Masculip 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).
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't even have a NOW membership. :-)
>>
>>
>> Suuure.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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 Pelosi supporters to specify her
>>>> accomplishments. You can't, because there are none
>>>> to specify.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> What a dumb motherfucker to own a computer.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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".
>>
>>
>>> 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 told them.
>>
>>
>>>> Ever think about that, Hyerdahl?
>>>
>>> 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. If we're talking years, then it's
>> starting to smell like bullshit, again.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>> 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!"
>>
>>
>>>> We have 18 years of future child payments to think
>>>> about which shouldn't be restricted to a snap
>>>> decision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> At least having 3 kids has given hyerwhore some wisdom,
> usually the only wisdom most women will ever have.
> Hyerwhore is right and you're wrong on well, everything.
But, getting back to reality: Trying to whitewash himself
as old fashioned, is the last card to play for a scummy
little drug addict, living in a park, and desperately trying
to pretend that he's there because he's another wronged
father.
> Sex is procreation and nothing more than that other than
> a constant tickle that can drive one crazy, especially
> men.
Another cute soundbite. Too bad they don't give out
bad-back payments for those.
> Kids are a great joy and much better than a stratight
> job. Parenting is the most underrated activity in
> Amerika both for it's personal enrichment and enjoyment
> and for it's collective importance over work of both
> father and mother. Children and society are the winners
> when this is in perspective and actions conform.
STFU, you mindless asshole.
> Thanks for talking to Parg. You bring out the best in
> her.
Spencer Mewha says that you bring out the best in him. I
think he means something a little ..uhh... "different",
though....
> As for Pelosi or anyother Amerikan Women, being the
> "first women" as an act of defiance is all they have in a
> man's world. Cut the poor little girl some slack.
That's great funny advice. "Masculist", too. I'm reminded
why the fathers' movement is so powerful. The next time
you're screaming to burn down a woman's college, just think
"Pelosi" ....you'll be yucking it up again before you know
it.
- - -
"Many good words have I shewed you from my Father; for which
of those words do ye stone me?"
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...."
-----
> Smitty
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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, 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.
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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're problem is that you're used to noncompetitive
>> males who would never take it to court.
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> But, since it's not, both capitalism and liberalism
>> become alternative avenues for females acquiring rights
>> without responsibilities.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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".
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> Just like I thought....you have no dirt.
>>
>>
>> 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 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?
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>> 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)
>>
>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - - -
>>
>> This has been another enlightening moment, 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...."
>>
>> -----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 like European and American Men.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As to your making me "coo", we've never discussed
>>>>> your
>> bedside manner.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I usually handle false accusers in a dungeon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> :-) 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> Without them, the Men can't function within the
>> community. Witchcraft.
>>>> And, that's what Jayne Kulikauskus really is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you know that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> ....yeah, and now let's check yon score:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1,000,001 : 0
>>>>
>>>> mmm-hmmm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This has been another enlightening moment,
>>>>>>>> with:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Marquis de Turin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have such sites to show you...
>> ------------------------
>> with, deleteth,
>>>>>>>> or maketh a lie about these words or
>>>>>>>> causeth them to
>> not be known
>>>>>>>> shall burn in hell forever and ever...."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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...
>> ------------------------
>>>>>> with, deleteth, or
>>>>>>>>>> maketh a lie about these words or
>>>>>>>>>> causeth them to not
>>>>>> be known shall
>>>>>>>>>> burn in hell forever and ever...."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been another enlightening moment,
>>>>>> 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...."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
