Hofstra Univ: 3 injured, 15 arrested (Part Two of Twelve)

[randgrithr]

I can read just fine, thank you. Attila the Hun was a guy. Ghengis Khan was a guy. Napoleon was a guy. Caesar was a guy. Hitler was a guy. Pol Pot was a guy. Stalin was a guy.

Are you starting to see a trend here? Is it that difficult to see?

[caterliz]

as a CODEPINK member I Support our troops and detest illegal wars of choice that undermine our natiuonal security!We shouln't send our troops to failed occupations with no exit plan

Men like the war game and woman are disproportionately impacted by war

get the Woman to take more leadership roles

for A change

[luvkrafft]

Peaceful??? In my experience, the far left nuts are the most vitriolic, close-minded of all. Trying to debate with them and moving the agenda away from socialist sloganeering was and is pointless. The solution? Reform the liberal education system with concrete standards and accountability.

[doubtingT911]

Troll

[mk3oarder]

i agree w/ code pink on getting us out of the war and not provoking or pre-empting any more , but what the hell was up with her answer regarding including third parties in the Presidential debates?? And, going off on the radical tangent that somehow theres an link between wars and men? Correlation does not mean causation. Lets get third parties into the debate whether that means they are men, women or minorities.Getting women and minorities in shouldn't be the focus.Its about substance.

[randgrithr]

CodePink endorses issues, not candidates. As a nonprofit we do not endorse candidates. However as Liz said anyone who is talking about peace and a return to sustainable energy values we approve of. And if you don't believe it's usually men who begin wars of aggression merely study your history.

[mk3oarder]

Well perhaps you should learn to read more thoroughly correlation does not equate to causation. thanks your input...

[randgrithr]

I can read just fine, thank you. Attila the Hun was a guy. Ghengis Khan was a guy. Napoleon was a guy. Caesar was a guy. Hitler was a guy. Pol Pot was a guy. Stalin was a guy.

Are you starting to see a trend here? Is it that difficult to see?

[mk3oarder]

yes, congratulations! you've spotted a correlation. That does not mean, however, them being men had anything to do with starting wars or, further, that had they have been women those wars never would have occurred. There have also been a disproportional amount of male leaders compared to women, so its to be expected that most wars would be started by men. However, those relatively few women who have been in positions of power have contributed their share of bloodshed over the centuries.

[mk3oarder]

Queen Elizabeth I (Anglo-Spanish war), Queen Anne (War of Spanish Succession), Catherine the Great (Russo-Turk War), Margaret Thatcher (Falklands War), Queen Victoria (Opium Wars), Indira Gandhi (India-Pakistan War). In the ancient world: Queen Boudica (Roman Uprisings), the ruthless warrior nation of the Amazons were composed and led exclusively by women, Byzantine Empresses Irene and Theodora among many others precipitated wars, both domestically and abroad.

[randgrithr]

Congratulations (to quote a phrase) You've read some history - although your information on Boudicca and the Amazons needs work. Monarchs in the time of Victoria onward were little more than figureheads when it came to warfare. They led no battles, nor did they encourage women in combat.

Men have insisted throughout history on being the ones to control the combat zone, thus also bear the responsibility for what happens there. Pardon the pun, but it really IS a two edged sword.

[randgrithr]

Your generalizations do nothing to defend your position. Provide examples and facts please, as I did. If you want to continue your condescending tone, at least back it up with something of substance rather than mere opinions.

[mk3oarder]

I've provided no more than you have. A list of women and their wars. Following the riduclousness of your logic these wars were obviously a result of their womanhood.

Read this again and see if it penetrates: Over the course of history, it is to be expected that if there are a significantly greater number of male leaders there will be a significantly greater number of wars by men. So you have made no causal connection between men and wars, merely a correlation which means nothing

[randgrithr]

Now read this again and see if it penetrates: Men have insisted throughout history on being the ones to control the combat zone, thus also bear the responsibility for what happens there. Pardon the pun, but it really IS a two edged sword.

Your condescending tone is completely unjustifiable. Good luck being taken seriously elsewhere.

[mk3oarder]

it is absurdly ignorant and simpleminded to think that if history's leaders were women and not men there would have been less war. The motives and psychology of war go beyond what you've reduced them to, a function of sex.

[randgrithr]

I haven't been the one throughout the centuries to insist that most warriors be men, that women not be permitted to fight alongside men, and that most military leaders be men. Men - for centuries - are the ones who have contrived to take up that role.

You can't have control over a combat theater without taking responsibility for what happens there, and the cold hard fact is that for every woman you can name who has been even peripherally involved with warfare, I can name FIFTY men. Easily.

[mk3oarder]

I'm not belaboring this point anymore than I already have. There have been at least 50 fifty male leaders for every one female leader in history so thats not suprising. The point is, advocating simply for more women and minorities in power is hardly a solution to any of the gov't's ills. Hillary was a women and her politics were just as bad as the rest of them. The focus should be advocating for liberty minded individuals who respect the constitution whether they be men, women, or minorities.

[randgrithr]

No you're not belaboring this point because if you do so you will continue to lose this argument. The reality is that men have controlled the battlefields of the world for millenia and therefore it is they who are responsible for what happens there. That's the way it is and until more women are given the option to fairly adopt leadership roles in all aspects of society to include the military, that is the way it will stay.

[mk3oarder]

Yeah your absolutely right and once we get women into power and every man out of power that won't change. Your whole argument is based on the presupposition that women are and will be more peaceful and that's completely unfounded. Your argument suffers from two fallacies: 1) Confusing Cause and Effect and 2) Genetic Fallacy. Get off your feminist high horse.

[randgrithr]

How is it unfounded that women are more peaceful? Men have worked so hard over thousands of years to ensure that they control the battlefields of the world that they deny women a place fighting at their sides even to this day. Do you deny that fact?

There's no confusion on this end, nor am I the one who adopted an unnecessarily condescending tone. Your hypocrisy and adoption of double standards is an inextricable part of your argument, which is why you're losing it.

[mk3oarder]

you're argument is baseless. Your using a fallacy of composition to assume because women are largely submissive they wouldn't be aggressors in a position of power. Of course men controlled the battlefield and everything else for that matter, they physically overpower most women. Today however that does not mean a women isn't less capable or less inclined to be just as aggressive if she is in a position of power bc they are not inherently more peaceful.

[mk3oarder]

Youre pointing to anecdotal evidence that woman are more peaceful simply because they are perceived that way and bc they have never traditionally been in positions of power to abuse it, your logic suffers from genetic fallacy and fallacy of composition. So, deliberately putting them in power over men will not guarantee a future with any less war than our past.

[mk3oarder]

Why not fight for people of substance in Congress and not the broad title of women & minorities. Hillary and Obama are war mongers just like the rest of the old white men.

[randgrithr]

A long tradition of history is what backs up my argument. You have nothing but air and a thinly veiled double standard behind your words. Of course women are capable of abusing power - but the fact remains that it's very historically seldom that they've ever even been given the chance. Here's why: most modern financial corruption scandals of the day from Enron to Worldcom focus around the integrity of a female whistleblower. Siebel Edmonds, Valerie Plame - are these names unknown to you as well?

[ssgtforce]

Code Pink Communists! You hate our troops and hate America! Traitors!

[doubtingT911]

Troll

[banemaler]

the debate will likely only include 3rd party candidates

the other candidates are too cowardice to show up.

[MS1719ms]

unicornfan6 do you mean cspan will show "ALL" the candidates running for president?? not just the two eliet owned and controlled Dems and Repubs partys.

[unicornfan6]

Presidential Debate including ALL Presidential Candidates Candidates this Sunday 8 pm on CSPAN