Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Future
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 36 (258893)
11-11-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nighttrain
11-05-2005 7:38 PM


out of those...
I think the energy problem is the most critical. I won't say lack of viable energy alternatives because I beleive they exist, but certainly lack of them being available to us.
Cheap, clean-burning electricity would solve the energy problem, global warming, some aspects of poverty (starvation and malnourishment) except where the political situation is the problem, some major pollution problems, defund Islamic terrorists rooted in the Middle East, help poor nations develop without ravaging their environment as bad, fund major new technological breakthroughs which are put on hold due to lack of power, develop a high speed rail system cheaply that lowers highway deaths, and a whole bunch of stuff.
I don't think any of those are the most serious problems, but then again, I don't want to get into a theological and spiritual discussion too much on your thread, unless you want me to.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-11-2005 02:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nighttrain, posted 11-05-2005 7:38 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 36 (258931)
11-11-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by MangyTiger
11-11-2005 2:12 AM


Re: Vision
If you want organization, let the people who have been doing the lion's share of childrearing and the running of households for several millenia take a turn for a change.
quote:
We tried it over here.
Didn't make any difference.
You had an entire government that was over 90% female?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MangyTiger, posted 11-11-2005 2:12 AM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by MangyTiger, posted 11-11-2005 9:38 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 36 (258932)
11-11-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by iano
11-11-2005 1:35 PM


Re: Vision
We tried it over here.Didn't make any difference.
quote:
THAT was not a woman
She was as much of a woman as someone likely to win the race for Prime Minister was allowed to be.
Are you actually telling me that anyone other than a sexless, masculine woman would have been taken seriously?
It's the double bind for women in politics and business: if you are too sexy and attractive you aren't respected or considered serious and intelligent, and if you are mannish and serious and sexless, you are made fun of for not being a "real woman".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 11-11-2005 1:35 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by iano, posted 11-12-2005 5:44 AM nator has not replied
 Message 36 by Nighttrain, posted 11-13-2005 6:03 PM nator has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6383 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 34 of 36 (258997)
11-11-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
11-11-2005 4:55 PM


Re: Vision
You had an entire government that was over 90% female?
No - we had a government that was 100% female
Mrs. Thatcher was (in)famous for the degree of control she exercised over all aspects of government. Most other democratically elected leaders of modern times could only dream of having it. Essentially the way our system works allowed Thatcher for most of her tenure and Blair until the last election to more or less function as benign dictators.
There was a famous sketch over here - Mrs. T and the cabinet are in a restaurant:
Thatcher: I'll have the steak
Waiter: And what about the vegetables?
Thatcher: They'll have the same as me...

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 11-11-2005 4:55 PM nator has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 36 (259033)
11-12-2005 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
11-11-2005 5:01 PM


Re: Vision
schraf writes:
She was as much of a woman as someone likely to win the race for Prime Minister was allowed to be.
I should have said "That was not the characteristic of a woman of the type that I think Schraf meant when she said (and I paraphrase "the world wouldn't be in such a mess if woman's influence was not so minimalised by male mis-use of their position""
Maggie promoted survival of the fittest and started a patriotic war during which she ordered the needless sinking of the Belgrano with hundreds of lives lost. Her policies and her decisions. Nobody culd accuse oher of being a weak, man-dominated woman. The poor critters in her government were terrified of her !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 11-11-2005 5:01 PM nator has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 36 of 36 (259405)
11-13-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
11-11-2005 5:01 PM


Re: Vision
We`ve had a couple of female State premiers and they did a capable job. Quite a few Ministers on both State and Federal levels. And our biggie, the Labor party, has pledged to have 50% femme representation in parliament by--um--3020.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 11-11-2005 5:01 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024