse, it's that the number of people who actually die in the fighting is usually much smaller than the number who are murdered/raped/uprooted/starved/etc, etc in these conflicts and those tend to be disproportionately women and children.

So before you say what she is 'literally saying', you should actually go read the whole thing. I imagine you'll probably agree with her.

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't Obama run as an extremist during a time of global economic depression? And he won by a landslide. Now Bernie is running as an extremist during a time of global economic depression. I think his odds of winning are fairly good. Trump is popular for the same reasons. Extreme economic conditions tend to lead to political extremism. IIRC, there are more Americans on food stamps than there are women with full time jobs.

Obama ran as an extremist? Are you joking? He ran as a center-left candidate.

Can you tell me what 'extremist' positions Obama ran under in 2008?

 

[Subyman]

Are you nuts? At any moment in the next year, the FBI could drop an indictment on her ass. You really think that isn't a real risk? I would put the probability at 25%. If that happens and she is the candidate, the Democrats are totally screwed.

Hope she picks a good VP

Seeing as they dropped the charges against Petraeus, I'm pretty sure her's won't go anywhere either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hope she picks a good VP

Seeing as they dropped the charges against Petraeus, I'm pretty sure her's won't go anywhere either.

They dropped charges against Patraeus? I thought he make a plea deal agreeing to plead guilty to one federal charge for removing/retaining classified information.

 

[Spungo]

Nowhere is it saying that the people who die in the war don't have things worse, it's that the number of people who actually die in the fighting is usually much smaller than the number who are murdered/raped/uprooted/starved/etc, etc in these conflicts and those tend to be disproportionately women and children.

And can you guess why a larger percentage of civilians are women and children? Could it be because men are automatically considered non-civilians, and are killed in large numbers, thus making the large majority of the remaining population consist of women and children?

What you wrote makes it seem like male civilians somehow have it better than female civilians. A country is invaded, thousands of men and women are forced to leave their homes, and then the men just magically don't starve, don't get murdered, don't get robbed, don't get beaten, etc. The men continue living like they did before the war, and women are the only people who starve. You can't possibly believe this, so please clarify what you meant. You believe male refugees get preferential treatment and are less affected by war because ________.

All evidence points to the exact opposite of what you wrote. Female and child refugees get preferential treatment when seeking asylum. This is why a lot of male refugees lie about their age. Canada's PM, Justin Trudeau, went full feminazi by telling male refugees to eat shit and die.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/canada-exclusion-refugees-single-syrian-men-assad-isis

The preferential treatment of women during war is the reason female psychology is radically different from male psychology. Men have evolved to fight and die in wars. Men either win and reproduce (rape/marry the women in the land they invaded), or they die and don't reproduce. Winning relies on things like discipline, loyalty, and a team-oriented mindset, so these male traits are passed down through the generations. On the other hand, female survival relies on the ability to see relationships as something transient (husband might die), and the ability to form relationships with the invading army. We see this all the time. While Germany occupied France, there were lots of relationships between German soldiers and French women, and they were real relationships of love. Actually, it would be more accurate to call it Stockholm Syndrome, but that still counts as love in my opinion. It evolved because women were more likely to survive when their country lost the war.

My point still stands. Hillary thinks that a French girl having sex with a German soldier is worse than death.
After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung. The French women who collaborated with the enemy had their heads shaved. Is Hillary now going to say that having a shaved head is worse than death?

 

[fskimospy]

And can you guess why a larger percentage of civilians are women and children? Could it be because men are automatically considered non-civilians, and are killed in large numbers, thus making the large majority of the remaining population consist of women and children?

Nope, nothing of the sort. Men are more likely than women or children to die in direct battle deaths from modern armed conflict, but women and children are more likely to die due to other conflict related causes. Considering that more people tend to die in conflicts from things other than actual battle, women and children are actually more at risk.

All that ignores that death is not the only risk from conflict, and that other types of violence are endemic in modern conflicts.

What you wrote makes it seem like male civilians somehow have it better than female civilians. A country is invaded, thousands of men and women are forced to leave their homes, and then the men just magically don't starve, don't get murdered, don't get robbed, don't get beaten, etc. The men continue living like they did before the war, and women are the only people who starve. You can't possibly believe this, so please clarify what you meant. You believe male refugees get preferential treatment and are less affected by war because ________.

I didn't say male civilians have it better than female ones, I said that men were less likely to be victims of other conflict related factors. If you believe this is not the case, explain why.

All evidence points to the exact opposite of what you wrote. Female and child refugees get preferential treatment when seeking asylum. This is why a lot of male refugees lie about their age. Canada's PM, Justin Trudeau, went full feminazi by telling male refugees to eat shit and die.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/canada-exclusion-refugees-single-syrian-men-assad-isis

Actually all evidence points to exactly what I wrote. Refugees represent a tiny fraction of people affected by conflicts.

The preferential treatment of women during war is the reason female psychology is radically different from male psychology. Men have evolved to fight and die in wars. Men either win and reproduce (rape/marry the women in the land they invaded), or they die and don't reproduce. Winning relies on things like discipline, loyalty, and a team-oriented mindset, so these male traits are passed down through the generations. On the other hand, female survival relies on the ability to see relationships as something transient (husband might die), and the ability to form relationships with the invading army. We see this all the time. While Germany occupied France, there were lots of relationships between German soldiers and French women, and they were real relationships of love. Actually, it would be more accurate to call it Stockholm Syndrome, but that still counts as love in my opinion. It evolved because women were more likely to survive when their country lost the war.

I don't see anything factual to rebut here.

My point still stands. Hillary thinks that a French girl having sex with a German soldier is worse than death.
After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung. The French women who collaborated with the enemy had their heads shaved. Is Hillary now going to say that having a shaved head is worse than death?

She of course didn't say anything of the sort. Your point is simply factually false.

 

[Exophase]

That's actually not what she's saying at all. She's saying that most of the victims of wars are civilians, which is true, and women and children represent most of those people, which is also true.

She said women are the primary victims of war, not women and children. She didn't mention children at all except as a burden to women. Women alone don't represent most civilians unless there is in fact a very large non-civilian population. Tacking children on is a big distortion of what she was saying.

She specifically said that women are the primary victims because they lose their husbands, fathers, and sons in combat. She gave a lot of other ways in which women suffer during war, but for none of these is there a clear argument for how or why women would suffer worse than men, other than that they're more likely to have to deal with surviving.

 

[Perknose]

After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung.

To the hilariously long list of things you said which were absolutely untrue, many but not all of which eski responded to, I'll just add this one.

You pulled this out of your ass. It's simply and totally untrue.

 

[BoberFett]

Not everyone is going to see your 'outlandish vituperation' as the product of a deeply wounded sense of justice as I do and also love you for it.

I had to look that up, thanks for the new word.

However, my vituperation is almost always reserved for those with whom civilized conversation is impossible.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

To the hilariously long list of things you said which were absolutely untrue, many but not all of which eski responded to, I'll just add this one.

You pulled this out of your ass. It's simply and totally untrue.

Simply and totally untrue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEvyEM0JdSc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/nazi-officers-executed-in_n_703894.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators

After the liberation, France was briefly swept by a wave of executions of suspected collaborators. Women who were suspected of having romantic liaisons with Germans or, more often, of being German prostitutes, were publicly humiliated by having their heads shaved. Those who had engaged in the black market were also stigmatised as "war profiteers" (profiteurs de guerre). However, the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF, 1944–46) quickly reestablished order and brought collaborators before the courts. Many of the convicted were granted amnesty under the Fourth Republic (1946–1954), while some civil servants, such as Maurice Papon, succeeded in holding important positions even under Charles de Gaulle and the Fifth Republic (1958 and afterward).

Three periods are identified by historians:[citation needed] The first phase (épuration sauvage) consisted of popular convictions, summary executions, and the shaving of women's heads. Estimates by police prefects made in 1948 and 1952 were that as many as six thousand executions occurred before the liberation of France, and four thousand thereafter.[citation needed] The second phase, épuration légale (legal purge), began on 26 and 27 June 1944 with Charles de Gaulle's ordinances on the judgment of collaborators by the commissions d'épuration; the commissions sentenced approximately 120,000 persons. Charles Maurras, the leader of the royalist Action française, was, for example, sentenced to life imprisonment on 25 January 1945. The third phase was more lenient towards collaborators; the trials of Philippe Pétain and the writer, Louis-Ferdinand Céline are examples of actions taken during this phase.

Between 1944 and 1951, official courts in France sentenced 6,763 people to death (3,910 in absentia) for treason and other offences, but only 791 executions were actually carried out. More common was "national degradation," a loss of face and civil rights, which was meted out to 49,723 people.[7]

Philippe Pétain, the former head of Vichy France, was charged with treason in July 1945. He was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad, but Charles de Gaulle commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Pierre Laval was however, executed after his trial. Most convicts were given amnesty a few years later. In the police, collaborators soon resumed official responsibilities. For example, Maurice Papon, who was judged in the 1990s for his role in the Vichy collaborationist government, gave orders for the Paris massacre of 1961 as the head of the Parisian police.

The French members of the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division who survived the war were regarded as traitors. Some of the more prominent officers were executed, while the rank-and-file were given prison terms; some of them were given the option of doing time in Indochina (1946–54) with the Foreign Legion instead of prison.

Many war criminals were judged only in the 1980s, including Paul Touvier, Klaus Barbie, Maurice Papon and his deputy Jean Leguay. The last two were both convicted for their roles in the July 1942 Rafle du Vel' d'Hiv, or Vel' d'Hiv Roundup). Famous Nazi hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld spent decades trying to bring them to justice. A fair number of collaborationists joined the OAS terrorist movement during the Algerian War (1954–62). Jacques de Bernonville escaped to Quebec, then Brazil. Jacques Ploncard d'Assac became counselor of Salazar in Portugal.

Extrajudicial summary executions were harshly criticised after the war. Circles close to Pétainism advanced the figures of 100,000 such executions, denouncing it as "Red Terror", "anarchy" or "blind vengeance. In 1960, journalist Robert Aron estimated the number of summary executions of 40,000, surprising deGaulle. The figure admitted today by mainstream historians is 10,000. Approximately 9,000 of these 10,000 refer to summary executions, in the whole of the country, including during battle. In absolute numbers, there were fewer legal executions in France than in neighbouring, and much smaller, Belgium, and fewer internments than in Norway or Netherlands.

 

[fskimospy]

She said women are the primary victims of war, not women and children. She didn't mention children at all except as a burden to women. Women alone don't represent most civilians unless there is in fact a very large non-civilian population. Tacking children on is a big distortion of what she was saying.

She specifically said that women are the primary victims because they lose their husbands, fathers, and sons in combat. She gave a lot of other ways in which women suffer during war, but for none of these is there a clear argument for how or why women would suffer worse than men, other than that they're more likely to have to deal with surviving.

You're right that she didn't mention children, although again her statements seem to be largely backed up by the UN's view on the issue. Can you say why the reasons already supplied aren't a clear argument for it?

 

[Perknose]

Simply and totally untrue?

Yes. Spungo claimed, bolding mine: "After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung."

His claim that all of them were hung IS simply and totally untrue. Got that?

To underscore this, all irony aside, I'll use your own link, which you even quoted in your post, bolding again mine:

Philippe Pétain, the former head of Vichy France, was charged with treason in July 1945. He was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad, but Charles de Gaulle commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Pierre Laval was however, executed after his trial. Most convicts were given amnesty a few years later. In the police, collaborators soon resumed official responsibilities. For example, Maurice Papon, who was judged in the 1990s for his role in the Vichy collaborationist government, gave orders for the Paris massacre of 1961 as the head of the Parisian police.

The French members of the Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division who survived the war were regarded as traitors. Some of the more prominent officers were executed, while the rank-and-file were given prison terms; some of them were given the option of doing time in Indochina (1946–54) with the Foreign Legion instead of prison.

Many war criminals were judged only in the 1980s, including Paul Touvier, Klaus Barbie, Maurice Papon and his deputy Jean Leguay. The last two were both convicted for their roles in the July 1942 Rafle du Vel' d'Hiv, or Vel' d'Hiv Roundup). Famous Nazi hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld spent decades trying to bring them to justice. A fair number of collaborationists joined the OAS terrorist movement during the Algerian War (1954–62). Jacques de Bernonville escaped to Quebec, then Brazil. Jacques Ploncard d'Assac became counselor of Salazar in Portugal.

In short, what Spungo claimed:

After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung.

Is dead nuts untrue. This time, will you please have the personal integrity to accept my thoroughly proven point?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Again with the lack of reading comprehension (or intellectual dishonesty.)

Spungo claimed, bolding mine: "After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung."

Now, from your own link, which you even quoted in your post, bolding again mine:



In short, what Spungo claimed:

After the Germans were kicked out of France, all of the French men who collaborated with the enemy were hung.

Is dead nuts untrue. This time, will you please have the personal integrity to accept my thoroughly proven point?

LOL. You're quite the pedantic aren't you?

 

[Exophase]

You're right that she didn't mention children, although again her statements seem to be largely backed up by the UN's view on the issue. Can you say why the reasons already supplied aren't a clear argument for it?

No I don't think the UN's statement really validates what she said; including children isn't a mere technicality, it's a huge discrepancy. And most of the UN's statement was specifically regarding sexual violence towards women and children. While we can probably both agree that women are the targets of sexual violence more often than men and that war exacerbates this that alone doesn't automatically elevate them to being the primary victims in general.

 

[fskimospy]

No I don't think the UN's statement really validates what she said; including children isn't a mere technicality, it's a huge discrepancy. And most of the UN's statement was specifically regarding sexual violence towards women and children. While we can probably both agree that women are the targets of sexual violence more often than men and that war exacerbates this that alone doesn't automatically elevate them to being the primary victims in general.

Not really, the statement is clear that they comprise the 'vast majority of those adversely affected'. That's a pretty solid endorsement. If that's not good enough for you, so be it.

 

[Perknose]

LOL. You're quite the pedantic aren't you?

Enough to tell you that "pedantic" is an adjective (the noun you failed to stumble upon is "pedant") and that, in any case, intellectual honesty in debate is not a minor detail to me, as it seems to be to you.

Let me be blunt with you. You're either too lazy or too stupid to have an honest political conversation with.

In either case, you have herein proved yourself to be unembarrassed to be shown to be factually wrong by the very quotes you link to and then quote. That's telling in the extreme.