Guest Patriot Games Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/17/210724.shtml?s=ic Elizabeth Edwards: Husband Better Than Hillary Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband, Democrat John Edwards, would be a better advocate for women as president than his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I think one of the things that make me so completely comfortable with this is that keeping that door open to women is actually more a policy of John's than Hillary's," Edwards said in an interview published in the online magazine Salon. "I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I've heard. " Elizabeth Edwards said she sympathized with Clinton, who is running to be the first female president. She recalled the challenges she faced early in her career as a female lawyer and said she understood the pressures Clinton must feel. "Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic - she wants to be commander in chief," she said. A Clinton spokesman said the campaign would have no comment on Elizabeth Edwards' remarks. Among other things, Edwards criticized Clinton for not producing a plan for universal health care, calling it a women's issue. She also said Clinton should speak out more about poverty, calling women - especially single mothers - the "face of poverty." John Edwards, who is trailing Clinton and Barack Obama in most polls, has tried to make poverty a signature campaign issue. He's currently in the middle of a three-day, multistate tour of impoverished communities. The interview wasn't the first time that Elizabeth Edwards has criticized Clinton. In October, she told an audience that her choices in life had made her happier than the New York senator. Edwards later apologized to Clinton, saying she thought her comments had been off the record. Quote
Guest Joe S. Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message news:469df68a$0$31298$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/17/210724.shtml?s=ic > Well, PG, I gotta give you credit -- your headlines are among the most inventive I've ever read. Misleading, lying, often offensive, but inventive. No wonder you are an aficionado of Newsmax -- misleading, lying, offensive, slimy. Quote
Guest robw Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 You are the expert of wuss, so I'll believe what you say. "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@The_Beach.com> wrote in message news:469df68a$0$31298$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/17/210724.shtml?s=ic > > Elizabeth Edwards: Husband Better Than Hillary > > Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband, Democrat John Edwards, > would be a better advocate for women as president than his rival Hillary > Rodham Clinton. > > "I think one of the things that make me so completely comfortable with this > is that keeping that door open to women is actually more a policy of John's > than Hillary's," Edwards said in an interview published in the online > magazine Salon. "I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women. > She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I've heard. " > > Elizabeth Edwards said she sympathized with Clinton, who is running to be > the first female president. She recalled the challenges she faced early in > her career as a female lawyer and said she understood the pressures Clinton > must feel. > > "Sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's > issues. I'm sympathetic - she wants to be commander in chief," she said. > > A Clinton spokesman said the campaign would have no comment on Elizabeth > Edwards' remarks. > > Among other things, Edwards criticized Clinton for not producing a plan for > universal health care, calling it a women's issue. She also said Clinton > should speak out more about poverty, calling women - especially single > mothers - the "face of poverty." > > John Edwards, who is trailing Clinton and Barack Obama in most polls, has > tried to make poverty a signature campaign issue. He's currently in the > middle of a three-day, multistate tour of impoverished communities. > > The interview wasn't the first time that Elizabeth Edwards has criticized > Clinton. In October, she told an audience that her choices in life had made > her happier than the New York senator. Edwards later apologized to Clinton, > saying she thought her comments had been off the record. > > Quote
Guest Topaz Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933: "German women, German men ! It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women. Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other areas than the man. The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless devotion, her readiness to sacrifice. The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her talents and abilities. Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman. It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our attitude toward women. The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in government, politics, economics and social relations has not left women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with former ideals. A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family, in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother. The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary. It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age. But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the living mother of a family who gives the state children. German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and her daily bread is not a good trade. A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation. We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our blood is assured..." http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/ http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.