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

http://www.bethemedia.org: At least three people were injured and fifteen were arrested after mounted police pushed back a group of protesters from Iraq Veterans Against the War hoping to enter the US Presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead NY.

The incident occurred on Hempstead Turnpike at about 8pm eastern time.

The injured included two Iraq war veterans and one spectator. Fifteen were arrested.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• US
• Presidential
• debate
• 2008
• News
• Hofstra
• University
• David
• Mathison
• Be
• The
• Media
• Dave
• Iraq
• Veterans
• Against
• War
• IVAW
• Code
• Pink
• Barack
• Obama
• John
• McCain
• Horse
• Police
• Protest
• Non
• Violence
• Civil
• Disobedience

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.