> Hyerdahl postulated:

>> Turin wrote:

>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>> Turin wrote:

>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>>> Brother Turin wrote:

>>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>>>>> Turin wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>>>>>>> Turin wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Turin wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's all applaud Pelosi for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stating the obvious, as the new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker, about the will of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Ok. But, is she going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the job done in enacting it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, Is this just the beginning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another shining, but empty,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> career as the "first female" to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this or that ...where, that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all we ever hear is the empty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric about her vagina's long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored qualifications?

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ???? I'm a bit confused by your
>>>>>>>>>>>> wording, Turin.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Surprise me, Hyerdahl.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know that I can, Turin; I'm a
>>>>>>>>>> very boring person.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Surprise me, again, Hyerdahl.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> First, five children were born to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pelosi,

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And, they think triplets are
>>>>>>>>>>> painful...

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you imagine five little Pelosis?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, four of them with the chromosome
>>>>>>>>> redundancy problem, too.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?????

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> and, secondly, you know nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>> about her sex life.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> She's not my type. Thanks, though.
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't know you could fix me up
>>>>>>>>>>> with her.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can't. The politician I worked for
>>>>>>>>>> is also married.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Salvation comes in yet another form...

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I told you I was boring.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I keep waiting for you to say something
>>>>>>> on the issue, but, instead I keep seeing a
>>>>>>> lot of insecurity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, she has already had a
>>>>>>>>>>>> shining career , no?

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the camera, no doubt.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To anyone's standards, she has a
>>>>>>>>>> brilliant political career Turin,

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Especially to the people's who gave us
>>>>>>>>> Britney Spears.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True, but then what can you expect from
>>>>>>>> Americans.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All things plastic.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And yet, in spite of all that she still has
>>>>>>>> had a good run.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define "good", Hyerdahl.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (Thought so).

>>>>
>>>> Anyone who makes it to that level has had a good
>>>> run. Colin Powell had a good run.

>>>
>>>
>>> That's begging the question, Hyerdahl. Twice. Both,
>>> Powell and Pelosi have been pushed through in their
>>> careers for being disadvantage. You don't seem to
>>> want to admit that fact.

>>
>> Well, I don't think they got where they got from being
>> Black or being female, if that's what you're getting
>> at.

>
>
> haha ...of course, you don't.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>> no matter how much you complain about
>>>>>>>>>> her.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow, one post constitutes chronic
>>>>>>>>> complaining.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't accuse you of chronicity.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sure implied it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> But, that's not the true question.
>>>>>>>>>>> WTF has she done *except* enjoy a
>>>>>>>>>>> symbolic career as "a woman
>>>>>>>>>>> this-and-that"? What has she done
>>>>>>>>>>> besides rise on the basis of looking
>>>>>>>>>>> the part that she's supposed to play
>>>>>>>>>>> while agreeing with the party line?

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean the DEMOCRATIC party line?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, IOW, you can't state one thing that she's
>>>>>>> done earlier in her career which would give
>>>>>>> us an indicator how she'll perform in her new
>>>>>>> role.

>>>>
>>>> You have not given us any indicator either, Turin,
>>>> and you're the one complaining.

>>>
>>>
>>> It's not my burden to prove a "0" by attempting to
>>> show one.
>>>
>>> If you believe in proving negatives, then you should
>>> be able to make about the same sum of money working
>>> for Pangborn on commission. That's what he makes.

>>
>> I'd rather be boiled in oil than work for the Pang.
>> But I'm simply saying that if you have something
>> against Pelosi, spit it out. I think the only thing
>> you've shown here is that you don't like her because
>> she's a woman.

>
>
> So....IOW, Pelosi's qualifications have never been an
> issue. She got the position in order to be "the first
> woman" to hold it.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>> She has only been speaker for a short
>>>>>>>>>> time; are you going to give her a
>>>>>>>>>> chance to make a difference?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SOTHes need better accomplishments behind
>>>>>>>>> them than simply having a vagina to get
>>>>>>>>> that chance. Again, What are they?

>>>>
>>>> Since you're the one complaining, what has she done
>>>> adverse to her position?

>>>
>>>
>>> ????? You lost me.
>>>
>>>

>>>> You didn't even list the positive attributes
>>>> (accomplishments) of the last SOTH.

>>>
>>>
>>> ???? So, IOW, you want...."adverse positions" for
>>> the girl......and positive accomplishments for the
>>> boy, is that it? *She* has to fuck up, while *he*
>>> has only to not achieve???

>>
>> Well, we need some kind of comparison, Turin or all
>> that this shows is that you don't like her because
>> she's female.

>
>
> Great comparison. So, IOW, you like her because she's a
> female.
>
>

>>> Talk about clinging to sexist relics.

>>
>> You mean you?

>
>
> No, I support equality, without crutches.
>
>

>>>>>>>> What are the attributes of anyone else in
>>>>>>>> her shoes? Compare her to the last speaker
>>>>>>>> if you like.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still no answer to the fundamental question,
>>>>>>> Hyerdahl. Do you get OT, there in your N.O.W.
>>>>>>> highrise office...?

>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer either, Turin and you're the one
>>>> complaining.

>>>
>>>
>>> I don't need to answer your diversion, Hyerdahl.
>>> Besides, farther down, you start playing "I asked
>>> first" on something else where you're in the corner.
>>> Well, I still asked first, here.

>>
>> Go for it. Now do you have a comparison or not, Turin.
>>

>
>
> Hahaha ...Go for what? You're the one who needs to prove
> Pelosi has something to qualify her.
>
>

>>>>>> I don't even have a NOW membership.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Suuure.

>>>>
>>>> Truely [sic]. However, I've contributed to some
>>>> of their causes.

>>>
>>>
>>> Like what? Getting Men fired, using baseless
>>> accusations and backroom trials?

>>
>> No like literacy programs and support for DEMs

>
>
> Well, I agree that Dems like you need literacy programs.
> I also agree that you demand perpetual support. I'm just
> not clear on if you ever plan to start practicing
> equality.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing really. She's another
>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton. A nominal opposition. She
>>>>>>>>>>> hams for the spotlight. She plays
>>>>>>>>>>> "power" politics. She doesn't take a
>>>>>>>>>>> worthwhile stance in opposition to
>>>>>>>>>>> anything on any issue of consequence.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok. What could she do (in your book) to
>>>>>>>>>> make a difference? What would you like
>>>>>>>>>> to see her accomplish?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> She could go back to the start and then
>>>>>>>>> do things the right way, instead of being
>>>>>>>>> an empty poster girl.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you also recommend that for male
>>>>>>>> politicos?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to recommend anything, Hyerdahl.
>>>>>>> The burden is on Pelosi supporters to
>>>>>>> specify her accomplishments. You can't,
>>>>>>> because there are none to specify.

>>
>> Then there were none for the past 5 SOTHs as well,

>
>
> Standard liberal non sequitur.
>
>

>> then good; she fits right in.

>
>
> Prove it.
>
>

>>>> So what were the "accomplishments" of her male
>>>> predacessors [sic] before THEY became SOTH?

>>>
>>>
>>> Do you concede that Pelosi is unqualified?

>
>
> (hahaha)
>
>

>>>>>> As SOTH she has had no time yet FOR
>>>>>> accomplishments. What were the "accomplishment"
>>>>>> of the past SOTH?

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've already said that I'm talking about her
>>>>> accomplishments in previous government positions.
>>>>> You obviously can't find anything. Checkmate.

>>>>
>>>> Not so, Turin. Since you're the one complaining,
>>>> it is up to you to show that she has fewer
>>>> "accomplishments" than the last SOTH. Better get
>>>> crakin [sic].

>>>
>>>
>>> Checkmate.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Are you Miss Congeniality, Turin?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm Mr. Kick Ass. If you want Miss
>>>>>>>>> Kiss Ass, then try Kenya Pangborn.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not really interested in anything to do
>>>>>>>> with Pangborn.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people aren't, thanks to the preventive
>>>>>>> efforts of Stacy Alexander, whom I salute for
>>>>>>> neutralizing a phony - freeing up the real
>>>>>>> MRA's to act.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the idiot Pangborn is really hoist on his
>>>>>> own petard.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's for sure. No sooner does Pangborn call
>>>>> someone stupid, then he misspells it.

>>>>
>>>> True.

>>>>> What a dumb motherfucker to own a computer.

>>>>
>>>> Do you think he might be one of the last Bush boys?
>>>> :-)

>>>
>>>
>>> Hell, if he's the last anything it can probably only
>>> be good.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>>>> do you just want "world peace"?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't left-bait me, Hyerdahl. I am a
>>>>>>>>> leftist.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't think "I'm" a leftist too? Once,
>>>>>> sitting with a group of classmates, we were
>>>>>> seated from right to left, depending on our
>>>>>> political sway; I was off the friggen couch on
>>>>>> the left.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, Hyerdahl. You label yourself a
>>>>> compassionate capitalist. Liberals are just
>>>>> capitalism's counterfeits for real left wing
>>>>> parties.

>>>>
>>>> Well, it is my humble opinion that society needs
>>>> motivation to accomplish; you don't get that with
>>>> pure communism Turin.

>>>
>>>
>>> Liberalism isn't even pure motivation. It's simply a
>>> way to socially bond with strangers, or people of
>>> other classes.

>>
>> I was speaking more of me labeling myself as a
>> compassionate capitalist.

>
>
> You said "society needs".
>
> *Slap!* Pay attention, Hyerdahl.
>
>

>>>>> You agreed with me, before, when I said that
>>>>> property was theft, but you know that you can't
>>>>> really believe that. You must've BSed your
>>>>> friends.

>>>>
>>>> Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. Owning property?
>>>> You and I both probably believe that all we're
>>>> doing here is passing thru. And, like you, I
>>>> believe in social programs. I'm pink around the
>>>> edges.

>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I said that on a Marxist group to a Thor
>>> Heyerdahl. My mistake.

>>
>> Oh Ok.
>>

>>>>>>>>> Nancy Pelosi, OTOH, is a rich bitch who
>>>>>>>>> votes to attack other countries in order
>>>>>>>>> to protect economic interests, while
>>>>>>>>> domestically voting for social programs
>>>>>>>>> which primarily benefit American women
>>>>>>>>> who raise the next generation of jobless
>>>>>>>>> American Men.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turin, women suffer outsourcing just like
>>>>>>>> men do.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not when they have their husbands to fall
>>>>>>> back on.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> So do you object men caring for the mothers of
>>>>>> their children?

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I object to capricious standards. What you call:
>>>>> "double dipping".

>>>>
>>>> Ok. I agree with you there. But I have no problem
>>>> at all with men supporting their families when
>>>> women stay hom [sic] to raise children. I don't
>>>> really call that double dipping. If a woman is
>>>> contributing to the family equally, that is NOT
>>>> double dipping.

>>>
>>>
>>> Hyerdahl, Hyerdahl. There's no reason for women to
>>> stay home and be supported, anymore ...just because
>>> they're too lazy or unambitious to go to college.
>>> Raising children isn't a full time job.

>>
>> Turin, most women I know only stay home until the child
>> is school age, and then the couple tends to work
>> whatever hours necessary coupled with childcare, to
>> provide for the family. I don't know ANY couples where
>> the woman stays home all the time. None. Perhaps
>> you're thinking of a bygone day even my mother and
>> grandmother worked and contributed to the family
>> income.

>
>
> Hyerdahl, you say whatever it takes to make your
> argument.
>
>

>>> The Men who are still going along with this crap are
>>> doing so because they're being shamed and pressured
>>> by redundant societal mores to take care of
>>> autonomous little fatties - for no other reason than
>>> to take care of autonomous little fatties.

>>
>> Are you angry because these women are autonomous,
>> little, fat or that their husbands support them? And
>> it isn't just women who are fatter, Turin; American
>> men are fatties too as compared to Euro men.

>
>
> Oh, yeah: European Men. ...There in left-wing Europe.
> Hahaha
>
>

>>> Worse, it kills their own ambition, deadens their
>>> spirits and adds to the burden in a job market where
>>> capitalism simply can't provide these kinds of
>>> high-paying, full-time jobs anymore.

>>
>> What does? Supporting their families? I think most
>> men would be happy to do so. In fact, I think most men
>> also value women who bring home the bacon as well.
>> Most men today don't seem to want a SAH spouse.

>
>
> Gee, now. Which is it?
>
>

>>> It's time for these bitches to get off of their
>>> self-pacing, gossipy, spreading asses and WORK to
>>> bring some income INTO the home, instead of living
>>> off of the family dole.

>>
>> Well, I have no objection at all to women working,
>> Turin; that's part of what feminism was all about:
>> making sure women had the choice to work as equals,
>> side by side with men. BTW, no one promises any woman
>> the "choice" to stay home. Not everyone offers that
>> choice TO women and not everyone can afford to have one
>> parent staying home.

>
>
> Good to know. Let's hear it again the next time a woman
> makes a "choice" in the other direction.
>
>

>>> Answering to a boss would do them worlds of good,
>>> too. They need regimentation.

>>
>> As do men, eh?

>
>
> No, Men already get too much of it. Time for balance.
>
>

>> Or perhaps they ARE the boss.

>
>
> If that were the case, then they could get their
> regimentation at home.
>
>

>>>> If a woman is lying and milking both ends of the
>>>> system, that IS double dipping.

>>>
>>>
>>> You mean, collecting welfare while she's married?

>>
>> Well, collecting welfare under fraudulent means might
>> be more than just double dipping; it's against the law.
>> But, to me, double dipping is pretending to be
>> anti-feminist while voting FOR feminist policy while
>> you smile at your owner and tell him you voted for
>> Bush. Or....a woman who marries a rich Republican
>> telling him what he wants to hear, while you vote
>> Democrat. Or a woman who uses her Republican husband's
>> money to contribute to NOW. That sort of thing.

>
>
> Oh, ok. The usual invisible witchhunt stuff they can
> hardly be busted on, while letting the obvious shit roar
> past you in a 747.
>
> "Heyyy...the Men there are assigned to do twice the work
> that the women are....quick! Let's cover for it! Pay no
> attention to the obvious discrimination and instead go
> looking for a commie connection! Call anyone who does
> make an issue of the discrimination a commie too!".
>
>

>>>>>> Because the men I know seem to feel those SAH
>>>>>> wives provide a distinctly valuable service.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I know. Those guys are sentimentalists.
>>>>> They're a big part of the problem. They don't
>>>>> understand today's world. When their little
>>>>> butterballs at home become so spoiled that they
>>>>> decide they want to play modern women and take
>>>>> part of their incomes with them, these guys
>>>>> scream like no one ever warned them.

>>>>
>>>> Turin, if most American women have 2.? children, by
>>>> the time the last child is in school she can still
>>>> have a career. Most men seem to want their wives
>>>> to work, and contribute to the family income. The
>>>> few men who are "screaming" are just insecure. The
>>>> happiest marriages are between two secure people.
>>>> There's nothing sentimental about that.

>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't specify how long they plan on being SAH.

>>
>> That depends on how many children they have.

>
>
> Sorry ...can't work with open-ended standards. Too many
> women still sitting at home. Men falling for it:
>
> Sentimentalism.
>
>

>>>>>>> Ever think about that, Hyerdahl?

>>>>
>>>> I think that honorable men should pursue ONLY
>>>> honorable women, Turin. And, I'm not sure that most
>>>> men have honor high up on their list of
>>>> priorities. However, I would expect that of you.

>>>
>>>
>>> Give us an applied definition of honorable, Hyerdahl.
>>>

>>
>> It's about honesty. If a man is upfront about who he
>> is and what he wants, and seeks a woman who is the
>> same. I'd call that honor. It's the lying that can
>> screw things up. Of course, there are many people out
>> there who cannot be honest with themselves, let alone
>> someone else.

>
>
> That's still not an applied definition.
>
>

>>>>>> Sure. I have three children, and the mother of
>>>>>> those children lost time in her career both to
>>>>>> have the children and to provide them early
>>>>>> child care. One of my children also needed
>>>>>> added medical care, as an infant, and this
>>>>>> required that one parent stay home for several
>>>>>> months. When the couple needs this for thier
>>>>>> child, there are still bills to pay. What would
>>>>>> you suggest here?

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd suggest better planning. Heidi used the
>>>>> medical excuse, too, but the truth is that she
>>>>> just didn't want to work. But, you specify only
>>>>> three months. That's not so terrible.

>>>>
>>>> It was 18 mos....all total. Both my partner and I
>>>> have always worked outside the home, save for that
>>>> brief time.

>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I guess that's okay. Are we talking PT or FT?

>>
>> Full time. But we varied our schedules and I was also
>> able to work from home two to three days per week,
>> thanks to the net.

>
>
> Aha, so you're another self-pacer "working out of the
> home". So, we've got PT.
>
>

>>>>> If we're talking years, then it's starting to
>>>>> smell like bullshit, again.

>>>>
>>>> If there's no reason to stay home, then working
>>>> outside the home seems prudent to me. When our
>>>> children were young, we simply varied our shifts
>>>> and they did not need much in the way of day care.
>>>> We were also fortunate to have one set of
>>>> grandparents nearby.

>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to know if your S/O found that to be
>>> "fortunate", also...

>>
>> Yes but like I said, I was fortunate to be able to do
>> some of my work from home.

>
>
> What does that have to do with grandparents babysitting
> for you?
>
>

>>>>> At any rate, this has nothing to do with nothing.
>>>>> You said that women suffer from outsourcing.
>>>>> You give a pregnancy and a type of family leave
>>>>> as an example. And, the outsourcing comment was a
>>>>> response to mine about women and Pelosi
>>>>> perpetuating a cycle of taking Men's jobs. All
>>>>> you've really done is validate the point. Thanks,
>>>>> Hy.

>>>>
>>>> Turin, since every company employes women,
>>>> companies that are outsourced will affect women
>>>> just as they affect men. You can't really blame
>>>> Pelosi for all of that.

>>>
>>>
>>> No one tried to. Take it easy with the strawwomen,
>>> Hyerdahl.

>>
>> There was no straw woman. Just the facts.

>
>
> Just a strawwoman.
>
>

>>>>>>>> It wasn't Pelosi who signed NAFTA or sided
>>>>>>>> with the corporate powers that be any
>>>>>>>> moreso than any other politico.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe she didn't "sign" it, Hyerdahl, but she
>>>>>>> *voted* for it. Doesn't that count...? She
>>>>>>> also voted for CAFTA and the Patriot Act.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm on your side in one aspect of what you have
>>>>>> to say, Turin; Neither party accurately
>>>>>> represents our own middle class. However, one
>>>>>> party represents those who are not the
>>>>>> wealthiest Americans MORE THAN the other party.
>>>>>> I think you recognize that too.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but I'm a leftist. I don't give a shit
>>>>> about the middle class. You see, that's one of
>>>>> those differences between real left wing parties
>>>>> and capitalist liberals who are wanna-being as
>>>>> left wing parties in order to have issues to run
>>>>> on in elections. The bourgeois are an extension
>>>>> of the main capital owners at the top. We don't
>>>>> want to support them. So, the Republicats and
>>>>> Demosluts can switch roles for all I care.

>>>>
>>>> How can you be a leftist and NOT care about the
>>>> middle class?

>>>
>>>
>>> Because, I'm a leftist. QED
>>>
>>>

>>>> If you study the history of the borgeois in Russia,
>>>> for example, it didn't work out so well for anyone
>>>> there, not the workers, and not the borgeois.
>>>> Either way the damn dog dies Turin. Any successful
>>>> body politic must care about the middle class or
>>>> they will eventually fail. It's the middle class
>>>> that keeps the thing moving.

>>>
>>>
>>> Propaganda.

>>
>> Hullabaloo! You can't offer anything better.

>
>
> Communism.
>
> Minus cold wars, embargoes and propaganda, of course.
> They did pretty damn good in a hostile world for as long
> as they did for a society that was against the
> acquisition of materialism.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> That's the typical "left" model found in
>>>>>>>>> the garbage U.S. By design, it
>>>>>>>>> perpetuates the industrial age's breeding
>>>>>>>>> of dumbed-down, single-task male drones.
>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, it "liberates" women even
>>>>>>>>> further into the professional (power)
>>>>>>>>> classes.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turin, you can't "liberate" a person into a
>>>>>>>> power class without taking away the civil
>>>>>>>> rights of others.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly. Welcome to the Men's Movement,
>>>>>>> Hyerdahl. The Marx Movement, too.

>>>>
>>>> But what RIGHTS have been taken?

>>>
>>>
>>> We've covered two, already. Are you saying that
>>> reproductive rights shouldn't be rights, Hyerdahl? I
>>> really didn't expect that of you.

>>
>> Men already have reproductive rights, Turin; they have
>> the same right to control their bodies that women have.
>>

>
>
> So How do you justify women making their decisions to
> become fathers, then?
>
>

>>>>>> I'm suggesting that you're wrong. If women
>>>>>> were getting unfair advantages by LAW, that
>>>>>> would result in civil rights violations and men
>>>>>> would have cause to sue.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The cause and effect that you propose both exist.
>>>>> But, the fact that Men "don't sue" is a separate
>>>>> question. Many Men DO TRY to sue and are
>>>>> systematically blocked.

>>>>
>>>> You'd have to prove that to me, Turin. I have not
>>>> seen it.

>>>
>>>
>>> You wouldn't admit it, Hyerdahl, if it was enacted by
>>> a professional demonstrator. You would just say,
>>> "Different strokes for different folks" ...and then,
>>> no doubt, laugh your ass off after you got away from
>>> the situation.

>>
>> Turin it's obvious to me and to the judges that men
>> have the same reproductive rights women have,

>
>
> Right: You both use the same outdated patriarchal
> standards to obligate Men into pay for women's choices.
>
>

>> just not the same body parts or abilities.

>
>
> The differences in body parts and abilities are neglible
> in today's world.
>
>

>> I'm not laughing my ass off at you, Turin.

>
>
> That's a relief.
>
>

>> I'm laughing my ass off at the lack of logic used by
>> others in that debate.

>
>
> You mean like:
>
> "It's not really a gender movement. It's a plot to
> destroy the family® and establish communism?"
>
> ....after which, they peter out of argument and start
> censoring people?"
>
>
> That kind of logic is funny from the standpoint of those
> who aren't lucky enough to inherent the two-cars & a
> garage entitlement mentality and are simply trying to get
> ahead within the capitalist system.
>
> But, after you've listened to enough such self-centered,
> victim-playing class warfare, and have given up trying to
> reason with it, you start realizing not only that its
> proponents are acting on it as an excuse to be the
> aggressors, but that Marx formulated all of this long
> ago.
>
>
> The reason their logic is so damn (un)funny is because
> they have competing agendas. In fact, when you listen to
> the way they often beg the whole issue by yearning for
> those "women who love men", you quickly realize that it's
> their ONLY agenda.
>
> Attacking "left wing ideology" becomes a face-saving way
> for them to express their lack of success with women. So
> their logic ends up tripping over itself - or with just a
> light push from a feminist, like you.
>
>
> Besides, what they they mean by "the left" is mainly the
> same brand of feel-good liberalism that you advocate. It
> is the mark of the liberal to try to reform the problem
> rather than to try an alternative. So, when they are
> seen agonizing over a lack of civility in women (or
> "femininity", as THEY laughingly put it) toward Men, they
> are simply showing how full of shit they are, on yet
> another level.
>
>

>> So far, you haven't hit my LMAO silly bone.

>
>
> I feel much better, now.
>
>

>>>>> The truth about the "right wing" positions that
>>>>> many of the little meatballs, that we both argue
>>>>> with, take, is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the majority of that systematic discrimination
>>>>> were successfully punctured, then most of those
>>>>> talk radio fans would be standing in every
>>>>> "government" line there is to get their share of
>>>>> it. Women would be getting sued, "reverse"
>>>>> discrimination cases would be filling up the
>>>>> courts, and Men would be signing up and calling
>>>>> for more government programs.

>>>>
>>>> I have no objection to men proving up need and
>>>> applying for grant funding. As to discrimination,
>>>> I think there is a huge difference between
>>>> inclusionary programs and discrimination. And I
>>>> have no objection to those working for men as well
>>>> where men have not been included.

>>>
>>>
>>> That's a pretty handy difference to stipulate when
>>> most women's issues are defined alongside Men's using
>>> mutually exclusive criteria.

>>
>> Like what? If you consider diversity programs those
>> can include anyone in a suspect class who has been
>> excluded i.e. nursing programs, nursery programs, etc.

>
>
> Mutually exclusive means that they can't exist at the
> same time because they cancel each other out. Example:
> equality and sexism.
>
>
> Suppose there's lifting on a job. The females try to get
> the males to do the lifting simply because they're males.
> The males complain about it. Suddenly, sexism is brought
> into it to both excuse it and to shame them.
>
> The conversation probably takes place in a hallway or a
> backroom. Or else, a guy gets ambushed into a stacked
> "meeting" where he's outnumbered. I haven't even brought
> reprisals into it.
>
>
> This is discrimination. Happens all the time. You gonna
> tell me that it doesn't, just because you can point to
> some posted list of rules which state that it shouldn't?
> Or, because the shame works on losers, like Smitty and
> Greasy...?
>
>

>>> One thing that the Men's Movement is trying to
>>> accomplish is to untangle these double-standards so
>>> that whenever a Man speaks up about - say - the lack
>>> of "professionalism" in a female coworker the
>>> complaints stop being used as occasions to simply
>>> subject him to dripping sarcasm.

>>
>> I don't know that co-workers generally have much to say
>> about someone who is "unprofessional"; that's usually
>> the job of the boss to evaluate an employee. And as
>> long as there is some level of evenhandedness, I don't
>> see the problem. A male or female employee can be
>> unprofessional.

>
>
> Wrong, Hyerdahl. Time to trade in your textbook for the
> new edition.
>
>

>>> Even so, I am distinguishing between what's
>>> inclusionary and discrimination. One of the primary
>>> differences between a real Men's Rights Activst and a
>>> right wing blowhard like Masculip is that the
>>> blowhard is too chicken to argue the standard. The
>>> MRA always takes his stand on it.
>>>
>>> If the policy is inclusion, then that shouldn't give
>>> be a greenlight to simply replace Men - or to squash
>>> their voices when the inclusion reaches a point of
>>> discrimination. That's what often happens. The women
>>> are so brazen about it, that it's ridiculous.

>>
>> I certainly think companies should maintain high
>> standards in the way employees conduct business. The
>> bosses should exemplify the high standards by the way
>> they address those under them. There is no place in
>> the workforce for either insipid men or women. Those
>> who can't maintain professional standards will not
>> likely rise in the ranks, as is also true of those who
>> can't get along with others.

>
>
> We're not talking about "should". We're talking about
> "is".
>
>

>>>>> They denounce all of this only because they're
>>>>> excluded from it and the corporate media
>>>>> propaganda outreaches that they've been sucked
>>>>> into play into it.
>>>>>

>>>>>>>> What rights have women denied men? What
>>>>>>>> rights has Pelosi denied men?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, but Hyerdahl, What rights haven't women
>>>>>>> taken from Men?

>>>>
>>>> I asked you first, Turin. Women have not taken ANY
>>>> rights from men. Men have equal rights.

>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, then where's my answer to the question about
>>> Pelosi's qualifications? Why has it taken so much
>>> time to get an answer?

>>
>> That has nothing to do with equal rights, Turin. It's
>> another issue.

>
>
> So, then, asking "first" doesn't mean anything, except as
> a way to cry foul to get out of a corner.
>

>>>>>> According to the Marquis de Sade or the real
>>>>>> world? I read some excerpts of de Sade's
>>>>>> writings (altho I could not get a copy yet of
>>>>>> the one your reommended)

>>>>
>>>> I got that copy; very interesting, but he would
>>>> not be my hero.

>>>
>>>
>>> How long did it take you to flip through it...?

>>
>> Well, I'm still reading parts of it without a
>> background in his writing, I'm not sure I'm
>> understanding all of it.

>
>
> Hyerdahl, you are so full of shit.
>
>

>>>>>>> Reproductive rights, for one. When do you
>>>>>>> plan on restricting your own dripping wombs
>>>>>>> away from our wallets?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Men are 100%% responsible for their own sperm
>>>>>> and what they do with it, Turin. If a child is
>>>>>> born with your DNA YOU are "responsible". That
>>>>>> applies to her as well, btw.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, then, Men are only 50%% responsible. It
>>>>> takes two to tango.

>>>>
>>>> Actually, no. The reason men and women are each
>>>> 100%%

>>>
>>>
>>> Wait a minute, here ...so, we have 200%% percent of a
>>> relationship? How does that work?

>>
>> I've explained that below.

>
>
> You mean, you repeated it below.
>
>

>>>> responsible is because a parent may be unknown or
>>>> may die. The child will still require care.

>>>
>>>
>>> Semantics. 100%% = 50%% where the kid is concerned.
>>> You just like converting a 50 into a 100 so that you
>>> can have a soundbite that says "men are 100%%
>>> responsible".

>>
>> No. While the parents may or may not contribute 100%%,
>> the responsibility is there.

>
>
> You're having an argument with yourself.
>
> Let me know who wins.
>
>

>>> Using it here may seem innocuous, but throwing it
>>> around in a child support payment proceeding would
>>> have quite a different effect.

>>
>> It's not about how the payments are divied up. It's
>> about legal responsibility.

>
>
> Same thing.
>
>

>>>>>>> You make your future decisions when you agree
>>>>>>> to have sex.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> People "decide" very little when they have sex,
>>>>>> Turin, and that may be part of the problem. Sex
>>>>>> is fun, and if people choose to engage in
>>>>>> recreational sex, that is up to them, but they
>>>>>> do risk consequences.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, When the gender is "Men", then the standard
>>>>> is "you're 100%% responisible". And, when the
>>>>> gender is "women" then the standard is "Oh,
>>>>> people can't think clearly when they're having
>>>>> fun!"

>>>>
>>>> Both women and men are 100%% responsible, Turin,
>>>> whether they are having fun, or closing their eyes
>>>> to think of England. Their sex doesn't matter a
>>>> bit.

>>>
>>>
>>> Double standard, Hyerdahl. You're simply shoving
>>> words together and then throwing in high impact
>>> phrases to hide the fact.

>>
>> I'm hiding nothing, Turin. The courts and I agree that
>> you will be legally responsible for any child born with
>> your DNA. The same is true for me.

>
>
> That's not the issue.
>
>

>>>>>>> We have 18 years of future child payments to
>>>>>>> think about which shouldn't be restricted to
>>>>>>> a snap decision.

>>>>
>>>> Both parents have 18 years of child support to
>>>> consider, Turin; one can support a child,
>>>> physically or financially.

>>>
>>>
>>> OK. That's your answer. Therefore, BOTH parents
>>> have to approve that future, via the continuance of
>>> the embryo/fetus. His body. His life. Not hers.

>>
>> Not so. A woman can be completely comatose, and give
>> birth, never come out of the coma and the man who's DNA
>> the child carries will still be 100%% responsible. Or,
>> otoh, she could come out of the coma, and find that he
>> has been killed by a drive by fruiting and then SHE
>> will be 100%% responsible.

>
>
> Yes, so. We're talking about two functional human
> beings.
>
>

>>>>>>> Besides, sex is for pleasure. Procreation is
>>>>>>> a side-effect. And, in modern society, it's
>>>>>>> just a way to create safe, paying "jobs" for
>>>>>>> women without job skills. Creating mouths to
>>>>>>> feed in order to support a third party isn't
>>>>>>> a legitimate use of reproduction.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reproduction is the natural and scientific
>>>>>> imperative for sex,

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, but that's like saying that breaking down
>>>>> carbohydrates or proteins is the natural and
>>>>> scientific imperative for eating. We only know
>>>>> that because we live in this day and age. What
>>>>> does the natural human mind know about it?

>>>>
>>>> You don't have to "know" anything about sex at all
>>>> to be made 100%% responsible for the support of your
>>>> child.

>>>
>>>
>>> Now, Hyerdahl. Don't be evading questions that
>>> invalidate your arguments, by jumping back to your
>>> premise, like that.

>>
>> Well, that is how the courts and I see it, Turin.

>
>
> Again, you're jumping past the conversation. You see
> where the example is going, and you want to invalidate it
> before we get there.
>
>

>> It takes two to co create and men can't avoid their
>> responsibility simply because they don't house the ZEF.
>>

>
>
> No, Hyerdahl. Where we're at, right now, is whether or
> not the unsocialized human mind understands that having
> sex creates a baby. ...Be patient ...we'll get there. ;D
>
>
>

>>> We're trying to trace the chain of reasoning in the
>>> rationale behind an existing law to see if it's a
>>> fair one. Just because it's one of your favorites, is
>>> no reason for you to accept it blindly. Do
>>> participate.

>>
>> It all seems very simple to me, Turin; when two play,
>> two pay.

>
>
> That's a remarkable point, Hyerdahl. We'll talk about
> that, when we get the chance...
>
>

>>> If the natural unsocialized mind doesn't understand
>>> its own body's processes, CAN it be honestly said
>>> that those processes are the reason for the
>>> creature's actions IN the mind of the animal or
>>> human?
>>>
>>> Your answer, please.

>>
>> If we consider the law of social harms, the mind need
>> not understand body process in order to be cognizant of
>> the fact of what every 10 year old knows that sex is
>> the act that leads to pregnancy. Most five year olds
>> probably know it as well. But for sure, every boy who
>> can have an erection knows it by then.

>
>
> So, you're saying that people (mainly boys) are born
> knowing something that you call a.....do I got this
> right?....a "law of social harms"...?
>
> Which part of the DNA would this "law of social harms" be
> located in...?
>
>

>>>>> Even eating to "live". Does the unsocialized
>>>>> mind understand that point, or does it just
>>>>> follow natural prompts to do what it likes to do?
>>>>> I doubt that animals understand what motivate
>>>>> them when they eat, either.

>>
>> I don't think it really matters. You remind me of
>> that old Bill Cosby album "Why is there Air"; he
>> concludes that there's air to blow up volleyballs and I
>> conclude that society doesn't want to pay for bastards
>> so they make women and men equally responsible. Works
>> for me.

>
>
> Hyerdahl, I have a question.
>
> Are you really even a feminist?
>
>
> You remind me of straights who pretend to be gays because
> they want to be part of a community, and being gay gives
> them one. They can't find acceptance any other way, but,
> the gay community offers them an identity.
>
> Jude Alexander reminds me of one of those, too. He talks
> a good game, but I think that he just likes being a gay,
> and probably doesn't have a single gay relationship
> behind him. ....He "knows" he's gay. Hahaha
>
>
> You're practically a legend around here for trolling
> people with babbling responses which always miss the
> mark. If anyone here were to be asked "Name a feminist
> from soc.men", then "Parg" would probably be the first to
> occur to most.
>
> Yet, there's a textbook naiveté about these responses,
> which suggests "wannabe" to me. You can't answer the
> simplest questions about applied feminism - beyond what
> anyone could absorb from situation comedies, TV Dramas,
> "60 Minutes" specials, and - of course - your 10-or-so
> years of reading on these groups. You can't go in depth
> at all. Instead, you always improvise with catchy little
> comebacks and by going off onto Feminism 101 tangents
> which have easier cliches to parrot.
>
>
> I think that you just like playing the role because you
> like saying its phrases and copping its attitudes. What
> makes you think you're a feminist, Hyerdahl?
>
>

>>>> Turin, no society grants a free pass to abandon
>>>> children. It's just that simple.

>>>
>>>
>>> That isn't what I said, Hyerdahl. Apparently, you
>>> see which way the argument is going, and - like with
>>> your recalcitrance on Pelosi - are attempting to head
>>> it off.....

>>
>> You were the one who needed to prove what was wrong
>> with Pelosi; you're the one who has the problem with
>> her.

>
>
> No, the burden of proof is on Pelosi supporters.
>
>

>>>>>> but I agree with you that today, people view
>>>>>> sex as pleasure more than as a means of
>>>>>> populating the nation.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As they should. Especially, Men.

>>>>
>>>> Why?

>>>
>>>
>>> Because I am one. Just like: because you favor women
>>> in everything you say and do, while expecting Men to
>>> be accommodating and sacrificial to your own
>>> interests.
>>>
>>> "Fuck that shit", said Baby Jesus.

>>
>> But I am not favoring women in saying that women should
>> enjoy sex as men do. That's not favoring.

>
>
> You're mighty specific about something so broad. That
> suggests a guilty conscience, there.
>
>

>>>> Are you suggesting that men should enjoy sex more
>>>> than women? That would make you a sexist, Turin.
>>>> I'm sure you don't want to go there.

>>>
>>>
>>> I'm suggesting that some common sense SELFISHNESS
>>> would do Men a lot of good ...where pleading, arguing
>>> and being fair has been met with nothing but our
>>> being taken advantage of by those who refuse to
>>> practice what they preach.

>>
>> Well, if I were a woman who was partnered with a man
>> who thought he should enjoy sex more than me, I
>> probably wouldn't be partnered with him for long.

>
>
> That would probably be a good thing for him.
>
>

>>> Oh, I say let's fight for equal rights. I just
>>> stipulate to Men to not be naive and thereby wind up
>>> the only fools doing our parts for it. Real equality
>>> will take care of everything.

>>
>> I'm ok with that.

>
>
> That's nice.
>
>

>>> Including, those little pity fucks who talk big,
>>> decade after decade, and deliver NOTHING. Except, to
>>> clear the way for you "strong women".

>>
>> So what's your poison, Turin? What do you want?

>
>
> ????
>
>

>>>>>> In terms of jobs for women, if you don't want
>>>>>> to give women the job of motherhood, don't RISK
>>>>>> making a woman into a mother. Again, you are
>>>>>> 100%% responsible for your own sperm. She's not
>>>>>> your sperm sitter.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of making me responsible for your
>>>>> motherhood, if you don't want to have to get a
>>>>> job to support a child then don't RISK making a
>>>>> man into a father. You are 100%% responsible for
>>>>> your own egg. He's not your provider.

>>
>> Well, they're each 100%% responsible, Turin.

>
>
> To themselves. 50%% apiece to the baby.
>
>

>>>> Turin she is only responsible for her decision. He
>>>> is responsible for his. She may WANT to be a
>>>> mother, with all that envolves. He has to make his
>>>> decision apart from hers. He doesn't get to reach
>>>> into her body or her rights, should he have a
>>>> change of heart over the risk.

>>>
>>>
>>> Hyerdahl....that sperm is his. As long as he still
>>> has to pay for it, then it's still his. She cannot
>>> make his decisions for him. If she doesn't like
>>> equality, then she can be a good girl and keep her
>>> legs together.

>>
>>
>> Not so. She has the same right to sex that he has.
>> And he still can't reach inside her body or take away
>> her rights just because he loses control over the
>> process. That's what he opted for after all. That's
>> exactly what he was willing to risk.

>
>
> Hahaha..then it's not the same right to sex. Wrong
> again, Hyerdahl. That's what YOU risk. ;D
>
>

>>>>>>>>> Add to that: women's rights supporters
>>>>>>>>> experiencing fainting and feinting spells
>>>>>>>>> over the idea of women in combat, and
>>>>>>>>> it's pretty clear where this - and your
>>>>>>>>> Pelosi - are going.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, I have no objection at all to women
>>>>>>>> in combat as long as they have equal
>>>>>>>> military rights as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Women run the H/house, while Men run the
>>>>>>>>> business".

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean the White House?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a prophetical sense. That yes-man analogy
>>>>>>> is being used dangerously close to the
>>>>>>> government level.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> ???? Perhaps Pelosi is paving the way for
>>>>>> another mother?

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ???? How did you find mothers in this?

>>>>
>>>> Well, Hillary is also a mother.

>>>
>>>
>>> ????? How did you find Hillary in this?
>>>
>>> Have you been reading into this issue more than you
>>> pretend...?

>>
>> Yes.

>
>
> Gee, let's not be so mysterious.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> Well, What happens to the "business" when
>>>>>>>>> it's a mom & pop "shop" and "mom" has
>>>>>>>>> been declared owner of the home...?
>>>>>>>>> Revisionary traditionalism.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, I don't [want to] see your point.
>>>>>>>> If a married couple own a business
>>>>>>>> together, they both own it as partners.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point was that "home" ownership is coming
>>>>>>> to subsume "business" ownership, as a
>>>>>>> political doctrine. Both types are
>>>>>>> allegorical.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really see an allegory here, tho. If a
>>>>>> couple buys a house as joint tenents they BOTH
>>>>>> own it no matter who manages it. The same
>>>>>> thing applies to a business partnership
>>>>>> arrangement. There is no law giving one the
>>>>>> right to boss the other about, unless the
>>>>>> partnership is a limited partnership, where
>>>>>> each has specific rights and duties, which may
>>>>>> be unequal.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again: Discrimination is the turning point of the
>>>>> process. The laws are ignored.

>>>>
>>>> No there are more lawsuits today than ever. Laws
>>>> are not ignored.

>>>
>>>
>>> More Hyerdahl semantics.

>>
>> More ignoring facts.

>
>
> Hahahaha ....kind of like those imaginary Pelosi
> qualifications, which can't be found. ;D
>
>

>>>>>>>>> That's where your liberalized "world
>>>>>>>>> peace" leaves us Men.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you and your wife owned a business, what
>>>>>>>> is it exactly that "declares" her the
>>>>>>>> owner?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a literal case of that: Discrimination.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really. If she is a 50%% owner OF the
>>>>>> business, she has the same rights you have.
>>>>>> Even if you were to discriminate against her
>>>>>> she'd have the right to her 50%%. So, I'm
>>>>>> assuming you're just talking about workplace
>>>>>> discrimination as an employee, rather than as a
>>>>>> partner.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll say it again: Discrimination.

>>>>
>>>> You can _say_ it all you like, but it has no
>>>> meaning.

>>>
>>>
>>> What has no meaning is your wide-eyed naivette.

>>
>> Turin, either you have a dog in this fight or you
>> don't.

>
>
> No, just me, my facts, and I, Hyerdahl. I'm not
> surprised you'd want to bring another bitch into it,
> though. ;D
>
>

>>>>> You're problem is that you're used to
>>>>> noncompetitive males who would never take it to
>>>>> court.

>>>>
>>>> I don't mind a good fight, TUrin.

>>>
>>>
>>> You're all affirmation, Hyerdahl.
>>>
>>> Indeed.

>
>
> Indeed ...not much else.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> I don't ask patriarchy out of the genuine
>>>>>>>>> left wing movements, but I do demand for
>>>>>>>>> us Men to stop being told by you liberal
>>>>>>>>> shills of capitalism to fend for
>>>>>>>>> ourselves, as though capitalism is
>>>>>>>>> patriarchal.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah ok. Well, Turin with pure capitalism or
>>>>>>>> pure communism, the dog dies. All western
>>>>>>>> democracies have some social programs and
>>>>>>>> yet, they are still promoting capitalist
>>>>>>>> ideals. In some fashion, a smattering of
>>>>>>>> both is more the sign of a healthy society.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's exactly how capitalism plays it. In
>>>>>>> fact, one school of thought (the
>>>>>>> Illuminatists) has it that communism is a
>>>>>>> creation of capitalism, via the Rothchilds,
>>>>>>> in order to bring about wars which will lead
>>>>>>> to one world government.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ooooh my; that thought gives me the shudders.
>>>>>> Well, it's true that the world is a much
>>>>>> smaller one with the advent of the kinds of
>>>>>> tech. we now have, but since we know that every
>>>>>> healthy western society has some degree of
>>>>>> socialism included....we must take that as a
>>>>>> sign of that being a working facet of a
>>>>>> successful society.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that capitalism is not patriarchal.
>>>>> Not, whether or not an $8 trillion-bankrupted
>>>>> economy is a success.

>>>>
>>>> I don't see capitalism as patriarchal, and yes, our
>>>> society is not doing well in money matters. Soon
>>>> Canada will close it's doors to us, IMO.
>>>>

>>>>> If women are going to pretend that it is,
>>>>> whenever they need a handy strawman for demanding
>>>>> more setasides for themselves, then liberalism
>>>>> becomes patriarchal, too, by extension - albeit,
>>>>> in a more face-saving form.

>>>>
>>>> Again, I'm a liberal but I don't see capitalism as
>>>> being patriarchal.

>>>
>>>
>>> Good, because that's what I said.
>>>
>>>

>>>>> But, since it's not, both capitalism and
>>>>> liberalism become alternative avenues for females
>>>>> acquiring rights without responsibilities.

>>>>
>>>> Where women have equal rights, they have equal
>>>> duties, Turin.

>>>
>>>
>>> In theory, not in practice, Hyerdahl. Let's get
>>> serious.
>>>
>>>

>>>>> That's how women like Pelosi can make it to SOTH,
>>>>> through patronage, nepotism and marrying into
>>>>> wealth, and then call it an achievement for
>>>>> women.

>>>>
>>>> More women have entered politics in the past few
>>>> years, starting at the bottom, than ever before.
>>>> Not all women are like Sony Bono's wife.

>>>
>>>
>>> What do you have against Cher?

>>
>> His OTHER wife. Mary.

>
>
> How about that. Another Pelosi: rides into politics on
> the coattails of Men and gets her start by a special
> election after someone croaks. Can't win the same way Men
> are expected to. This is your argument. Mmm-hmm.
>
> And, a Republican who supports stem cell research, too.
> ....Hahaha, more labels that mean nothing. So, that's
> "the right" for you. Yep, I'm a feminist for not making
> faces at the "Hillary".
>
>

>>>>> Using that logic, you can keep calling the same
>>>>> thing either patriarchy or women's rights,
>>>>> depending on the political season, and keep
>>>>> propelling yourself into special treatment,
>>>>> forever.

>>>>
>>>> Did you expect women (after 1919) to simply conjure
>>>> up a political machine? Or did you think it would
>>>> take women a fraction of the time it took men to
>>>> do so?

>>>
>>>
>>> That's a valid point, but it still doesn't change the
>>> fact that they have been using it to fight for the
>>> opposite standards that they've been promoting:
>>> mandated chivalry. Pelosi is nothing more than a
>>> lifelong recipient of chivalry.

>>
>> And men are nothing more than a lifelong recipient of
>> nepotism.

>
>
> Another so-called "male" perk which gets shared with
> women.
>
>

>> So what? I don't [want to] see chivalry playing a part
>> here not anymore.

>
>
> Of course, you wouldn't. Meanwhile, her whole career has
> been both nepotism and chivalry.
>
> And, of course, that scene with those kids playing in the
> podium as she became SOTH (simply so that she could
> become the first woman to do so) had nothing to do with
> chivalry, anymore than it was symbolic of another women's
> issue.
>
>

>>>>> That's also how women came to invent "the glass
>>>>> ceiling": Like a spoiled kid who gets the latest,
>>>>> greatest computer one year and then the very next
>>>>> year says that it sucks, for no other reason than
>>>>> he wants another new one.

>>>>
>>>> Just how did your alleged power play get into the
>>>> "glass ceiling" ? BTW, have you also heard about
>>>> the "glass cliff'?

>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's a new one on me. What's this one about?

>>
>> That's where a company is run into the ground, just
>> long enough to give over the CEO to a woman who will
>> step off the cliff with it.

>
>
> Lmao...so they've found a way to blame women's business
> failures on Men, too, now: The Glass cliff.
>
> Well, while that's perfectly believable in corporate
> America, it's also perfectly abusable, too. Hence, this
> will become another "abortion for rape and incest"
> excuse, where the actual percentage of legitimate cases
> is equivalent to 1 over the speed of light.
>
>

>>>>>>> Regardless of whether you believe that
>>>>>>> theory, you still can't get away with systems
>>>>>>> built on outcome-based sophistry. You can't
>>>>>>> get away with creating undefined grey areas
>>>>>>> to cloak the workings of the mechanisms of
>>>>>>> your ideas, pointing at unplanned
>>>>>>> "successes", and then claiming, I'm a
>>>>>>> conscientious human being who cares about
>>>>>>> other human beings as individuals".

>>>>
>>>> So what would you have me be? Every INDIVIDUAL
>>>> strives toward his or her own view of things, and
>>>> votes the best way they can for the person who best
>>>> represents their own ideals. AND, to top that off,
>>>> it is my opinion that most people care about other
>>>> human beings, as individuals. Anne Franke springs
>>>> to mind.

>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we're not islands unto ourselves. We
>>> have to share too much of our space with worthless
>>> assholes (like Tom Smith) who can - and want to -
>>> screw things up for the rest.

>>
>> Yes. That's so. But I have to tell you, Turin, that I
>> run into more genuinely good people than bad, and even
>> tho it is human nature to be selfish, most people can
>> share.

>
>
> That's nice. Ask Tom if his ex has "shared" any of that
> back child support he owes. *...pop!*
>
>

>>> That's why I believe God sent Karl Marx into the
>>> world:
>>>
>>>
>>> To bring everyone up to the highest similar level.
>>> Liberalism brings everyone down to the lowest common
>>> denominator of capitalism's sewers. But, when we
>>> embrace communism, we can escape it's materialist
>>> illusions, along with its scumbags who are a
>>> perpetual drag on the rest of us.

>>
>> Oh you had me at hello. I like the allure of communism
>> and I'm pink around the edges, but even Karl Marx knew
>> it didn't fucking work.

>
>
> Hahaha
>
>

>> If you compare the works of Marx with the fiction of
>> Ayn Rand what you get is direct opposition from two
>> minds uncluttered by the reality of the world.

>
>
> Sloganeering.
>
>

>> They both MISSED!

>
>
> Missed what? Rush Limbaugh?
>
>

>> They were both well intentioned. They were both naive.
>>

>
>
> Scroll up a little to your statement about "good people",
> Hyerdahl.....hahaha.....it's code red, everyone! Report
> to your nearest Walmart!
>
>

>>> "To each according to his need" doesn't mean "to each
>>> lazy bastard according to his enormous appetite". It
>>> means to each according to his leaner, better life as
>>> nature intended it.

>>
>> I LOVE that idea. Do you know, that is how I've
>> encountered every job I've ever had REGARDLESS of what
>> others contributed. It's my own work ethic.

>
>
> Now, what was wrong with Marx, again...? ;D
>
>

>>> When you have a society of supermen and Aristotles
>>> dwelling together, sharpening the body and the mind,
>>> there's more to go around and yet less needed.

>>
>> Probably so, but your world, like Ayn Rand's world, has
>> no room for those who can't [won't] keep up.

>
>
> That's the idea.
>
>

>> What do you do with them?

>
>
> Wave bye-bye...
>
>

>>> The wasteful parasites who can survive only under the
>>> largesse of crapitalism and it's system of
>>> manufactured need die off and trouble us no more.

>>
>> Again, I applaud your zestful naivete but what do you
>> do with the "largess"? Who do you kill first?

>
>
> Obviously, you don't understand "largesse".
>
>

>> What about Israel.

>
>
> What about it?
>
>

>> You have fine ideas, Turin,

>
>
> Yep.
>
>

>> but no way to accomplish them.

>
>
> Cliche.
>
>

>>> And, so, Hyerdahl. You ask me, "What would you have
>>> me be?" I would have you be a communist. I would
>>> also have you put aside your flimsy pretenses of
>>> equality and instead support the Men's Movement which
>>> you have so long created a need for. And, you will
>>> find that the two go together.
>>>
>>> Amen and amen.

>>
>> Hahahahahahahahahaha.....well, you had me and you lost
>> me in one fell swoop.

>
>
> "Damn". Oh, well. I guess we just wave bye-bye to
> Hyerdahl, then ;D
>
>

>> But, I'm very pleased to have had a glimpse of your
>> fine mind.

>
>
> What a treat, eh?
>
>

>> I have sons, Turin; if I thought for a moment that my
>> sons were devoid of rights, I'd be there fighting for
>> them.

>
>
> Of course, you would. That's the idea behind matriarchy:
> Men needing women to speak for them.
>
>

>>>>>>> Those aren't systems. Those aren't
>>>>>>> societies. They're hunting preserves. And,
>>>>>>> the bitch and bastard who pretend to be
>>>>>>> conscientious by turning a blind eye to the
>>>>>>> individual, by extolling the existence of the
>>>>>>> society as a whole, are simply decoys and
>>>>>>> bait used by the capitalist.

>>>>
>>>> Turin, I am completely interested in what you have
>>>> to say, but you seem to offer no alternatives. You
>>>> seem to be more of an anarchist than a leftist, and
>>>> that doesn't resonate with me.

>>>
>>>
>>> Marxism holds the answers, Hyerdahl. Resonate with
>>> that.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>> Again, I agree, but we still have the issue and
>>>>>> the problem of RUNNING societies that depend
>>>>>> on both the work ethic and social programs. We
>>>>>> can't ignore those things and simply extoll
>>>>>> [sic] the virtues of the individual. You,
>>>>>> theoretically, leave those who govern us with
>>>>>> an impossible task. Shame on you.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty words, Hyerdahl. Ugly results. Are you
>>>>> happy with all of the wild fluctuations between
>>>>> the Republican and Democrat styles of capitalism?
>>>>>

>>>>
>>>> No, of course not.

>>>
>>>
>>> Well, then. Capitalism has failed.

>>
>> Nonsense! Just because the mid-class has no
>> representation just means we need more parties....like
>> the Europeans.

>
>
> Lmao ...more of the same old liberal conjob: "The middle
> class!" "The middle class!"
>
>

>>>>>>>>>>> She's the kind of plastic-banana
>>>>>>>>>>> liberal who might vote to jail people
>>>>>>>>>>> for ripping tags off of pillows.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good god, man....I'll be sent to prison
>>>>>>>> forever. I hate those tags.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A fine liberal you are.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, in some ways I'm not as liberal as you. I
>>>>>> LOVE my gun.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never complained about guns. I think every
>>>>> citizen should be armed to the teeth, both, in
>>>>> and out of the house, and have the best of all of
>>>>> the latest technology and weaponry. Centralizing
>>>>> technology in WW2 was a BIG mistake.

>>>>
>>>> Ok I agree with you there.

>>>
>>>
>>> Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.

>>
>> Apparently, not as close as you would think (re read
>> the part about Ayn Rand).

>
>
> Then, you lie. Away from me, Satan.
>
>

>>>>> It won't serve it's ends, either. Sooner or
>>>>> later, the really good weapons are going to "fall
>>>>> into the wrong hands" and then it's going to be
>>>>> Dr. Strangelove. Call 'em "terrorists" all you
>>>>> like, regardless of what they really are. By the
>>>>> same rules of the cynical secular governments who
>>>>> bandy those labels, their correct nom de plume
>>>>> is: "the winners".

>>>>
>>>> Yup. I agree with you there too.
>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Then, she'll also vote to bomb the
>>>>>>>>>>> shit out of third world and poor
>>>>>>>>>>> countries. She's a right winger on
>>>>>>>>>>> middle eastern issues and any other
>>>>>>>>>>> foreign policy.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is she? How do you know?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hahahaha, Hyerdahl doesn't even know.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, I don't know her entire mind-set on
>>>>>>>> the mideast; I guess I figure to determine
>>>>>>>> that would take more than a few sound
>>>>>>>> bites.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. All you care about is the fact that
>>>>>>> she's a woman.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thrilled that she broke thru the "marble
>>>>>> ceiling", but once that is said (and it HAS
>>>>>> BEEN said ad nauseum) she has to get on with
>>>>>> the work of the nation. I guess I have HOPE
>>>>>> that she will buckle down and do a good job.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And, your definition of "the work of the nation"
>>>>> and "a good job" is "women's rights". Otherwise,
>>>>> "the marble ceiling" would be an empty slogan.

>>>>
>>>> I don't think her job is about women's rights, per
>>>> se. It's much broader than that and if she chooses
>>>> to use it for that venue, I don't think she'll be
>>>> successful.

>>>
>>>
>>> No, not "per se".
>>>
>>> But, since she's made it to where she has based on
>>> her status as a female, and since she mentioned it
>>> right from the outset, then you can bet that's all
>>> she's really good for.

>>
>> Does that mean that men who make it make it because
>> they're male?

>
>
> No, it means that she can use her status as a female.
>
>

>>> Oh, she'll put on a fine show of balanced domestic
>>> issues. But, under those will be usual principle of
>>> women promoting women.

>>
>> You mean like men promoting men?

>
>
> You mean like the Men who promoted Pelosi..? ;D
>
> (...It's ok to pick up your jaw now, Hyerdahl)
>
>

>>> And abroad, she'll keep pushing for American
>>> terrorism so that she doesn't have to live under
>>> patriarchy, while still getting Men to pull her doors
>>> open for her. And - most importantly - to keep her
>>> lavish lifestyle.

>>
>> I don't patriarchy has anything to do with her job.
>> Sorry.

>
>
> And, that's the way she intends to keep it.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> I read about it in her unimpressive
>>>>>>>>> career.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have dirt dish. It appears that
>>>>>>>> you have nothing to say about her career
>>>>>>>> and know even less. I like talking to you
>>>>>>>> Turin, but please don't waste our time on
>>>>>>>> conjecture.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hyerdahl, stop being funny. I only mention
>>>>>>> it as a courtesy. The burden of prove isn't
>>>>>>> on me. The dirt is irrelevant.

>>>>
>>>> If you're the one complaining then the burden of
>>>> PROOF is on you.

>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously "you're the one complaining" must be your
>>> latest line for getting off of the hotseat.
>>>
>>> Where's Pelosi's qualifications, Hyerdahl? I guess
>>> they would be hard to find, eh? hahaha

>>
>> They're the same as those of her predacessor [sic].

>
>
> That's hilarious. Two senators with the same
> accomplishments.
>
> Do you think that they sometimes dress like the other,
> too, and sleep with each other's spouses, just to see if
> they notice..? Hahaha
>
>

>>>>> I don't need any. You don't have any track
>>>>> record for Pelosi ...beside her being "a woman
>>>>> this" and "a woman that". You're just looking
>>>>> for a red herring.

>>>>
>>>> What was the track record of the SOTH before her?

>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you ask..?

>>
>> Because they both have the same qualifications, it
>> appears.

>
>
> What's your basis for saying that?
>
>

>>>>>>>>>> What would you like to see happen in
>>>>>>>>>> the mideast?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For Israel to stop being propped up
>>>>>>>>> simply in order to be a disrupting
>>>>>>>>> element in the region.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah. So you don't think Israelis have the
>>>>>>>> right to their own country, NOW? I mean
>>>>>>>> what do you want to happen to them?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking care of them isn't our concern.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, we are NOT our brother's keeper; good to
>>>>>> know.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have brothers in Israel?

>>>>
>>>> No. I don't know anyone there.

>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, good to know. ;D
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>>> It can't exist without the U.S. That's
>>>>>>>>> the reason behind Iran, Iraq and all the
>>>>>>>>> rest. It's also something that implicates
>>>>>>>>> your un-tried, un-tested Pelosi.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you that she's untried.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for conceding the argument.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreeing with you that she's untried is hardly
>>>>>> a concession. Everyone has to have a first and
>>>>>> she's been proven in her other capacity.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Hyerdahl, you haven't been able to cite any
>>>>> proof, yet, as to her other capacity.

>>>>
>>>> You haven't been able to say what her predacessor
>>>> [sic] had that she doesn't.

>>>
>>>
>>> You have yet to think of yet another diversion for
>>> not citing for Pelosi.

>>
>> If you have a claim against her feel free to make one.

>
>
> I didn't say I had a claim "against" her. I said that no
> one could claim anything *for* her ...including you. ;D
>
>

>>>>>>> Next question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why should being female qualify a senator
>>>>>>> - who's done nothing noteworthy that anyone
>>>>>>> can think of - for becoming speaker of the
>>>>>>> house?

>>>>>
>>>>> (Hmm...Hyerdahl couldn't answer this one)

>>>>
>>>> What did the SOTH before her do that she hasn't?

>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, Hyerdahl. I didn't hear your cites for
>>> Pelosi's qualifications......

>>
>> Same as for those of her predacessor [sic].

>
>
> So, let's see if I'm getting this:
>
> Hyerdahl walks into a job interview. She refuses to show
> her resume....The employer nods and tries verbally asking
> for her qualifications.
>
> Hyerdahl says, "Same as yours :-)"....Employer nods and
> asks why she's being difficult.
>
> Hyerdahl replies, "I think you're just being critical of
> me because I'm a woman :-)"....Employer nods and asks "Do
> you think I hired those Men out there without putting
> them through the same process?"
>
> Hyerdahl retorts, "I think they got the job for having
> penises :-)" (...Employer boots Hyerdahl's ass over the
> skyline, into Goletta Park).
>
>

>>>>>>>> but what about her predacessor? Was he
>>>>>>>> tried? How was he more "tried" than she is
>>>>>>>> now?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hyerdahl, Do you seriously expect me to carry
>>>>>>> this conversation, by doing your homework for
>>>>>>> you, while you just keep pulling things out
>>>>>>> of your ass for objections?

>>>>
>>>> You're the one objecting. Physician, heal thyself

>>>
>>>
>>> That's an illogical use of that quote.

>>
>> No, it's most logical. Your the one with pulling from
>> ass problems, Turin.

>
>
> First, you try to bullshit on Sade, and now you try to
> bullshit on The Bible......
>
>

>>>>>> If you're going to say that she shouldn't have
>>>>>> the job because she's new then yes, you have to
>>>>>> show how other past SOTH had vast amounts of
>>>>>> experience she lacks. It's part of YOUR
>>>>>> argument.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to prove anything. MY argument is
>>>>> that Pelosi's past performance has been
>>>>> unexceptional. That, the ONLY reason she's being
>>>>> given the post is because she's a woman. If you
>>>>> have facts to the contrary, then post them.

>>>>
>>>> Again, what did the SOTH before her have that she
>>>> doesn't? A penis?

>>>
>>>
>>> Male senators don't use the fact of their penises to
>>> get promoted to SOTH.

>>
>> Well then what did HE have that she does NOT?

>
>
> Sorry. We don't grade on a curve here.
>
>

>>>>> Her "experience" amounts to putting in time. If
>>>>> that's a valid argument, then we already had the
>>>>> time-tested "marble ceiling" ...No?
>>>>>
>>>>> ....here, have a Kleenex, Hyerdahl. :D

>>
>> You need the Kleenex, Turin. You're the one who has
>> that ass issue.

>>>> Turin, Pelosi is no more or less experienced than
>>>> the fellow before her.

>>>
>>>
>>> Hahaha....nice wiggle, Hyerdahl. "No more or less".

>>
>> INdeed.
>>

>>> Well, if she isn't "less" then no doubt you can find
>>> some things in her record to give testimony to this
>>> assertion.

>>
>> You were the one complaining; I suggest you find where
>> she is lacking.

>
>
> Well, since you couldn't find anything to qualify our job
> applicant, then she must've gotten the job based as a
> token.
>
>

>>>>>>>> And again, what do you want for Israel.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To quit being a problem. What makes them
>>>>>>> more special than other countries?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have the right to exist as a nation, just
>>>>>> like Iran, Pakistan, etc.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell that to Iraq. Tell it to Iran. Tell it to
>>>>> North Korea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell it to Haiti.. Cuba...
>>>>>
>>>>> ....and a whole bunch of South American nations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No? Right. You'll do what Pelosi does:
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay liberal lip service. Then, mock your victim
>>>>> with the sincerest of well-wishes after you've
>>>>> helped your "opposite" to rape him from head to
>>>>> toe.

>>>>
>>>> You've lost me, Turin. Are you Arab?

>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, you don't follow current events. Either
>>> that, or I need to buy a child leash for you.

>>
>> Either that or an interpreter.

>
>
> Yep ...you don't know the issues.
>
>

>>>>> No one would trust the capitalist with an
>>>>> endorsement from God, Himself, if a liberal
>>>>> didn't pave the way for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>> Oops I have to go to work, but I really will
>>>>>>> try to address the rest later.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hahahaha ...half a post, my ass.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I would like Iraq to be partitioned
>>>>>>>>>> equally by percentage of peoples
>>>>>>>>>> ....between the waring [sic] factions
>>>>>>>>>> and a UN peacekeeping force to
>>>>>>>>>> maintain. What is YOUR solution?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's fine, as far as it goes, but the
>>>>>>>>> U.S. has to get the fuck out of the
>>>>>>>>> region, completely. Not, just to not
>>>>>>>>> invade Iraq, or to invade more fairly.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, if the US leaves....where does that
>>>>>>>> leave Israel? What do you suggest.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, Who cares. That's like asking a Men's
>>>>>>> Rights Activist where Men's Rights
>>>>>>> legislation would leave women.

>>
>> As long as equality reigns, I don't particularly care
>> where it leaves women. But I do care about people
>> dying and losing a country.

>
>
> Yeah, after that FIRST priority of winning an argument.
> Too bad you've already lost this one....
>
>

>>>>>>>>> If tomorrow, a loud slurping sound were
>>>>>>>>> to be heard out of all of the oil pipes
>>>>>>>>> in the middle east, and they all suddenly
>>>>>>>>> discovered that there was no more oil
>>>>>>>>> there, then Israel would suddenly find
>>>>>>>>> itself getting the U.S.'s answering
>>>>>>>>> machines - no matter how many Arab boys
>>>>>>>>> were throwing stones at them.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, we all know the reason we're there is
>>>>>>>> for oil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing new about that.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, so precedent justifies crime, eh?

>>
>> No, but you still have to come up with a solution for
>> Israel in the process.

>
>
> No, Hyerdahl. I don't. But, you still have to come up
> with qualifications for Pelosi.
>
>

>>>>>>>> And I don't mind pulling out because of
>>>>>>>> that, but again, where does that leave
>>>>>>>> Israel?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who cares? Has Israel been asking tough
>>>>>>> questions like this about the Palestinian
>>>>>>> people? Have you? ..QED

>>
>> You still haven't ansered [sic] my question. Are you
>> Arab?

>
>
> Actually, I did. But, you still can't even answer your
> own diversions about Israel.
>
>

>>>>>>>> Think man.... There must be a way to make
>>>>>>>> sure Israel is not destroyed in the
>>>>>>>> process.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You sure are riveted onto Israel in a thread
>>>>>>> where you can't think of one relevant thing
>>>>>>> to say about Pelosi. Think woman.... there
>>>>>>> must be some way to get rid of her.

>>
>> Sure. Vote the Dems out.

>
>
> Good idea. Let's help Iran with it's relocation project
> for Israel, too.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> Wrong rationale.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If you don't have a solution, and you
>>>>>>>>>> just criticize then you're part of the
>>>>>>>>>> problem.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This isn't a Rubik's cube. The colonial
>>>>>>>>> powers created the problem by installing
>>>>>>>>> Israel.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The U.S. is the main regime still arming
>>>>>>>>> it. Stopping = Solution.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you think it's ok to watch the Jews be
>>>>>>>> destroyed again?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, I suggest they learn to make friends
>>>>>>> with their neighbors. You obviously think
>>>>>>> it's ok...to watch the Jews routinely murder
>>>>>>> the Palestinians.

>>
>> No, I don't. It all makes me sick.

>
>
> Except, that all of your recommendations favor Zionist
> policies, like Pelosi's.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Iraq, she may have voted against
>>>>>>>>>>> the war, but she supported the war's
>>>>>>>>>>> rationale - including the
>>>>>>>>>>> administration's bullshit about their
>>>>>>>>>>> WMDs.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're blaming the DEMS for the lying
>>>>>>>>>> of the Republicans? How's that?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was enough of a rationale up front
>>>>>>>>> to have voted against the war - even
>>>>>>>>> without Powell's plagiarized student
>>>>>>>>> report.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I would have voted against the war.
>>>>>>>> I would have supported UN action, tho.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're not talking about UN action. We're
>>>>>>> talking about oil deals, Halliburton, and the
>>>>>>> Republicans proving themselves.

>>
>> Yeah....assholes.

>
>
> Calm down, Hyerdahl.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> What's the matter, Hyerdahl? Can't
>>>>>>>>> Pelosi answer for herself, without
>>>>>>>>> bringing her whole party into it?

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't answer for Pelosi at all;

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one can. She's simply a token.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I'm simply stating the facts. Many were
>>>>>>>> deceived. Not just Pelosi.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one was deceived.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Would this be a case of being
>>>>>>>>>>> deceived by Uncle Powell's bad
>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence reports? WTF do these
>>>>>>>>>>> people DO up on Capitol Hill?

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You and I can both agree that there are
>>>>>>>>>> idiots up there, but to be fair, you
>>>>>>>>>> have to give a newly elected official a
>>>>>>>>>> chance.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, Now we're back to evaluating Pelosi
>>>>>>>>> as an individual? She wasn't one of the
>>>>>>>>> "idiots"?

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, what matters at this point in time
>>>>>>>> is what she does now; it seems you're just
>>>>>>>> being critical of her because she's a
>>>>>>>> woman.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're just supporting because she's a woman.
>>>>>>>

>>
>> I don't support her any more than I'd support a male
>> SOTH. I'm just glad there are DEms there.

>
>
> Lmfao.......Hyerdahl, you'll sing any tune to win the
> argument ....hahahaha
>
>

>>>>>>>> Why aren't you berating all the liberals
>>>>>>>> who actually voted FOR the war.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do. That's just not what THIS topic is
>>>>>>> about. :D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Besides, in this case, "idiot" is a
>>>>>>>>> euphemism for flat out lying, corruption
>>>>>>>>> and dishonesty. These elected officials
>>>>>>>>> are supposed to be the line of
>>>>>>>>> accountability for the people. They
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be sitting on their dago duffs,
>>>>>>>>> lazily passing the buck of responsibility
>>>>>>>>> to other branches of government, any more
>>>>>>>>> than to the special interests who buy
>>>>>>>>> their votes.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you must buy the "line 'em all up and
>>>>>>>> shoot 'em" mentality, and yet, we're still
>>>>>>>> talking about Pelosi?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Well, she probably watches Oprah in
>>>>>>>>>>> her office, along with CNN, to figure
>>>>>>>>>>> out how to vote, domestically, since
>>>>>>>>>>> most of those issues follow little
>>>>>>>>>>> more than the logic of a soap opera,
>>>>>>>>>>> anymore. Then, for foreign policy,
>>>>>>>>>>> she blindly follows whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>> insider policies dictate.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Turin, Pelosi has just been made SOTH
>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't spell SLOTH. Give her a
>>>>>>>>>> chance...just as you would any new
>>>>>>>>>> leader.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said, I already looked up her
>>>>>>>>> career.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's true, you failed to list one
>>>>>>>> single negative. IN fact, you haven't
>>>>>>>> mentioned anything at all about what you
>>>>>>>> allegedly discovered in all your
>>>>>>>> _research_.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because the burden of proof isn't on
>>>>>>> me. My side reading was of side interest.
>>>>>>> And, I did mention negatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Pelosi is just a poster girl for nebulous
>>>>>>>>> "change" ......which always means:
>>>>>>>>> same-old same-old.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> You see, our media machine still
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't cover real news, outside of
>>>>>>>>>>> our consumerist Disneyland. So, the
>>>>>>>>>>> situation there, is still like it was
>>>>>>>>>>> before the House and the Senate were
>>>>>>>>>>> corporatized for public consumption.
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who can even converse on it is
>>>>>>>>>>> either supersmart (like me), or must
>>>>>>>>>>> be with a
>>>>>>>>>>> pedophile/socialist/terrorist cell.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'm very fortunate to have
>>>>>>>>>> friends in Saudi so I can get a more
>>>>>>>>>> accurate picture of what's happening
>>>>>>>>>> over there, vis politics. And even
>>>>>>>>>> Cristianne Amanpour has blamed our
>>>>>>>>>> press for not getting to the truth.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Even" her, huh? How harsh.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. She even blamed herself.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, lots of Johnny-Come-Lately's, paying
>>>>>>> some phony lip service against the war now
>>>>>>> that it's achieved it's objectives.......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It was when Bush first got appointed to be
>>>>>>>> President. She said "if we (the press) had
>>>>>>>> been doing our JOB someone like him never
>>>>>>>> could have made it this far" (I
>>>>>>>> paraphrased)

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You probably paraphrased a lot. In any
>>>>>>> event, she's just an Arab female face on the
>>>>>>> news in order to sell controversy and mixed
>>>>>>> emotions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> While I don't know much about her, it's
>>>>>>>>> becoming evident that being an Uncle Tom
>>>>>>>>> Arab is becoming the next quick route to
>>>>>>>>> becoming a celebrity. Obviously, being
>>>>>>>>> another unveiled Arabess is another big
>>>>>>>>> plus to her career. And, then there's
>>>>>>>>> that thing between her legs, too.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?????? She is a very talented reporter,

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does "talented" mean in conjunction with
>>>>>>> a profession which is supposed to be couched
>>>>>>> in objectivity, Hyerdahl?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is she putting on an act for us? Does she
>>>>>>> reach deep, down inside of us and bring out
>>>>>>> happiness and flowers? Does it mean that she
>>>>>>> sells "human interest"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your choice of wording tells me that she's
>>>>>>> actually crap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and yes she is an unveiled Arab. You can
>>>>>>>> keep your "ess" for the next time you want
>>>>>>>> to imitate a snake.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? We're talking about a woman. That's a
>>>>>>> snake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Are YOU an Arab, Turin?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, but I wouldn't be ashamed to be one.
>>>>>>> They've been a proud people throughout
>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It must be difficult to be an Arab man
>>>>>>>> today, with the advances made
>>>>>>>> technologically. I mean if Arab women can
>>>>>>>> see women like Amanpour without a harness,
>>>>>>>> well they might get ideas.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you mean, not getting something for free
>>>>>>> just because of pretended oppression? Yeah,
>>>>>>> I see what you mean. Arab Men would be
>>>>>>> turned into dogs and doormats like European
>>>>>>> and American Men.

>>
>> Well, now that ARab women have the net they can now see
>> how the rest of the world lives.

>
>
> Ah, yes. The old "eastern propaganda" propaganda.
>
> Then, Arabesses could study how oppression is
> manufactured, via the coded messages that come over
> capitalist programming...
>
>

>>>>>>>>> You liberals willingly fall for every
>>>>>>>>> cheap, cynical capitalist counterfeit put
>>>>>>>>> out to exploit your pretended moral
>>>>>>>>> side.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought you were a liberal, or at least
>>>>>>>> played one on cybervision.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a time when liberalism's
>>>>>>> sugar-coated pretensions held some allure for
>>>>>>> me ...but no more. I went for the real
>>>>>>> thing: Marxism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> But you remind me of my partner's
>>>>>>>>>> grandfather who used to say (re:
>>>>>>>>>> politicians) "just line them all up and
>>>>>>>>>> shoot them". If you take that
>>>>>>>>>> approach, it may be charming, but it's
>>>>>>>>>> not productive.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, if that's your definition of charm,
>>>>>>>>> then wait till you hear my solution to
>>>>>>>>> the problem of false accusers of rape.
>>>>>>>>> You'll be cooing, "Casanova".

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ????? False accusers are handled the same
>>>>>>>> for any false accusation, are they not?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, if they're females, then they're
>>>>>>> automatically believed. Men, OTOH, are
>>>>>>> automatically disbelieved, whether true, or
>>>>>>> not (a rare case scenario).

>>
>> That's ridiculous, Turin.

>
>
> Why do you feel that way, Hyerdahl?
>
>

>>>>>>>> As to your making me "coo", we've never
>>>>>>>> discussed your bedside manner.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I usually handle false accusers in a dungeon.
>>>>>>>

>>>>
>>>> You and de Sade?

>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm not that nice.

>>
>> I'll remember that.

>
>
> That's nice.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>>> We have certain "left wing" Internet
>>>>>>>>>>> publications, like Information
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearing House. But - neverminding
>>>>>>>>>>> the heavy dosage of moderate bullshit
>>>>>>>>>>> even in a lot of these "subversive"
>>>>>>>>>>> periodicals - the public won't read
>>>>>>>>>>> those, unless they are placed before
>>>>>>>>>>> their lazy faces by Archer Daniels
>>>>>>>>>>> Midland on wall sized screens, so as
>>>>>>>>>>> to make easy eye contact while
>>>>>>>>>>> reclining on couches and easy chairs.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you. Americans are lazy,
>>>>>>>>>> but I keep hoping that not all
>>>>>>>>>> westerners are like that.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I keep hoping that Scott Tissue starts
>>>>>>>>> embossing their fine product with the
>>>>>>>>> collected sentiments of all liberals
>>>>>>>>> .....something to finally add texture to
>>>>>>>>> such saintly wisdom.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again line them up and shoot them, Turin,
>>>>>>>> for all the good it will do you.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just one more step in her
>>>>>>>>>>>> career for however far she goes.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sucking cocks in the office,
>>>>>>>>>>> while having the public pay for her
>>>>>>>>>>> sex life, and then going out in front
>>>>>>>>>>> of the TV cameras to peddle poor
>>>>>>>>>>> women's rights.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Turin she cannot ONLY represent women.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. She's also gotta represent the
>>>>>>>>> rich capitalist boys whose cocks she
>>>>>>>>> sucks. There's your middleeast policy.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok so let's see if I've got you to rights
>>>>>>>> now you are one of those freaks who
>>>>>>>> attacked the world trade meeting? Do you
>>>>>>>> mind telling me how old you are?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's interesting that you would mentally
>>>>>>> connect American senators bombing the middle
>>>>>>> east with what happened at the WTC. It belies
>>>>>>> your choice of appellation. How old are
>>>>>>> you?

>>
>> No, I was actually talking about the riots in front of
>> the world trade organization.

>
>
> Ah. Hyerdahl's teeny-tiny bit knowledge on current
> events finally caught me off guard. Cite. That could
> still refer to more than one thing.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>> And what is wrong with women's rights?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They're inherently special interest.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Howso?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's in the name. Read it again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Women represent just over 51%% of the
>>>>>>>> population.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? That's an argument for population
>>>>>>> control if I ever heard one.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Shouldn't women's rights be human rights?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They should be, but women's righters
>>>>>>> constantly take the tact of pushing for
>>>>>>> gender-specific rights, whenever one gets
>>>>>>> down to reading the fine print. Applying
>>>>>>> words like "equality" and "human" is PR cover
>>>>>>> for a selfish, greedy agenda that oppresses
>>>>>>> the Male gender.

>>
>> Well, consider the rights feminism has historically
>> supported:
>>
>> The right to own property

>
>
> Largely, as part of the right to appropriate it from
> divorced husbands. We're off to a bad start.
>
>

>> The right to vote

>
>
> For women. Blacks had to get theirs separately. Put
> another big laugh under "human" rights, Hyerdahl...
>
>

>> The right to control their own bodies

>
>
> (I.e. using Men's sperm for their own purposes, while
> obligating the Men to fund those purposes.)
>
> Another female-only right ...c'mon, Hyerdahl. Can't you
> get even ONE human right into this list....?
>
>

>> The right to work for equal pay.

>
>
> (I.e. for quantitatively lesser amounts of work)
>
> Another female right. ...This is looking bad, Hyerdahl.
>
>

>> The right to equal opportunity

>
>
> (For women)
>
>

>> Men already have all those rights.

>
>
> Well, then. You didn't compile a list of HUMAN rights
> ....all that for nothing. Lmao
>
>

>>>>>>> Fortunately, more Men are wising up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So, we're fighting back with Men's
>>>>>>>>> Rights.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm ok with that. What rights don't men
>>>>>>>> have?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already covered that higher up with
>>>>>>> reproductive rights. Here, we can add equal
>>>>>>> sentencing to the list.

>>
>> Sentencing is judged one person at a time, based on
>> protecting society, prior crimes, etc.

>
>
> Right: Customized everything. Ways of sneaking double
> standards into the law.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>> Do you think "poor" women should have
>>>>>>>>>> fewer rights?

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that our (male) prisons should be
>>>>>>>>> emptied and that the Malleus Maleficarum
>>>>>>>>> should be made required reading in all of
>>>>>>>>> our schools.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hahahahahahahaha. Well, I've read it.
>>>>>>>> Does that count?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because I want my brothers in the Lord to
>>>>>>> read it, too.

>>>>
>>>> Are you getting religion now?

>>>
>>>
>>> Only when the spirit of the Lord comes upon me.

>>
>> Oh good grief; now he's hearing voices?

>
>
> Obviously, you're a witch.
>
>

>>>>>>>> So, you don't think crimes should be
>>>>>>>> punished, and you dont' think society
>>>>>>>> should be protected from the actions of
>>>>>>>> criminals?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many Men in jails today are really just
>>>>>>> political prisoners. The laws are drawn up
>>>>>>> to trap us using various forms of class
>>>>>>> status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definitions of rape, for example, are
>>>>>>> ridiculously rigged so as to manufacture
>>>>>>> criminals and advance the false accusers
>>>>>>> within society. The female who had Mike Tyson
>>>>>>> jailed for three years for consensual sex is
>>>>>>> a great example of that. The sex was called
>>>>>>> rape because of Tyson's personality.

>>>>
>>>> Were you there? How do you know the sex was
>>>> consentual?

>>>
>>>
>>> I heard the facts of the case. Does that count?

>>
>> No. You weren't there; you don't know. Neither do I.
>>

>
>
> Hahahahaha....well then, the judge must not, either.
> Another case of "everyone's got a special story - so that
> we can believe the woman".
>
>

>>>>>>> The essence of the culture war is between
>>>>>>> passives vs. aggressives. Without grasping
>>>>>>> that fact, the myriad exceptions within all
>>>>>>> of the other neat little pet theories put out
>>>>>>> today can't really be understood. Today's
>>>>>>> jailed Men are often jailed by cowardly
>>>>>>> yes-men like Mark Sobolewski and Zed the Zen
>>>>>>> Priest who fear alpha males, if only out of
>>>>>>> jealousy. Of course, Zed is a bisexual, and
>>>>>>> of course they hypocritically explain it all
>>>>>>> away, anyway, with convoluted theories, based
>>>>>>> in class warfare, which refuse to admit this
>>>>>>> important fact.

>>>>
>>>> Well, I might be able to agree with you that men
>>>> like Sobolewski are weak, but I'm not seeing how
>>>> that plays into men who are jailed for rape.
>>>> Either they did rape or they didn't.

>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, you see it.

>>
>> No, to me rape is fairly simple....non-consentual sex.

>
>
> Except, you also recommend evaluating all sorts of other
> irrelevant factors, and that's what goes on in so-called
> "rape" trials. Tyson went to jail because he wasn't a
> soft and sweet person.
>
>

>>> It relates to Michael Tyson's personality and why
>>> guys like him get thrown into prison on the word of a
>>> woman.
>>>
>>> A big baby middle class suburbanite like Slobberewski
>>> would gladly throw a guy like Tyson into prison
>>> simply for not being passive and sweet.
>>>
>>> Too much competition.

>>
>> Well, Mark doesn't like Black people so possibly but
>> I'm all for throwing a rapist in jail.

>
>
> Line 'em all up and shoot 'em, eh...? ;D
>
>

>>>>>>> But, one short answer is that these Men are
>>>>>>> products of their environments, because they
>>>>>>> are socialized by everyday witches into roles
>>>>>>> that fit within highly dualized social
>>>>>>> units. The Men don't get the full benefit of
>>>>>>> patriarchy - only it's servile aspects - so
>>>>>>> the females effectively become protectors as
>>>>>>> well as clan-like mother figures.

>>>>
>>>> Ok. So why not give up patriarchy all together?
>>>> See what pans out.

>>>
>>>
>>> I don't support it to begin with. All that this
>>> society has to offer is puppet patriarchy, and that's
>>> what all of the weaklings run after. Men are ten
>>> times worse off under puppet patriarchy than flat-out
>>> matriarchy.
>>>
>>> So, I'm shooting for equality. Let the momma's boys,
>>> like eMasculist, finds themselves some easy chairs
>>> out on the streets, where they can set up their new
>>> empires of bullshit. They can't adapt.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>> Without them, the Men can't function within
>>>>>>> the community. Witchcraft.

>>>>
>>>> Witchcraft or Wicca....just another religion,
>>>> right?

>>>
>>>
>>> A religion of misandry, plotting and hate.

>>
>> Actually no. It's just the worship of nature.

>
>
> How do you know? Are you there? Do you see? ;D
>
>

>>>>>>> And, that's what Jayne Kulikauskus really is.
>>>>>>>

>>>>
>>>> You mean _she_ changed herself from a man to a
>>>> woman thru whichcraft?

>>>
>>>
>>> And, through newspaper clippings, too, apparently.

>>
>> Thanks for that one.

>
>
> Belated is better than never.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> But, to answer your question, I think
>>>>>>>>> that "poor women" are the best everyday
>>>>>>>>> lobby that the capitalists have ever come
>>>>>>>>> up with.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I think I'm getting you figured out at
>>>>>>>> long last. You want anarchy?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ????? You should talk to Debwhorah,
>>>>>>> Hyerdahl. She doesn't know what anarchy is,
>>>>>>> either.

>>>>
>>>> Well, that's the signal I'm getting from you, and I
>>>> don't wear a tinfoil cap.

>>>
>>>
>>> Then, something's wrong with your receiver.

>>
>> Ok. You're in love with Marx.

>
>
> And, you're in love with Ayn Rand.
>
>

>>>>>>>>>>>> As to getting the job done, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know if I'll like her work
>>>>>>>>>>>> any more than I did those who went
>>>>>>>>>>>> before. I guess time will tell.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Her, being a woman, won't have any
>>>>>>>>>>>> effect on what I think of her
>>>>>>>>>>>> work.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Truth is, you won't even pay
>>>>>>>>>>> attention.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Turin if you know anything at all about
>>>>>>>>>> me, from my writing, here, you would
>>>>>>>>>> know that I do "pay attention" whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not you agree with my body-politic.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hahahaha you see the world through some
>>>>>>>>> of the most coke-bottled colored glasses
>>>>>>>>> that I've ever seen, Hyerdahl.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like a good coke now and again, but I
>>>>>>>> don't want to buy the world a coke. And
>>>>>>>> again, how does your statement indicate
>>>>>>>> whether or not I pay attention?

>>>
>>>
>>> If you need to ask, then you didn't pay attention.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>> I think you know that.

>>>>
>>>> No I want an admission from you, like me or not
>>>> that I DO pay attention.

>>>
>>>
>>> This is funny ...a prolonged argument where I can't
>>> get you to supply your burden of proof on Pelosi but
>>> you demand that I clear up some silly aside. Hahaha

>>
>> Hey you're the one with a stick up your $##$@ about
>> Pelosi; that's not me. I don't care a whit if she's
>> male or female, just so she's Democrat.

>
>
> Hahaha ...it shows.
>
>

>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised you're not better friends
>>>>>>>>> with Kulikauskus ....but, you say that's
>>>>>>>>> Dave Simm.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it is. Keep in mind, Turin, that to a
>>>>>>>> large degree, I'm on your side. I'm just
>>>>>>>> not of the 'line them all up and shoot
>>>>>>>> them" mode. Or the 'let Israel get bombed
>>>>>>>> the shit out of existence" mode. Your
>>>>>>>> problem is that you're too pissed to come
>>>>>>>> up with any solutions.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I'm getting you, now. "Line them all up
>>>>>>> and shoot them" means that I'm not some
>>>>>>> waffling moderate. Aren't you the one who

>>>>
>>>> Hey, I don't care whether you're hot, cold or luke
>>>> I just want solutions.

>>>
>>>
>>> For that matter, why would lining them and shooting
>>> them automatically not qualify?

>>
>> Only the Marquis de Sade would come up with that one.
>> ARe you his cloned self?

>
>
> Another one you couldn't answer. ;D
>
>

>>>>>>> likes to invoke Godwin's Law? Well, here it
>>>>>>> comes. I guess you're too pissed to tear
>>>>>>> yourself away from that strawman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "These principles and these tastes, I
>>>>>>>>>>> am their fanatic adherent; and
>>>>>>>>>>> fanaticism in me is the product of
>>>>>>>>>>> the persecutions I have endured from
>>>>>>>>>>> my tyrants. The longer they continue
>>>>>>>>>>> their vexations, the deeper they
>>>>>>>>>>> root my principles in my heart, and I
>>>>>>>>>>> openly declare that no one need ever
>>>>>>>>>>> talk to me of liberty if it is
>>>>>>>>>>> offered to me only in return for
>>>>>>>>>>> their destruction."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ~ The Marquis de Sade

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Marquis was a sick man, Turin;

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sade was a libertine and a genius with
>>>>>>>>> very well developed political ideas. A
>>>>>>>>> potential Thomas Jefferson of France.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But alas he took on the theory of "line 'em
>>>>>>>> up, rape 'em, kill 'em or shoot 'em"
>>>>>>>> mentality and all his efforts were for
>>>>>>>> naught.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But alas, you really don't know the first
>>>>>>> thing about him, what he did, what he said
>>>>>>> ...or even that he was primarily a writer.
>>>>>>> You're simply pulling shit out of your ass in
>>>>>>> a way that competes with Tom Smith's stock &
>>>>>>> trade.

>>>>
>>>> Jesus; I hope not.

>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. It's something to worry about, Hyerdahl.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>>>> he became the very monster to which he
>>>>>>>>>> objected. Don't do that to yourself.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't make a fool of yourself by making
>>>>>>>>> things up. You obviously have only a
>>>>>>>>> Hollywood picture in your mind of who he
>>>>>>>>> was.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, that's true. I've never read
>>>>>>>> anything of his. So you get a point, there.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hahahaha

>>>>
>>>> I've given you nothing to laugh at, Turin; I've
>>>> admitted not reading de Sade, and now I've done my
>>>> homework.

>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, but you acted like an expert on him and then
>>> admitted otherwise when I called your bluff. I
>>> should've laughed even harder.

>>
>> I never once acted an expert on de Sade. Not once.

>
>
> Close enough.
>
>

>>>>>>> ....yeah, and now let's check yon score:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1,000,001 : 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mmm-hmmm

>>>>
>>>> Again, I still would not call de Sade the great
>>>> white hope.

>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't, either.
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>>> Find yourself a translation of "Yet
>>>>>>>>> Another Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would
>>>>>>>>> Become Republicans". You might have to
>>>>>>>>> read it as part of "Philosophy in the
>>>>>>>>> Bedroom". Whatever you read by him,
>>>>>>>>> you'll find that his atheism was the
>>>>>>>>> cornerstone of his thinking. He
>>>>>>>>> influenced some of the greatest thinkers
>>>>>>>>> of our time.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, I'm not near a library or book store,
>>>>>>>> but I will be home in two more weeks. I'll
>>>>>>>> give it a go.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might want to give something else a go,
>>>>>>> too, before bluffing, again. Make sure
>>>>>>> you're near a toilet, first...

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please, no potty humor.

>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you figured it out...

>>
>>
>> Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm tired now.

>
>
> Hard to see why. You hardly exert yourself. ;D
>

>>>>>>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has been another enlightening
>>>>>>>>>>> moment, with:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Marquis de Turin
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have such sites to show you...
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "He who changeth, altereth,
>>>>>>>>>>> misconstrueth, argueth with,
>>>>>>>>>>> deleteth, or maketh a lie about these
>>>>>>>>>>> words or causeth them to not be known
>>>>>>>>>>> shall burn in hell forever and
>>>>>>>>>>> ever...."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=14305
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> & Research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans Split on How New
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress Will Act January 5, 2007
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Angus Reid Global Monitor) -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adults in the United States are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> divided on the way the Democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaders in Congress will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform, according to a poll by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Opinion Research Corporation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released by CNN. 46 per cent of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respondents expect a real reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the way the legislative branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operates, while 49 per cent do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> American voters renewed the House
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Representatives and one-third
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Senate in November 2006.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, the Democratic Party
>>>>>>>>>>>>> took control of the lower house
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time since 1994,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with 233 lawmakers. A victory for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Democratic candidates for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senate in Montana and Virginia
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also gave the party a majority in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the upper house.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic California
>>>>>>>>>>>>> congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> became the first female speaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the House, declared, "The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> election of 2006 was a call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change—not merely to change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> control of Congress, but for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new direction for our country.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere were the American people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more clear about the need for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new direction than in the war in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iraq. The American people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected an open-ended obligation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a war without end."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Democrats have pledged to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry out specific reforms during
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first 100 hours of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislative session, including a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise to the minimum wage,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopting the recommendations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 9/11 commission, promoting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stem cell research and renewable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuels, and enacting limits on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lobbying and congressional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel. Polling Data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think the Democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaders in Congress will bring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> real reform to the way Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operates, or don’t you think so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, real reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46%%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not real reform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 49%%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6%%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source: Opinion Research
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corporation / CNN Methodology:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Telephone interviews with 1,019
>>>>>>>>>>>>> American adults, conducted from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dec. 15 to Dec. 17, 2006. Margin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of error is 3 per cent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been another grand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> achievement for women's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set-a-sides, with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have such sites to show you...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "He who changeth, altereth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> misconstrueth, argueth with,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deleteth, or maketh a lie about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these words or causeth them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be known shall burn in hell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forever and ever...."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>