Richard B the EMT Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Well Richard, have you been happy with your choice of who you voted for? I'll wait until after the 2020 election to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I'll wait until after the 2020 election to respond. Chicken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Just wonder how the members of the KKK feel, with Mr. Obama in the White House as POTUS. I have the feeling that, for the last 4 years, they have not been too happy. (Disclosure: Hoping it is not a springboard to a discussion on it's own, I am a registered Democrat. I will neither confirm or deny if I voted for, or will vote for, Mr. Obama, on this particular forum) I really don't ever think of the triple K unless they are in the news and am not at all interested in their opinion. I think the original idea was that people should not force themselves on others as opposed to the opposite. You do know that the Klan was started by Democrats, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeymedic1984 Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 Well Condy is a new member, I think they bowed to advertiser's pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Chicken BaCwaaaaaa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Agusta National has been a 'male only' club since it's inception. It being a private organization, it's allowed to pick and choose it's potential members by any criteria it deems relevant. I realize this offends some of our younger members, who have been brought up in the 'kinder, gentler America' where everybody is included just because they showed up. Unfortunately, this has made this generation a little too 'thin skinned' for their own good. Nothing is said about other private organizations such as the Free Masons (no women allowed in the Masonic Lodge), they have their own offshoot organization (The Eastern Star). What about other organizations that are exclusionary based on race? Black Caucus, Black Mayors Association, Hispanic Mayors Association, Black Chamber of Commerce, Black Business Owners Association. How can they be allowed to exclude? Because they're PRIVATE ENTITIES. But no one faults them for what they do, or how they do it... The Masters is part of the PGA (read: MENS golf). If the women want a similar event let the LPGA come up with The Mistress' Cup! Just because the men have a golf course that they can call 'theirs', doesn't mean that they HAVE to admit women (or anyone else) just because the excluded scream "Not fair!" loud and long enough. I'm not against women doing what I do. If I were, I'd have made the old misogynic statements about "barefooted and pregnant in the kitchen". I really don't care if women want to do the same things we do or not....but don't expect men to just roll over and let women take over everything we've built! I hate to say it, but women will NEVER be equal to a man until they can walk down the street, balding and pot-bellied and still think they're 'sexy' while scratching their balls and belching....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) We live in a very diverse and society that seems to have an affinity for letting those that are considered somehow disadvantaged or weak to demand things that those that are considered advantaged or strong cannot demand. This results in an unfair dichotomy of expectations where the strong are expected to be inclusive and the weak included, even while the weak retain their right to exclusivity. (I use the term weak and strong for lack of a better term). Lone Star mentions several examples, but there are more that are scandalously observable in initiatives such as affirmative action. By mentioning affirmative action I mean not to imply that one group would be less capable than another but simply that society has created a curve that negates the expectation of excellence. I think that the masters club indeed acted against their desires but not against their best interest. I think they were just in their male exclusivity. They were just to their members that joined and payed dues under the contractual understanding of a exclusively male environment. They are also just in their new inclusive policy honoring the practices they had established with sponsors. When they gave memberships to sponsors without contractually stipulating male exclusivity then their omission obligated them to the derived consequence which would be to accept the members that the sponsors chose to designate as members. It is only fair that if they took a sponsors money they obligated themselves to treating those sponsors equally. These two opposing just positions created the conundrum that brought them to accept female inclusiveness. They will now have to define a new membership nomenclature that will be equally fair. Now I may be in the ditch here but my hypothesis seems pretty reasonable to me. EDIT: What is not just or fair is the double standard that society has created calling the exercise of individual or group ownership rights discriminatory in some cases and acceptable in others. EDIT Spelling Edited August 21, 2012 by DFIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island emt Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 So what: they caved in to sponsors demands and offered membership to 2 women. #1. is the most powerful politicly connected Black woman ,who could have possibly run and won the presidential election against Obama. She was the brains behind 8 yrs of the Dubya administration. #2 is an incredibly rich banking CEO with connections to seriously large old money who already belongs to several other exclusive country clubs, and is not likely to cause a fuss or pee in the potted palms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emtdennis Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 So what: they caved in to sponsors demands and offered membership to 2 women. #1. is the most powerful politicly connected Black woman ,who could have possibly run and won the presidential election against Obama. She was the brains behind 8 yrs of the Dubya administration. #2 is an incredibly rich banking CEO with connections to seriously large old money who already belongs to several other exclusive country clubs, and is not likely to cause a fuss or pee in the potted palms. Does'nt mean she can't be bold and cop a squat!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Again, it all goes back to the adage "follow the money" But they couldn't have offered and given membership to two finer ladies. But I wonder why the CEO of IBM wasn't given membership? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts