<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does W stand for Wilson (as in Woodrow)?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/</link>
	<description>The Internet home for American gay conservatives.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:04:03 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mitchell Blatt</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-355845</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitchell Blatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-355845</guid>
		<description>He may be vindicated on foreign policy but his communistic ideals will always be wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He may be vindicated on foreign policy but his communistic ideals will always be wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Hughes</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-355539</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hughes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-355539</guid>
		<description>#3 - Dan, from what I recall during my Political History and Statistics class back in the day, the first wave of female voters following the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment voted for Warren G. Harding, the Republican nominee on the presidential ballot.

The reasoning behind this sociological shift was that the suffragettes&#039; rationale that since Wilson (a Democrat) and his administration was dead-set against the women&#039;s vote until after World War I, the newly minted voters would go and support the Republican candidate.

Women, like blacks, would support the GOP until FDR&#039;s reign - uh, I mean administration - when he appointed Frances Perkins as his Secretary of Labor (first woman in a Cabinet position - and not ironically, the last in line to the presidency at that time).  Also, his wife Eleanor was another impetus in women supporting the Democrats.

Just FYI.

Regards,
Peter H.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#3 &#8211; Dan, from what I recall during my Political History and Statistics class back in the day, the first wave of female voters following the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment voted for Warren G. Harding, the Republican nominee on the presidential ballot.</p>
<p>The reasoning behind this sociological shift was that the suffragettes&#8217; rationale that since Wilson (a Democrat) and his administration was dead-set against the women&#8217;s vote until after World War I, the newly minted voters would go and support the Republican candidate.</p>
<p>Women, like blacks, would support the GOP until FDR&#8217;s reign &#8211; uh, I mean administration &#8211; when he appointed Frances Perkins as his Secretary of Labor (first woman in a Cabinet position &#8211; and not ironically, the last in line to the presidency at that time).  Also, his wife Eleanor was another impetus in women supporting the Democrats.</p>
<p>Just FYI.</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Peter H.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: North Dallas Thirty</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354911</link>
		<dc:creator>North Dallas Thirty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:31:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354911</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;You mean itâ€™s not possible, that despite the torture, etc., going on, that people who opposed the war thought (perhaps wrongly) would make things worse?&lt;/i&gt;

I believe the Obama mantra is that torture is never justified, should never be ignored, and should be stopped in all instances, regardless of price.

What you&#039;re saying is that allowing torture is justified if it prevents the loss of American lives and money. That&#039;s a highly rational position to take, but unfortunately, it&#039;s not the Democrat Party one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>You mean itâ€™s not possible, that despite the torture, etc., going on, that people who opposed the war thought (perhaps wrongly) would make things worse?</i></p>
<p>I believe the Obama mantra is that torture is never justified, should never be ignored, and should be stopped in all instances, regardless of price.</p>
<p>What you&#8217;re saying is that allowing torture is justified if it prevents the loss of American lives and money. That&#8217;s a highly rational position to take, but unfortunately, it&#8217;s not the Democrat Party one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354904</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:05:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354904</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; Given that Democrat Party members fully support and endorse Saddam Husseinâ€™s actual and proven use of torture and gulag tactics on a massive scale,&lt;/i&gt;

Really, NDT?  Democrats suck like any other political party in this country, but that&#039;s a bit over the top.

&lt;i&gt; refused to enforce, stop, or even charge Saddam with war crimes, and flew to Baghdad themselves to propagandize for and claim that Saddam Hussein did not practice torture, it is proven that Democrats are nothing but anti-American hypocrites who will fully support torture when it helps their leftist allies and when they are bribed with billions of dollars in oil revenues. &lt;/i&gt;

&quot;proven&quot;?  You mean it&#039;s not possible, that despite the torture, etc., going on, that people who opposed the war thought (perhaps wrongly) would make things worse?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> Given that Democrat Party members fully support and endorse Saddam Husseinâ€™s actual and proven use of torture and gulag tactics on a massive scale,</i></p>
<p>Really, NDT?  Democrats suck like any other political party in this country, but that&#8217;s a bit over the top.</p>
<p><i> refused to enforce, stop, or even charge Saddam with war crimes, and flew to Baghdad themselves to propagandize for and claim that Saddam Hussein did not practice torture, it is proven that Democrats are nothing but anti-American hypocrites who will fully support torture when it helps their leftist allies and when they are bribed with billions of dollars in oil revenues. </i></p>
<p>&#8220;proven&#8221;?  You mean it&#8217;s not possible, that despite the torture, etc., going on, that people who opposed the war thought (perhaps wrongly) would make things worse?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: North Dallas Thirty</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354881</link>
		<dc:creator>North Dallas Thirty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354881</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Are the words â€œtortureâ€ and â€œgulag tacticsâ€ flagged to be filtered?&lt;/i&gt;

Given that Democrat Party members fully support and endorse Saddam Hussein&#039;s actual and proven use of torture and gulag tactics on a massive scale, refused to enforce, stop, or even charge Saddam with war crimes, and flew to Baghdad themselves to propagandize for and claim that Saddam Hussein did not practice torture, it is proven that Democrats are nothing but anti-American hypocrites who will fully support torture when it helps their leftist allies and when they are bribed with billions of dollars in oil revenues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Are the words â€œtortureâ€ and â€œgulag tacticsâ€ flagged to be filtered?</i></p>
<p>Given that Democrat Party members fully support and endorse Saddam Hussein&#8217;s actual and proven use of torture and gulag tactics on a massive scale, refused to enforce, stop, or even charge Saddam with war crimes, and flew to Baghdad themselves to propagandize for and claim that Saddam Hussein did not practice torture, it is proven that Democrats are nothing but anti-American hypocrites who will fully support torture when it helps their leftist allies and when they are bribed with billions of dollars in oil revenues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354737</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354737</guid>
		<description>One little election tidbit.  Wilson may be the only winning candidate (in 1916) to not win his home state (New Jersey).  

My understanding is that Wilson was fairly antiSemitic as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One little election tidbit.  Wilson may be the only winning candidate (in 1916) to not win his home state (New Jersey).  </p>
<p>My understanding is that Wilson was fairly antiSemitic as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gillie</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354698</link>
		<dc:creator>gillie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354698</guid>
		<description>Are the words &quot;torture&quot; and &quot;gulag tactics&quot; flagged to be filtered?

let&#039;s see.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are the words &#8220;torture&#8221; and &#8220;gulag tactics&#8221; flagged to be filtered?</p>
<p>let&#8217;s see.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaveP.</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354631</link>
		<dc:creator>DaveP.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354631</guid>
		<description>Not Wilson Presidency, but Weimar Republic. History will remember President Bush as the man who created the conditions for Barack Obama&#039;s rise to power... and hold him in contempt for that, because it didn&#039;t have to be that way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not Wilson Presidency, but Weimar Republic. History will remember President Bush as the man who created the conditions for Barack Obama&#8217;s rise to power&#8230; and hold him in contempt for that, because it didn&#8217;t have to be that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GayPatriotWest</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354476</link>
		<dc:creator>GayPatriotWest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354476</guid>
		<description>So, Martin, are you saying that women voted disproportionally for the GOP in 1920?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, Martin, are you saying that women voted disproportionally for the GOP in 1920?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354472</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354472</guid>
		<description>Your analysis of 1920 forgets that it was the first presidential election in which women were allowed to vote.  That probably skews the results since half the population was voting for the first time in 1920.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your analysis of 1920 forgets that it was the first presidential election in which women were allowed to vote.  That probably skews the results since half the population was voting for the first time in 1920.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ILoveCapitalism</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/01/09/does-w-stand-for-wilson-as-in-woodrow/comment-page-1/#comment-354467</link>
		<dc:creator>ILoveCapitalism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=7576#comment-354467</guid>
		<description>True Presidential failures are few.  James Buchanan (predecessor to Lincoln) is commonly cited.  Jimmuh Carter.  Hard to think of others.  Aaron Burr as a Vice Presidential failure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True Presidential failures are few.  James Buchanan (predecessor to Lincoln) is commonly cited.  Jimmuh Carter.  Hard to think of others.  Aaron Burr as a Vice Presidential failure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
