Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarky Oracle!" data-source="post: 22023" data-attributes="member: 57984">Although Madeleine Albright also once said that she isn&#039;t a big believer that the world would be a better place if run by women, adding that people who think it would must not remember school.&nbsp;Not that I&#039;m against it as an experiment, but we shouldn&#039;t be naive about what the ultimate result would be, which is something less than idyllic.&nbsp;On a humorous side note, has anybody ever read &quot;Embraced by the Light&quot; by Betty Eadie and her supposed, lengthy near-death experience? When she briefly went to heaven, she was, as an old &#039;60s feminist, initially put off by the fact that the 13 elders were &quot;men,&quot; but it was explained to her that everyone, each sex, has its own role and that women in power posed a certain danger, that their manipulative social skills were greater and that could pose a problem with too many of them in authority because &quot;when evil overtakes the women, the men will easily follow.&quot; And she became resigned to the truth of it.&nbsp;For all that&#039;s worth, which may be very little.&nbsp;I&#039;m not a big believer in the sanctity of women myself. Or men, for that matter. And as someone who&#039;s probably has had more women in life then men, I&#039;ve found myself feeling as if all I do is provide services for them. Everything seems structured for that, while they play the victim all the way for purposes of encouraging cooperation. And they do that to other women as well as to men.&nbsp;So there&#039;s this thing that goes on.&nbsp;But I could never vote for Donald Trump, even though the Clintons are more pragmatic and less innocent than they were in the &#039;90s.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarky Oracle!, post: 22023, member: 57984"] Although Madeleine Albright also once said that she isn't a big believer that the world would be a better place if run by women, adding that people who think it would must not remember school. Not that I'm against it as an experiment, but we shouldn't be naive about what the ultimate result would be, which is something less than idyllic. On a humorous side note, has anybody ever read "Embraced by the Light" by Betty Eadie and her supposed, lengthy near-death experience? When she briefly went to heaven, she was, as an old '60s feminist, initially put off by the fact that the 13 elders were "men," but it was explained to her that everyone, each sex, has its own role and that women in power posed a certain danger, that their manipulative social skills were greater and that could pose a problem with too many of them in authority because "when evil overtakes the women, the men will easily follow." And she became resigned to the truth of it. For all that's worth, which may be very little. I'm not a big believer in the sanctity of women myself. Or men, for that matter. And as someone who's probably has had more women in life then men, I've found myself feeling as if all I do is provide services for them. Everything seems structured for that, while they play the victim all the way for purposes of encouraging cooperation. And they do that to other women as well as to men. So there's this thing that goes on. But I could never vote for Donald Trump, even though the Clintons are more pragmatic and less innocent than they were in the '90s. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?