Pardon me while I puke:

Posted on March 8, 2012 by KG

‘..MORE women should be involved in brokering peace in conflict zones, the Federal Government says.
Minister for Women Julie Collins today launched a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security to mark International Women’s Day…’
Go read the whole sick-making thing, if you haven’t yet had lunch.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Pardon me while I puke:

  1. Andrei says:
    March 8, 2012 at 12:59

    Why don’t we send her to Afghanistan to “broker a peace” with the Taliban.

    Let her put her mouth where her money is

    • KG says:
      March 8, 2012 at 13:11

      Yeah, right… :lol:
      The bastards are good at regurgitating set phrases and jargon, but little else. And why the hell are we paying for a “minister for women”? Isn’t that – you know – sexist?
      How much do these vast herds of useless leeches cost the taxpayer??

    • WAKE UP says:
      March 10, 2012 at 13:08

      “Let her put her mouth where her money is”

      If she goes to “talk” to the Taliban, it’s not only her mouth that’ll be at risk.

    • WAKE UP says:
      March 10, 2012 at 13:10

      It won’t be her mouth the Taliban will be interested in.

  2. Michael in Nelson says:
    March 8, 2012 at 17:06

    KG,

    I must be unusually thick….What has gender got to do with being able to broker peace?

    Besides….which gender has fought and died more often to protect the other? I always thought that those who actually fought in war were the best advocates of how to establish a true peace but then I am a male and what do I know?

    • KG says:
      March 8, 2012 at 17:35

      Michael, according to these clowns it’s entirely men who start wars and apparently they do it all for fun….or something.
      And if those who fight in defence of their homes and country would just stop fighting then all would be lambs gambolling in meadows and peace and crystal harmony…or something.
      And wimmin have all the answers when it comes to peace and co-existence.
      ….or something.

  3. Kris K says:
    March 8, 2012 at 17:41

    Lord give me strength!!!

    A large part of what is wrong with ‘modern’ Western society is wimin having too much say and influence. If I had my way I would take away their right to vote.

    Another opportunity to quote Ann Coulter:

    “It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”
    Ann Coulter

    Lesbians/feminists coming to the fore in society is, IMO, a major indicator that Western society is on its last legs.

    Next these hairy arm-pitted men-hating harpies will be pushing to get into combat roles in the military … Oh, wait …

  4. Right Wing Theocrat says:
    March 8, 2012 at 21:47

    I’m all for it, provided it’s feminist ball-haters, it’ll be a great opportunity for them to go to different parts of the world, experience all those beautiful cultures and sober up.

  5. Lucia Maria says:
    March 9, 2012 at 09:28

    It’s just politicking, totally meaningless otherwise.

    Now if she had said that more women should be involved with raising their own children rather than paying others to do it for them, that would be far more interesting.

    Kris, I’ve heard that quote a number of times, and while I don’t agree with Democrat politics, I’m not sure why having the Republicans entrenched as the governing party in the US for 60 years would be a good thing. It would be like having the National party in for that period of time in NZ.

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      March 9, 2012 at 09:42

      Hi Lucia. Glad you’re back.

      In one sense I agree with you, that having essentially a one-party state is bad all round. After all, it has enabled National to be the weakest, most socialist, worst caricature of itself. But, to give the Dems a sniff, to have a strong opposition while keeping the Republicans in power, would I think have resulted in a much stronger republican party. After all (as Bill Whittle said the other day) the last time the Republicans ran a real conservative, they only won 49 states.

      The flip side is the stats don’t lie. It’s women and racial minorities that give the US Dem Presidents.

  6. Lucia Maria says:
    March 9, 2012 at 13:15

    Hi Gantt,

    Thanks!

    As for Coulter’s statement, it only works in retrospect where just that one factor changes and everything else stays the same. The real world doesn’t work like that.

    In an alternate reality where women did not have the vote during the same period would still have resulted in Democrat wins. Both parties would have changed their policies to reflect what they thought men in general were interested in and then still did what they wanted once they were in power.

    Also, we women are very good at getting our men to do what we want, and I’m sure if we didn’t have a vote, then how our husband votes would be the subject of far more intense scrutiny and discussion. ;-)

  7. Darin says:
    March 9, 2012 at 16:10

    As I recall one of the first things women pushed for after gaining the right to vote here in the states was Prohibition which worked out swimmingly :roll: