> 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. :-)

>>>>>>> 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. :-)

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

>>>>> 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 even have a NOW membership. :-)

>>
>>
>> Suuure.

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

>>>>>>>> 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.

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

>>> 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].

>>>>>>> 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? :-)

>>>>>>> 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.

>> 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. :-)

>>>>>> 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.

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

>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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. :-)

>>>>> 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? :-)

> 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.

>>>>>> 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?

>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>>> 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. :-)

>>>> 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%%

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

>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

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

>>> 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?

> 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.

>>> 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.

>
> 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.

>>>>>> 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. :-)

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>>>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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. :-)

>> 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 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'?

>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>>>>>>> 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.

>> 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.

>>>>>> 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.

>> 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?

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> 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 had
> that she doesn't.

>>>> 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?

>>>>> 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

>>> 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?

>> 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

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

>>>>> 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?

>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>> 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.

>
> You and de Sade? :-)

>>>>>>>> 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.

>
> Are you getting religion now? :-)

>>>>> :-) 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?

>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

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

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

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

>
> You mean _she_ changed herself from a man to a
> woman...thru whichcraft? :-)

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>>>> 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.

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

>>>>>> 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. :-)

>>>> 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. :-)

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> ....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. :-)

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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...."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>