Turin wrote:
>> (edit)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> Anyone who makes it to that level has had a good run.
>> Colin Powell had a good run. :-)
>
>
> That's begging the question, Hyerdahl. Twice. Both, Powell
> and Pelosi have been pushed through in their careers for
> being disadvantage. You don't seem to want to admit that
> fact.
Well, I don't think they got where they got from being Black or being
female, if that's what you're getting at.
(edit)
>
> It's not my burden to prove a "0" by attempting to show one.
>
> If you believe in proving negatives, then you should be able
> to make about the same sum of money working for Pangborn on
> commission. That's what he makes.
I'd rather be boiled in oil than work for the Pang. :-) But I'm
simply saying that if you have something against Pelosi, spit it out.
I think the only thing you've shown here is that you don't like her
because she's a woman.
>
>>>>>>> SOTHes need better accomplishments behind them
>>>>>>> than simply having a vagina to get that chance.
>>>>>>> Again, What are they?
>>
>> Since you're the one complaining, what has she done
>> adverse to her position?
>
> ????? You lost me.
>
>
>> You didn't even list the positive attributes
>> (accomplishments) of the last SOTH.
>
>
> ???? So, IOW, you want...."adverse positions" for the
> girl......and positive accomplishments for the boy, is that
> it? *She* has only to fuck up, while *he* has simply to not
> achieve???
Well, we need some kind of comparison, Turin or all that this shows is
that you don't like her because she's female.
> Talk about clinging to sexist relics.
You mean you?
>
>
>>>>>> 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. Plus, I told you, I've never joined NOW.
>
>
> I don't need to answer your diversion, Hyerdahl. Besides,
> farther down, you start playing "I asked first" on something
> else where you're in the corner. Well, I still asked first,
> here.
>
Go for it. Now do you have a comparison or not, Turin.
>>>> I don't even have a NOW membership. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Suuure.
>>
>> Truely [sic]. However, I've contributed to some of
>> their causes.
>
> Like what? Getting Men fired, using baseless accusations
> and backroom trials?
No...like literacy programs and support for DEMs
>
>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing really. She's another Clinton. A
>>>>>>>>> nominal opposition. She hams for the
>>>>>>>>> spotlight. She plays "power" politics. She
>>>>>>>>> doesn't take a worthwhile stance in
>>>>>>>>> opposition to anything on any issue of
>>>>>>>>> consequence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok. ....What could she do (in your book) to
>>>>>>>> make a difference? What would you like to see
>>>>>>>> her accomplish?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She could go back to the start and then do
>>>>>>> things the right way, instead of being an empty
>>>>>>> poster girl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you also recommend that for male politicos?
>>>>>
>>
>>>>> I don't have to recommend anything, Hyerdahl. The
>>>>> burden is on Pelosi supporters to specify her
>>>>> accomplishments. You can't, because there are none
>>>>> to specify.
Then there were none for the past 5 SOTHs as well... then good; she
fits right in.
>>
>> So what were the "accomplishments" of her male
>> predacessors before THEY became SOTH?
>
>
> Do you concede that Pelosi is unqualified?
>
>
>>>> As SOTH...she has had no time yet FOR
>>>> accomplishments. What were the "accomplishment" of
>>>> the past SOTH?
>>>
>>> I've already said that I'm talking about her
>>> accomplishments in previous government positions. You
>>> obviously can't find anything. Checkmate.
>>
>> Not so, Turin. Since you're the one complaining, it is
>> up to you to show that she has fewer "accomplishments"
>> than the last SOTH. Better get crakin [sic].
>
>
> Checkmate.
>
>
>>>>>>>> Are you Miss Congeniality, Turin....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm Mr. Kick Ass. If you want Miss Kiss
>>>>>>> Ass, then try Kenya Pangborn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not really interested in anything to do with
>>>>>> Pangborn.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people aren't, thanks to the preventive
>>>>> efforts of Stacy Alexander, whom I salute for
>>>>> neutralizing a phony - freeing up the real MRA's to
>>>>> act.
>>>>
>>>> Well, the idiot Pangborn is really hoist on his own
>>>> petard.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's for sure. No sooner does Pangborn call someone
>>> stupid, then he misspells it.
>>
>> True. :-)
>>
>>> What a dumb motherfucker to own a computer.
>>
>> Do you think he might be one of the last Bush boys? :-)
>
>
> Hell, if he's the last anything it can probably only be good.
>
>
>>>>>>>> do you just want "world peace"? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't left-bait me, Hyerdahl. I am a leftist.
>>>>
>>>> You don't think "I'm" a leftist too? :-) Once,
>>>> sitting with a group of classmates, we were seated
>>>> from right to left, depending on our political sway;
>>>> I was off the friggen couch on the left. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Not really, Hyerdahl. You label yourself a
>>> compassionate capitalist. Liberals are just
>>> capitalism's counterfeits for real left wing parties.
>>
>> Well, it is my humble opinion that society needs
>> motivation to accomplish; you don't get that with pure
>> communism....Turin.
>
> Liberalism isn't even pure motivation. It's simply a way to
> socially bond with strangers, or people of other classes.
I was speaking more of me...labeling myself as a compassionate
capitalist.
>
>>> You agreed with me, before, when I said that property
>>> was theft, but you know that you can't really believe
>>> that. You must've BSed your friends.
>>
>> Sorry...I'm not sure what you mean. Owning property? You
>> and I both probably believe that all we're doing here is
>> passing thru. :-) And, like you, I believe in social
>> programs. I'm pink around the edges. :-)
>
> Actually, I said that on a Marxist group to a Thor
> Heyerdahl. My mistake.
Oh....Ok.
>>
>>>>>>> Nancy Pelosi, OTOH, is a rich bitch who votes
>>>>>>> to attack other countries in order to protect
>>>>>>> economic interests, while domestically voting
>>>>>>> for social programs which primarily benefit
>>>>>>> American women who raise the next generation of
>>>>>>> jobless American Men.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turin, women suffer outsourcing just like men do.
>
>
>>>>> Not when they have their husbands to fall back on.
>>>>
>>>> So...do you object men caring for the mothers of
>>>> their children?
>>>
>>>
>>> I object to capricious standards. What you call:
>>> "double dipping".
>>
>> Ok. I agree with you there. But I have no problem at
>> all with men supporting their families when women stay
>> hom [sic] to raise children. I don't really call that
>> double dipping. If a woman is contributing to the
>> family equally, that is NOT double dipping.
>
> Hyerdahl, Hyerdahl. There's no reason for women to stay
> home and be supported, anymore ...just because they're too
> lazy or unambitious to go to college. Raising children
> isn't a full time job.
Turin, most women I know only stay home until the child is school age,
and then the couple tends to work whatever hours necessary coupled with
childcare, to provide for the family. I don't know ANY couples where
the woman stays home all the time. None. Perhaps you're thinking of a
bygone day....even my mother and grandmother worked and contributed to
the family income.
>
> The Men who are still going along with this crap are doing
> so because they're being shamed and pressured by redundant
> societal mores to take care of autonomous little fatties -
> for no other reason than to take care of autonomous little
> fatties.
Are you angry because these women are autonomous, little, fat or that
their husbands support them? And it isn't just women who are fatter,
Turin; American men are fatties too....as compared to Euro men.
>
> Worse, it kills their own ambition, deadens their spirits
> and adds to the burden in a job market where capitalism
> simply can't provide these kinds of high-paying, full-time
> jobs anymore.
What does? Supporting their families? I think most men would be
happy to do so....in fact, I think most men also value women who bring
home the bacon as well. Most men today don't seem to want a SAH
spouse.
>
> It's time for these bitches to get off of their self-pacing,
> gossipy, spreading asses and WORK to bring some income INTO
> the home, instead of living off of the family dole.
Well, I have no objection at all to women working, Turin; that's part
of what feminism was all about ....making sure women had the choice to
work as equals, side by side with men. BTW, no one promises any woman
the "choice" to stay home. Not everyone offers that choice TO women
and not everyone can afford to have one parent staying home.
> Answering to a boss would do them worlds of good, too. They
> need regimentation.
As do men, eh? Or perhaps they ARE the boss. :-)
>>
>> If a woman is lying and milking both ends of the system,
>> that IS double dipping.
>
>
> You mean, collecting welfare while she's married?
Well, collecting welfare under fraudulent means might be more than just
double dipping; it's against the law. :-) But, to me, double dipping
is pretending to be anti-feminist while voting FOR feminist policy
while you smile at your owner and tell him you voted for Bush. :-)
Or....a woman who marries a rich Republican telling him what he wants
to hear, while you vote Democrat.... Or
a woman who uses her Republican husband's money to contribute to NOW.
That sort of thing.
>>>> Because the men I know seem to feel those SAH wives provide a distinctly valuable service.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know. Those guys are sentimentalists. They're
>>> a big part of the problem. They don't understand
>>> today's world. When their little butterballs at home
>>> become so spoiled that they decide they want to play
>>> modern women and take part of their incomes with them,
>>> these guys scream like no one ever warned them.
>>
>> Turin, if most American women have 2.? children, by the
>> time the last child is in school she can still have a
>> career. Most men seem to want their wives to work, and
>> contribute to the family income. The few men who are
>> "screaming" are just insecure. The happiest marriages
>> are between two secure people. There's nothing
>> sentimental about that.
>
> You didn't specify how long they plan on being SAH.
That depends on how many children they have.
>
>>>>> Ever think about that, Hyerdahl?
>>
>> I think that honorable men should pursue ONLY honorable
>> women, Turin. And, I'm not sure that most men have honor
>> high up on their list of priorities. However, I would
>> expect that of you.
>
> Give us an applied definition of honorable, Hyerdahl.
It's about honesty. If a man is upfront about who he is and what he
wants, and seeks a woman who is the same. I'd call that honor. It's
the lying that can screw things up. Of course, there are many people
out there who cannot be honest with themselves, let alone someone else.
:-)
>
>>>> Sure. I have three children, and the mother of those
>>>> children lost time in her career both to have the
>>>> children and to provide them early child care. One
>>>> of my children also needed added medical care, as an
>>>> infant, and this required that one parent stay home
>>>> for several months. When the couple needs this for
>>>> thier child, there are still bills to pay. What
>>>> would you suggest here?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd suggest better planning. Heidi used the medical
>>> excuse, too, but the truth is that she just didn't want
>>> to work. But, you specify only three months. That's
>>> not so terrible.
>>
>> It was 18 mos....all total. Both my partner and I have
>> always worked outside the home, save for that brief time.
>
> Well, I guess that's okay. Are we talking PT or FT?
Full time. But we varied our schedules and I was also able to work
from home two to three days per week, thanks to the net.
>>> If we're talking years, then it's starting to smell
>>> like bullshit, again.
>>
>> If there's no reason to stay home, then working outside
>> the home seems prudent to me. When our children were
>> young, we simply varied our shifts and they did not need
>> much in the way of day care. We were also fortunate to
>> have one set of grandparents nearby.
>
> I'd like to know if your S/O found that to be "fortunate",
> also...
Yes.....but like I said, I was fortunate to be able to do some of my
work from home.
>>
>>> At any rate, this has nothing to do with nothing. You
>>> said that women suffer from outsourcing. You give a
>>> pregnancy and a type of family leave as an example.
>>> And, the outsourcing comment was a response to mine
>>> about women and Pelosi perpetuating a cycle of taking
>>> Men's jobs. All you've really done is validate the
>>> point. Thanks, Hy.
>>
>> Turin, since every company employes women, companies that
>> are outsourced will affect women just as they affect
>> men. You can't really blame Pelosi for all of that. :-)
>
>
> No one tried to. Take it easy with the strawwomen, Hyerdahl.
There was no straw woman. Just the facts.
>
>
>>>>>> It wasn't Pelosi who signed NAFTA or sided with
>>>>>> the corporate powers that be....any moreso than
>>>>>> any other politico.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe she didn't "sign" it, Hyerdahl, but she
>>>>> *voted* for it. Doesn't that count...? She also
>>>>> voted for CAFTA and the Patriot Act.
>>>>
>>>> I'm on your side in one aspect of what you have to
>>>> say, Turin; Neither party accurately represents our
>>>> own middle class. However, one party represents
>>>> those who are not the wealthiest Americans MORE THAN
>>>> the other party. I think you recognize that too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but I'm a leftist. I don't give a shit about the
>>> middle class. You see, that's one of those
>>> differences between real left wing parties and
>>> capitalist liberals who are wanna-being as left wing
>>> parties in order to have issues to run on in elections.
>>> The bourgeois are an extension of the main capital
>>> owners at the top. We don't want to support them. So,
>>> the Republicats and Demosluts can switch roles for all
>>> I care.
>>
>> How can you be a leftist and NOT care about the middle
>> class? :-)
>
>
> Because, I'm a leftist. QED
>
>
>> If you study the history of the
>> borgeois....in Russia, for example, it didn't work out so
>> well for anyone there, not the workers, and not the
>> borgeois. Either way the damn dog dies...Turin. Any
>> successful body politic must care about the middle class
>> or they will eventually fail. It's the middle class that
>> keeps the thing moving.
>
>
> Propaganda.
>
Hullabaloo! ;-) You can't offer anything better.....
>
>>>>>>> That's the typical "left" model found in the
>>>>>>> garbage U.S. By design, it perpetuates the
>>>>>>> industrial age's breeding of dumbed-down,
>>>>>>> single-task male drones. Meanwhile, it
>>>>>>> "liberates" women even further into the
>>>>>>> professional (power) classes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turin, you can't "liberate" a person into a power
>>>>>> class without taking away the civil rights of
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Welcome to the Men's Movement, Hyerdahl.
>>>>> The Marx Movement, too.
>>
>> But what RIGHTS have been taken?
>
>
> We've covered two, already. Are you saying that
> reproductive rights shouldn't be rights, Hyerdahl? I really
> didn't expect that of you.
Men already have reproductive rights, Turin; they have the same right
to control their bodies that women have.
>
>>>> I'm suggesting that you're wrong. If women were
>>>> getting unfair advantages by LAW, that would result
>>>> in civil rights violations and men would have cause
>>>> to sue.
>>>
>>>
>>> The cause and effect that you propose both exist. But,
>>> the fact that Men "don't sue" is a separate question.
>>> Many Men DO TRY to sue and are systematically blocked.
>>
>> You'd have to prove that to me, Turin. I have not seen
>> it.
>
>
> You wouldn't admit it, Hyerdahl, if it was enacted by a
> professional demonstrator. You would just say, "Different
> strokes for different folks" ...and then, no doubt, laugh
> your ass off after you got away from the situation.
>
Turin....it's obvious to me and to the judges that men have the same
reproductive rights women have, just not the same body parts or
abilities. I'm not laughing my ass off at you, Turin. I'm laughing
my ass off at the lack of logic used by others in that debate. So far,
you haven't hit my LMAO silly bone.
>
>>> The truth about the "right wing" positions that many of
>>> the little meatballs, that we both argue with, take,
>>> is this:
>>>
>>> If the majority of that systematic discrimination were
>>> successfully punctured, then most of those talk radio
>>> fans would be standing in every "government" line there
>>> is to get their share of it. Women would be getting
>>> sued, "reverse" discrimination cases would be filling
>>> up the courts, and Men would be signing up and calling
>>> for more government programs.
>>
>> I have no objection to men proving up need and applying
>> for grant funding. As to discrimination, I think there
>> is a huge difference between inclusionary programs and
>> discrimination. And I have no objection to those working
>> for men as well where men have not been included.
>
> That's a pretty handy difference to stipulate when most
> women's issues are defined alongside Men's using mutually
> exclusive criteria.
Like what? If you consider diversity programs....those can include
anyone in a suspect class who has been excluded. ...i.e. nursing
programs, nursery programs, etc.
>
> One thing that the Men's Movement is trying to accomplish is
> to untangle these double-standards so that whenever a Man
> speaks up about - say - the lack of "professionalism" in a
> female coworker the complaints stop being used as occasions
> to simply subject him to dripping sarcasm.
I don't know that co-workers generally have much to say about someone
who is "unprofessional"; that's usually the job of the boss....to
evaluate an employee. And as long as there is some level of
evenhandedness, I don't see the problem. A male or female employee can
be unprofessional.
>>
> Even so, I am distinguishing between what's inclusionary and
> discrimination. One of the primary differences between a
> real Men's Rights Activst and a right wing blowhard like
> Masculip is that the blowhard is too chicken to argue the
> standard. The MRA always takes his stand on it.
>
> If the policy is inclusion, then that shouldn't give be a
> greenlight to simply replace Men - or to squash their voices
> when the inclusion reaches a point of discrimination.
> That's what often happens. The women are so brazen about
> it, that it's ridiculous.
>
I certainly think companies should maintain high standards in the way
employees conduct business. The bosses should exemplify the high
standards by the way they address those under them. There is no place
in the workforce for either insipid men or women. Those who can't
maintain professional standards will not likely rise in the ranks, as
is also true of those who can't get along with others.
>>> They denounce all of this only because they're excluded
>>> from it and the corporate media propaganda outreaches
>>> that they've been sucked into play into it.
>>>
>>>>>> What rights have women denied men? What rights
>>>>>> has Pelosi denied men?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, but Hyerdahl, What rights haven't women taken
>>>>> from Men?
>>
>> I asked you first, Turin. Women have not taken ANY
>> rights from men. Men have equal rights.
>
>
> Gee, then where's my answer to the question about Pelosi's
> qualifications? Why has it taken so much time to get an
> answer?
That has nothing to do with equal rights, Turin. It's another issue.
>
>
>>>> According to the Marquis de Sade or the real world?
>>>> :-) I read some excerpts of de Sade's writings (altho
>>>> I could not get a copy yet of the one your
>>>> reommended)
>>
>> I got that copy; very interesting, but he would not be
>> my hero. :-)
>
>
> How long did it take you to flip through it...?
Well, I'm still reading parts of it....without a background in his
writing, I'm not sure I'm understanding all of it.
>
>>>>> Reproductive rights, for one. When do you plan on
>>>>> restricting your own dripping wombs away from our
>>>>> wallets?
>>>>
>>>> Men are 100%% responsible for their own sperm and what
>>>> they do with it, Turin. If a child is born with
>>>> your DNA YOU are "responsible". That applies to her
>>>> as well, btw.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, then, Men are only 50%% responsible. It takes two
>>> to tango.
>>
>> Actually, no. The reason men and women are each 100%%
>
>
> Wait a minute, here ...so, we have 200%% percent of a
> relationship? How does that work?
>
I've explained that below.
>
>> responsible is because a parent may be unknown or may
>> die. The child will still require care.
>
>
> Semantics. 100%% = 50%% where the kid is concerned. You just
> like converting a 50 into a 100 so that you can have a
> soundbite that says "men are 100%% responsible".
No. While the parents may or may not contribute 100%%, the
responsibility is there.
>
> Using it here may seem innocuous, but throwing it around in
> a child support payment proceeding would have quite a
> different effect.
>
It's not about how the payments are divied up. :-) It's about legal
responsibility.
>
>>>>> You make your future decisions when you agree to
>>>>> have sex.
>>>>
>>>> People "decide" very little when they have sex,
>>>> Turin, and that may be part of the problem. :-) Sex
>>>> is fun, and if people choose to engage in
>>>> recreational sex, that is up to them, but...they do
>>>> risk consequences.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, When the gender is "Men", then the standard is
>>> "you're 100%% responisible". And, when the gender is
>>> "women" then the standard is "Oh, people can't think
>>> clearly when they're having fun!"
>>
>> Both women and men are 100%% responsible, Turin, whether
>> they are having fun, or closing their eyes to think of
>> England. :-) Their sex doesn't matter a bit.
>
>
> Double standard, Hyerdahl. You're simply shoving words
> together and then throwing in high impact phrases to hide
> the fact.
I'm hiding nothing, Turin. The courts and I agree that you will be
legally responsible for any child born with your DNA. The same is true
for me.>
>
>>>>> We have 18 years of future child payments to think
>>>>> about which shouldn't be restricted to a snap
>>>>> decision.
>>
>> Both parents have 18 years of child support to consider,
>> Turin; one can support a child, physically or
>> financially.
>
>
> OK. That's your answer. Therefore, BOTH parents have to
> approve that future, via the continuance of the
> embryo/fetus. His body. His life. Not hers.
>
Not so. A woman can be completely comatose, and give birth, never come
out of the coma and the man who's DNA the child carries will still be
100%% responsible. Or, otoh, she could come out of the coma, and find
that he has been killed by a drive by fruiting....and then SHE will be
100%% responsible.
>
>>>>> Besides, sex is for pleasure. Procreation is a
>>>>> side-effect. And, in modern society, it's just a
>>>>> way to create safe, paying "jobs" for women without
>>>>> job skills. Creating mouths to feed in order to
>>>>> support a third party isn't a legitimate use of
>>>>> reproduction.
>>>>
>>>> Reproduction is the natural and scientific imperative
>>>> for sex,
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, but that's like saying that breaking down
>>> carbohydrates or proteins is the natural and scientific
>>> imperative for eating. We only know that because we
>>> live in this day and age. What does the natural human
>>> mind know about it?
>>
>> You don't have to "know" anything about sex at all to be
>> made 100%% responsible for the support of your child.
>
>
> Now, Hyerdahl. Don't be evading questions that invalidate
> your arguments, by jumping back to your premise, like that.
>
Well, that is how the courts and I see it, Turin. It takes two to co
create and men can't avoid their responsibility simply because they
don't house the ZEF.
> We're trying to trace the chain of reasoning in the
> rationale behind an existing law to see if it's a fair one.
> Just because it's one of your favorites, is no reason for
> you to accept it blindly. Do participate.
It all seems very simple to me, Turin; when two play, two pay.
>>
> If the natural unsocialized mind doesn't understand its own
> body's processes, CAN it be honestly said that those
> processes are the reason for the creature's actions IN the
> mind of the animal or human?
>
> Your answer, please.
If we consider the law of social harms, the mind need not understand
body process in order to be cognizant of the fact of what every 10 year
old knows.....that sex is the act that leads to pregnancy. Most five
year olds probably know it as well. But for sure, every boy who can
have an erection knows it by then.
>>
>>> Even eating to "live". Does the unsocialized mind
>>> understand that point, or does it just follow natural
>>> prompts to do what it likes to do? I doubt that
>>> animals understand what motivate them when they eat,
>>> either.
I don't think it really matters. You remind me of that old Bill Cosby
album "Why is there Air"; he concludes that there's air to blow up
volleyballs....and I conclude that society doesn't want to pay for
bastards so they make women and men equally responsible. Works for me.
>>
>> Turin, no society grants a free pass to abandon children.
>> It's just that simple.
>
> That isn't what I said, Hyerdahl. Apparently, you see which
> way the argument is going, and - like with your
> recalcitrance on Pelosi - are attempting to head it off.....
You were the one who needed to prove what was wrong with Pelosi;
you're the one who has the problem with her.
>
>
>>>> but I agree with you that today, people view sex as
>>>> pleasure more than as a means of populating the
>>>> nation. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> As they should. Especially, Men.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because I am one. Just like: because you favor women in
> everything you say and do, while expecting Men to be
> accommodating and sacrificial to your own interests.
But I am not favoring women in saying that women should enjoy sex as
men do. That's not favoring.
>
> "Fuck that shit", said Baby Jesus.
>
>
>> Are you suggesting that men should enjoy sex more
>> than women? That would make you a sexist, Turin. I'm
>> sure you don't want to go there.
>
> I'm suggesting that some common sense SELFISHNESS would do
> Men a lot of good ...where pleading, arguing and being fair
> has been met with nothing but our being taken advantage of
> by those who refuse to practice what they preach.
Well, if I were a woman who was partnered with a man who thought he
should enjoy sex more than me, I probably wouldn't be partnered with
him for long. :-)
>
> Oh, I say let's fight for equal rights. I just stipulate to
> Men to not be naive and thereby wind up the only fools doing
> our parts for it. Real equality will take care of everything.
I'm ok with that.
>
> Including, those little pity fucks who talk big, decade
> after decade, and deliver NOTHING. Except, to clear the way
> for you "strong women".
So what's your poison, Turin? What do you want?
>>
>>>> In terms of jobs for women, if you don't want to give
>>>> women the job of motherhood, don't RISK making a
>>>> woman into a mother. Again, you are 100%%
>>>> responsible for your own sperm. She's not your sperm
>>>> sitter.
>>>>>
>>> In terms of making me responsible for your motherhood,
>>> if you don't want to have to get a job to support a
>>> child then don't RISK making a man into a father. You
>>> are 100%% responsible for your own egg. He's not your
>>> provider.
>>
Well, they're each 100%% responsible, Turin. :-)
>> Turin....she is only responsible for her decision. He is
>> responsible for his. She may WANT to be a mother, with
>> all that envolves. He has to make his decision apart
>> from hers. He doesn't get to reach into her body or her
>> rights, should he have a change of heart over the risk.
>
> Hyerdahl....that sperm is his. As long as he still has to
> pay for it, then it's still his. She cannot make his
> decisions for him. If she doesn't like equality, then she
> can be a good girl and keep her legs together.
>
Not so. She has the same right to sex that he has. And he still can't
reach inside her body or take away her rights just because he loses
control over the process. That's what he opted for after all. That's
exactly what he was willing to risk.
>
>>>>>>> Add to that: women's rights supporters
>>>>>>> experiencing fainting and feinting spells over
>>>>>>> the idea of women in combat, and it's pretty
>>>>>>> clear where this - and your Pelosi - are going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I have no objection at all to women in
>>>>>> combat as long as they have equal military rights
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Women run the H/house, while Men run the
>>>>>>> business".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean the White House? :-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a prophetical sense. That yes-man analogy is
>>>>> being used dangerously close to the government
>>>>> level.
>>>>
>>>> ???? Perhaps Pelosi is paving the way for another
>>>> mother?
>>>
>>>
>>> ???? How did you find mothers in this?
>>
>> Well, Hillary is also a mother. :-)
>
>
> ????? How did you find Hillary in this?
>
> Have you been reading into this issue more than you
> pretend...?
Yes. :-)
>>>>>>> Well, What happens to the "business" when it's
>>>>>>> a mom & pop "shop" and "mom" has been declared
>>>>>>> owner of the home...? Revisionary
>>>>>>> traditionalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I don't [want to] see your point. If a
>>>>>> married couple own a business together, they both
>>>>>> own it as partners.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point was that "home" ownership is coming to
>>>>> subsume "business" ownership, as a political
>>>>> doctrine. Both types are allegorical.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really see an allegory here, tho. If a
>>>> couple buys a house as joint tenents they BOTH own it
>>>> no matter who manages it. The same thing applies
>>>> to a business partnership arrangement. There is no
>>>> law giving one the right to boss the other about,
>>>> unless the partnership is a limited partnership,
>>>> where each has specific rights and duties, which may
>>>> be unequal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again: Discrimination is the turning point of the
>>> process. The laws are ignored.
>>
>> No...there are more lawsuits today than ever. Laws are
>> not ignored.
>
> More Hyerdahl semantics.
More ignoring facts.
>
>
>>>>>>> That's where your liberalized "world peace"
>>>>>>> leaves us Men.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you and your wife owned a business, what is it
>>>>>> exactly that "declares" her the owner?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a literal case of that: Discrimination.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. If she is a 50%% owner OF the business,
>>>> she has the same rights you have. Even if you were to
>>>> discriminate against her she'd have the right to her
>>>> 50%%. So, I'm assuming you're just talking about
>>>> workplace discrimination....as an employee, rather
>>>> than as a partner.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll say it again: Discrimination.
>>
>> You can _say_ it all you like, but it has no meaning.
>
>
> What has no meaning is your wide-eyed naivette.
>
Turin, either you have a dog in this fight or you don't.>
>>> You're problem is that you're used to noncompetitive
>>> males who would never take it to court.
>>
>> I don't mind a good fight, TUrin.
>>
> You're all affirmation, Hyerdahl.
>
> Indeed.
>>>>>>> I don't ask patriarchy out of the genuine left
>>>>>>> wing movements, but I do demand for us Men to
>>>>>>> stop being told by you liberal shills of
>>>>>>> capitalism to fend for ourselves, as though
>>>>>>> capitalism is patriarchal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah.....ok. Well, Turin ....with pure capitalism
>>>>>> or pure communism, the dog dies. All western
>>>>>> democracies have some social programs....and yet,
>>>>>> they are still promoting capitalist ideals. In
>>>>>> some fashion, a smattering of both is more the
>>>>>> sign of a healthy society.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly how capitalism plays it. In fact,
>>>>> one school of thought (the Illuminatists) has it
>>>>> that communism is a creation of capitalism, via the
>>>>> Rothchilds, in order to bring about wars which
>>>>> will lead to one world government.
>>>>>
>>>> Ooooh my; that thought gives me the shudders. Well,
>>>> it's true that the world is a much smaller one with
>>>> the advent of the kinds of tech. we now have, but
>>>> since we know that every healthy western society has
>>>> some degree of socialism included....we must take
>>>> that as a sign of that being a working facet of a
>>>> successful society.
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that capitalism is not patriarchal. Not,
>>> whether or not an $8 trillion-bankrupted economy is a
>>> success.
>>
>> I don't see capitalism as patriarchal, and yes, our
>> society is not doing well in money matters. Soon Canada
>> will close it's doors to us, IMO.
>>
>>> If women are going to pretend that it is, whenever they
>>> need a handy strawman for demanding more setasides for
>>> themselves, then liberalism becomes patriarchal, too,
>>> by extension - albeit, in a more face-saving form.
>>
>> Again, I'm a liberal but I don't see capitalism as being
>> patriarchal.
>
> Good, because that's what I said.
>
>
>>> But, since it's not, both capitalism and liberalism
>>> become alternative avenues for females acquiring rights
>>> without responsibilities.
>>
>> Where women have equal rights, they have equal duties,
>> Turin.
>
> In theory, not in practice, Hyerdahl. Let's get serious.
>
>
>>> That's how women like Pelosi can make it to SOTH,
>>> through patronage, nepotism and marrying into wealth,
>>> and then call it an achievement for women.
>>
>> More women have entered politics in the past few years,
>> starting at the bottom, than ever before. Not all women
>> are like Sony Bono's wife. :-)
>
>
> What do you have against Cher?
>
His OTHER wife. :-) Mary.
>
>>> Using that logic, you can keep calling the same thing
>>> either patriarchy or women's rights, depending on the
>>> political season, and keep propelling yourself into
>>> special treatment, forever.
>>
>> Did you expect women (after 1919) to simply conjure up a
>> political machine? Or did you think it would take women
>> a fraction of the time it took men to do so? :-)
>
> That's a valid point, but it still doesn't change the fact
> that they have been using it to fight for the opposite
> standards that they've been promoting: mandated chivalry.
> Pelosi is nothing more than a lifelong recipient of chivalry.
>
And men are nothing more than a lifelong recipient of nepotism. So
what?
I don't see chivalry playing a part here....not anymore.
>
>>> That's also how women came to invent "the glass
>>> ceiling": Like a spoiled kid who gets the latest,
>>> greatest computer one year and then the very next year
>>> says that it sucks, for no other reason than he wants
>>> another new one.
>>
>> Just how did your alleged power play get into the "glass
>> ceiling" ? BTW, have you also heard about the "glass
>> cliff'?
>
>
> No, that's a new one on me. What's this one about?
That's where a company is run into the ground, just long enough to give
over the CEO to a woman who will step off the cliff with it.
>
>>>>> Regardless of whether you believe that theory, you
>>>>> still can't get away with systems built on
>>>>> outcome-based sophistry. You can't get away with
>>>>> creating undefined grey areas to cloak the workings
>>>>> of the mechanisms of your ideas, pointing at
>>>>> unplanned "successes", and then claiming, I'm a
>>>>> conscientious human being who cares about other
>>>>> human beings as individuals".
>>
>> So....what would you have me be....? Every INDIVIDUAL
>> strives toward his or her own view of things, and votes
>> the best way they can for the person who best represents
>> their own ideals. AND, to top that off, it is my opinion
>> that most people care about other human beings, as
>> individuals. Anne Franke springs to mind.
>
> Unfortunately, we're not islands unto ourselves. We have to
> share too much of our space with worthless assholes (like
> Tom Smith) who can - and want to - screw things up for the
> rest.
Yes. That's so. But I have to tell you, Turin, that I run into more
genuinely good people than bad, and even tho it is human nature to be
selfish, most people can share.
>
> That's why I believe God sent Karl Marx into the world:
>
> To bring everyone up to the highest similar level.
> Liberalism brings everyone down to the lowest common
> denominator of capitalism's sewers. But, when we embrace
> communism, we can escape it's materialist illusions, along
> with its scumbags who are a perpetual drag on the rest of us.
Oh....you had me at hello. :-) I like the allure of communism...and
I'm pink around the edges, but even Karl Marx knew it didn't fucking
work. If you compare the works of Marx with the fiction of Ayn
Rand....what you get is direct opposition from two minds....uncluttered
by the reality of the world. :-) They both MISSED! They were both
well intentioned. They were both naive.
> "To each according to his need" doesn't mean "to each lazy
> bastard according to his enormous appetite". It means to
> each according to his leaner, better life as nature intended
> it.
I LOVE that idea. Do you know, that is how I've encountered every job
I've ever had REGARDLESS of what others contributed. It's my own work
ethic.
When you have a society of supermen and Aristotles
> dwelling together, sharpening the body and the mind, there's
> more to go around and yet less needed.
Probably so, but your world, like Ayn Rand's world, has no room for
those who can't keep up.
What do you do with them?
The wasteful> parasites who can survive only under the largesse of
> crapitalism and it's system of manufactured need die off and
> trouble us no more.
>
Again, I applaud your zestful naivete....but what do you do with the
"largess"? Who do you kill first? What about Israel. You have fine
ideas, Turin, but no way to accomplish them.
> And, so, Hyerdahl. You ask me, "What would you have me be?"
> I would have you be a communist. I would also have you
> put aside your flimsy pretenses of equality and instead
> support the Men's Movement which you have so long created a
> need for. And, you will find that the two go together.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.....well, you had me and you lost me in one fell
swoop. But, I'm very pleased to have had a glimpse of your fine mind.
I have sons, Turin; if I thought for a moment that my sons were
devoid of rights, I'd be there fighting for them.
> Amen and amen.
>
>>>>> Those aren't systems. Those aren't societies.
>>>>> They're hunting preserves. And, the bitch and
>>>>> bastard who pretend to be conscientious by turning
>>>>> a blind eye to the individual, by extolling the
>>>>> existence of the society as a whole, are simply
>>>>> decoys and bait used by the capitalist.
>>
>> Turin, I am completely interested in what you have to
>> say, but you seem to offer no alternatives. You seem to
>> be more of an anarchist than a leftist, and that doesn't
>> resonate with me.
>
> Marxism holds the answers, Hyerdahl. Resonate with that.
>
>>>> Again, I agree, but we still have the issue and the
>>>> problem of RUNNING societies that depend on both the
>>>> work ethic and social programs. We can't ignore
>>>> those things and simply extoll [sic] the virtues of
>>>> the individual. You, theoretically, leave those who
>>>> govern us with an impossible task. Shame on you. :-)
>>>
>>> Pretty words, Hyerdahl. Ugly results. Are you happy
>>> with all of the wild fluctuations between the
>>> Republican and Democrat styles of capitalism?
>>
>> No, of course not.
>
> Well, then. Capitalism has failed.
Nonsense! Just because the mid-class has no representation just means
we need more parties....like the Europeans.
>>
>>>>>>>>> She's the kind of plastic-banana liberal
>>>>>>>>> who might vote to jail people for ripping
>>>>>>>>> tags off of pillows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good god, man....I'll be sent to prison forever.
>>>>>> I hate those tags. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> A fine liberal you are.
>>>>
>>>> :-) Well, in some ways I'm not as liberal as you. I
>>>> LOVE my gun. :-)
>>>
>>> I never complained about guns. I think every citizen
>>> should be armed to the teeth, both, in and out of the
>>> house, and have the best of all of the latest
>>> technology and weaponry. Centralizing technology in WW2
>>> was a BIG mistake.
>>
>> Ok....I agree with you there.
>
>
> Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.
>
:-) Apparently, not as close as you would think (re read the part
about Ayn Rand). :-)
>
>>> It won't serve it's ends, either. Sooner or later, the
>>> really good weapons are going to "fall into the wrong
>>> hands" and then it's going to be Dr. Strangelove. Call
>>> 'em "terrorists" all you like, regardless of what they
>>> really are. By the same rules of the cynical secular
>>> governments who bandy those labels, their correct nom
>>> de plume is: "the winners".
>>
>> Yup. I agree with you there too.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Then, she'll also vote to bomb the shit out
>>>>>>>>> of third world and poor countries. She's
>>>>>>>>> a right winger on middle eastern issues and
>>>>>>>>> any other foreign policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is she? How do you know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hahahaha, Hyerdahl doesn't even know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I don't know her entire mind-set on the
>>>>>> mideast; I guess I figure to determine that would
>>>>>> take more than a few sound bites.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right. All you care about is the fact that she's a
>>>>> woman.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm thrilled that she broke thru the "marble
>>>> ceiling", but once that is said (and it HAS BEEN said
>>>> ad nauseum) she has to get on with the work of the
>>>> nation. I guess I have HOPE that she will buckle down
>>>> and do a good job.
>>>>>
>>> And, your definition of "the work of the nation" and "a
>>> good job" is "women's rights". Otherwise, "the marble
>>> ceiling" would be an empty slogan.
>>
>> I don't think her job is about women's rights, per se.
>> It's much broader than that and if she chooses to use it
>> for that venue, I don't think she'll be successful.
>
> No, not "per se".
>
> But, since she's made it to where she has based on her
> status as a female, and since she mentioned it right from
> the outset, then you can bet that's all she's really good for.
>
> Does that mean that men who make it make it because they're male?
> Oh, she'll put on a fine show of balanced domestic issues.
> But, under those will be usual principle of women promoting
> women.
You mean like men promoting men?
>
> And abroad, she'll keep pushing for American terrorism so
> that she doesn't have to live under patriarchy, while still
> getting Men to pull her doors open for her. And - most
> importantly - to keep her lavish lifestyle.
>
I don't patriarchy has anything to do with her job. Sorry.
>
>>>>>>> I read about it in her unimpressive career.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have dirt.....dish. It appears that you
>>>>>> have nothing to say about her career and know
>>>>>> even less. I like talking to you Turin, but
>>>>>> please don't waste our time on conjecture.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Hyerdahl, stop being funny. I only mention it as a
>>>>> courtesy. The burden of prove isn't on me. The
>>>>> dirt is irrelevant.
>>
>> If you're the one complaining then the burden of PROOF is
>> on you.
>
>
> Obviously "you're the one complaining" must be your latest
> line for getting off of the hotseat.
>
> Where's Pelosi's qualifications, Hyerdahl? I guess they
> would be hard to find, eh? hahaha
They're the same as those of her predacessor.
>
>>> I don't need any. You don't have any track record for
>>> Pelosi ...beside her being "a woman this" and "a woman
>>> that". You're just looking for a red herring.
>>
>> What was the track record of the SOTH before her?
>
> Why do you ask..?
Because they both have the same qualifications, it appears.
>>
>>>>>>>> What would you like to see happen in the
>>>>>>>> mideast?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For Israel to stop being propped up simply in
>>>>>>> order to be a disrupting element in the region.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah. So....you don't think Israelis have the
>>>>>> right to their own country, NOW? I mean...what
>>>>>> do you want to happen to them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking care of them isn't our concern.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, we are NOT our brother's keeper; good to know.
>>>> :-)
>
>>> Do you have brothers in Israel?
>>
>> No. I don't know anyone there.
>
> Ah, good to know. ;D
>
>
>>>>>>> It can't exist without the U.S. That's the
>>>>>>> reason behind Iran, Iraq and all the rest. It's
>>>>>>> also something that implicates your un-tried,
>>>>>>> un-tested Pelosi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you that she's untried....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for conceding the argument.
>>>>
>>>> Agreeing with you that she's untried is hardly a
>>>> concession. Everyone has to have a first and she's
>>>> been proven in her other capacity.
>>>
>>> But Hyerdahl, you haven't been able to cite any proof,
>>> yet, as to her other capacity.
>>
>> You haven't been able to say what her predacessor had
>> that she doesn't.
>
> You have yet to think of yet another diversion for not
> citing for Pelosi.
If you have a claim against her feel free to make one.
>
>
>>>>> Next question:
>>>>>
>>>>> So why should being female qualify a senator -
>>>>> who's done nothing noteworthy that anyone can think
>>>>> of - for becoming speaker of the house?
>>>
>>> (Hmm...Hyerdahl couldn't answer this one)
>>
>> What did the SOTH before her do that she hasn't?
>
> I'm sorry, Hyerdahl. I didn't hear your cites for Pelosi's
> qualifications......
Same as for those of her predacessor.
>
>>>>>> but what about her predacessor? Was he tried? How
>>>>>> was he more "tried" than she is now?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hyerdahl, Do you seriously expect me to carry this
>>>>> conversation, by doing your homework for you, while
>>>>> you just keep pulling things out of your ass for
>>>>> objections?
>>
>> You're the one objecting. Physician, heal thyself
>
>
> That's an illogical use of that quote.
No, it's most logical. :-) Your the one with pulling from ass
problems, Turin. :-)
>>>> If you're going to say that she shouldn't have the
>>>> job because she's new :-) then yes, you have to show
>>>> how other past SOTH had vast amounts of experience
>>>> she lacks. It's part of YOUR argument.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have to prove anything. MY argument is that
>>> Pelosi's past performance has been unexceptional. That,
>>> the ONLY reason she's being given the post is because
>>> she's a woman. If you have facts to the contrary,
>>> then post them.
>>
>> Again, what did the SOTH before her have that she
>> doesn't? A penis?
>
> Male senators don't use the fact of their penises to get
> promoted to SOTH.
Well then what did HE have that she does NOT?
>
>>> Her "experience" amounts to putting in time. If that's
>>> a valid argument, then we already had the time-tested
>>> "marble ceiling" ...No?
>>>
>>> ....here, have a Kleenex, Hyerdahl. :D
You need the Kleenex, Turin....you're the one who has that ass issue.
:-)
>>>> Turin, Pelosi is no more or less experienced than the
>> fellow before her.
>
>
> Hahaha....nice wiggle, Hyerdahl. "No more or less".
INdeed.
>
> Well, if she isn't "less" then no doubt you can find some
> things in her record to give testimony to this assertion.
>
> You were the one complaining; I suggest you find where she is lacking.
>>>>>> And again, what do you want for Israel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To quit being a problem. What makes them more
>>>>> special than other countries?
>>>>
>>>> They have the right to exist as a nation, just like
>>>> Iran, Pakistan, etc.
>>>
>>> Tell that to Iraq. Tell it to Iran. Tell it to North
>>> Korea.
>>>
>>> Tell it to Haiti.. Cuba...
>>>
>>> ....and a whole bunch of South American nations.
>>>
>>>
>>> No? Right. You'll do what Pelosi does:
>>>
>>> Pay liberal lip service. Then, mock your victim with
>>> the sincerest of well-wishes after you've helped your
>>> "opposite" to rape him from head to toe.
>>
>> You've lost me, Turin. Are you Arab?
>
> Obviously, you don't follow current events. Either that, or
> I need to buy a child leash for you.
Either that...or an interpreter. :-)
>
>>>>>>>>> I would like Iraq to be partitioned equally
>>>>>>>> by percentage of peoples ....between the
>>>>>>>> waring [sic] factions and a UN peacekeeping
>>>>>>>> force to maintain. What is YOUR solution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine, as far as it goes, but the U.S.
>>>>>>> has to get the fuck out of the region,
>>>>>>> completely. Not, just to not invade Iraq, or to
>>>>>>> invade more fairly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, if the US leaves....where does that leave
>>>>>> Israel? What do you suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, Who cares. That's like asking a Men's Rights
>>>>> Activist where Men's Rights legislation would
>>>>> leave women.
>>>>>
As long as equality reigns, I don't particularly care where it leaves
women. But I do care about people dying and losing a country....
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If tomorrow, a loud slurping sound were to be
>>>>>>> heard out of all of the oil pipes in the middle
>>>>>>> east, and they all suddenly discovered that
>>>>>>> there was no more oil there, then Israel would
>>>>>>> suddenly find itself getting the U.S.'s
>>>>>>> answering machines - no matter how many Arab
>>>>>>> boys were throwing stones at them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, we all know the reason we're there is for
>>>>>> oil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing new about that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so precedent justifies crime, eh?
No, but you still have to come up with a solution for Israel in the
process.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I don't mind pulling out because of that, but
>>>>>> again, where does that leave Israel?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares? Has Israel been asking tough questions
>>>>> like this about the Palestinian people? Have you?
>>>>> ..QED
You still haven't ansered my question....are you Arab?> >>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Think man.... There must be a way to make sure
>>>>>> Israel is not destroyed in the process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure are riveted onto Israel in a thread where
>>>>> you can't think of one relevant thing to say about
>>>>> Pelosi. Think woman.... there must be some way to
>>>>> get rid of her.
Sure. Vote the Dems out. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong rationale.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you don't have a solution, and you just
>>>>>>>> criticize then you're part of the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This isn't a Rubik's cube. The colonial powers
>>>>>>> created the problem by installing Israel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The U.S. is the main regime still arming it.
>>>>>>> Stopping = Solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you think it's ok...to watch the Jews be
>>>>>> destroyed again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, I suggest they learn to make friends with
>>>>> their neighbors. You obviously think it's ok...to
>>>>> watch the Jews routinely murder the Palestinians.
>>>>>
No, I don't. It all makes me sick.> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Iraq, she may have voted against the
>>>>>>>>> war, but she supported the war's rationale
>>>>>>>>> - including the administration's bullshit
>>>>>>>>> about their WMDs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're blaming the DEMS for the lying of the
>>>>>>>> Republicans? How's that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was enough of a rationale up front to
>>>>>>> have voted against the war - even without
>>>>>>> Powell's plagiarized student report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I would have voted against the war....I
>>>>>> would have supported UN action, tho.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're not talking about UN action. We're talking
>>>>> about oil deals, Halliburton, and the Republicans
>>>>> proving themselves.
Yeah....assholes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the matter, Hyerdahl? Can't Pelosi
>>>>>>> answer for herself, without bringing her whole
>>>>>>> party into it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't answer for Pelosi at all;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No one can. She's simply a token.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm simply stating the facts. Many were
>>>>>> deceived...not just Pelosi.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No one was deceived.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would this be a case of being deceived by
>>>>>>>>> Uncle Powell's bad intelligence reports?
>>>>>>>>> WTF do these people DO up on Capitol Hill?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You and I can both agree that there are
>>>>>>>> idiots up there, but...to be fair, you have
>>>>>>>> to give a newly elected official....a chance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, Now we're back to evaluating Pelosi as an
>>>>>>> individual? She wasn't one of the "idiots"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, what matters at this point in time is what
>>>>>> she does now; it seems you're just being
>>>>>> critical of her because she's a woman.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're just supporting because she's a woman.
I don't support her any more than I'd support a male SOTH...I'm just
glad there are DEms there.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
Well, now that ARab women have the net.....they can now see how the
rest of the world lives.
>>>>>>> You liberals willingly fall for every cheap,
>>>>>>> cynical capitalist counterfeit put out to
>>>>>>> exploit your pretended moral side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought you were a liberal, or ...at least
>>>>>> played one on cybervision.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a time when liberalism's sugar-coated
>>>>> pretensions held some allure for me ...but no
>>>>> more. I went for the real thing: Marxism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you remind me of my partner's grandfather
>>>>>>>> who used to say (re: politicians) "just line
>>>>>>>> them all up and shoot them". :-) If you
>>>>>>>> take that approach, it may be charming, but
>>>>>>>> it's not productive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if that's your definition of charm, then
>>>>>>> wait till you hear my solution to the problem
>>>>>>> of false accusers of rape. You'll be cooing,
>>>>>>> "Casanova".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ????? False accusers are handled the same for
>>>>>> any false accusation, are they not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> No, if they're females, then they're automatically
>>>>> believed. Men, OTOH, are automatically
>>>>> disbelieved, whether true, or not (a rare case
>>>>> scenario).
>>>>>
That's ridiculous, Turin.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As to your making me "coo", we've never discussed
>>>>>> your bedside manner. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I usually handle false accusers in a dungeon.
>>
>> You and de Sade? :-)
>
> No, I'm not that nice.
I'll remember that.
>
>
>>>>>>>>> We have certain "left wing" Internet
>>>>>>>>> publications, like Information Clearing
>>>>>>>>> House. But - neverminding the heavy dosage
>>>>>>>>> of moderate bullshit even in a lot of
>>>>>>>>> these "subversive" periodicals - the public
>>>>>>>>> won't read those, unless they are placed
>>>>>>>>> before their lazy faces by Archer Daniels
>>>>>>>>> Midland on wall sized screens, so as to
>>>>>>>>> make easy eye contact while reclining on
>>>>>>>>> couches and easy chairs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you. Americans are lazy, but I
>>>>>>>> keep hoping that not all westerners are like
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I keep hoping that Scott Tissue starts
>>>>>>> embossing their fine product with the collected
>>>>>>> sentiments of all liberals .....something to
>>>>>>> finally add texture to such saintly wisdom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again....line them up and shoot them, Turin, for
>>>>>> all the good it will do you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is just one more step ....in her
>>>>>>>>>> career for however far she goes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, sucking cocks in the office, while
>>>>>>>>> having the public pay for her sex life, and
>>>>>>>>> then going out in front of the TV cameras
>>>>>>>>> to peddle poor women's rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turin.... she cannot ONLY represent women.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. She's also gotta represent the rich
>>>>>>> capitalist boys whose cocks she sucks. There's
>>>>>>> your middleeast policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok....so let's see if I've got you to rights
>>>>>> now.....you are one of those freaks who attacked
>>>>>> the world trade meeting? :-) Do you mind telling
>>>>>> me how old you are?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting that you would mentally connect
>>>>> American senators bombing the middle east with what
>>>>> happened at the WTC. It belies your choice of
>>>>> appellation. How old are you?
No, I was actually talking about the riots in front of the world trade
organization.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what is wrong with women's rights?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're inherently special interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Howso?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's in the name. Read it again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Women represent just over 51%% of the population.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? That's an argument for population control
>>>>> if I ever heard one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't women's rights be human rights?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They should be, but women's righters constantly
>>>>> take the tact of pushing for gender-specific
>>>>> rights, whenever one gets down to reading the fine
>>>>> print. Applying words like "equality" and "human"
>>>>> is PR cover for a selfish, greedy agenda that
>>>>> oppresses the Male gender.
>>>>>
Well, consider the rights feminism has historically supported:
The right to own property
The right to vote
The right to control their own bodies
The right to work for equal pay.
The right to equal opportunity
Men already have all those rights.
>>>>> Fortunately, more Men are wising up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, we're fighting back with Men's Rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm ok with that. What rights don't men have?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> We already covered that higher up with reproductive
>>>>> rights. Here, we can add equal sentencing to the
>>>>> list.
Sentencing is judged one person at a time, based on protecting society,
prior crimes, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you think "poor" women should have fewer
>>>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that our (male) prisons should be
>>>>>>> emptied and that the Malleus Maleficarum should
>>>>>>> be made required reading in all of our
>>>>>>> schools.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hahahahahahahaha. Well, I've read it. Does that
>>>>>> count?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because I want my brothers in the Lord to read
>>>>> it, too.
>>
>> Are you getting religion now? :-)
>
>
> Only when the spirit of the Lord comes upon me.
>
> Oh good grief; now he's hearing voices?
>>>>>> :-) So, you don't think crimes should be
>>>>>> punished, and you dont' think society should be
>>>>>> protected from the actions of criminals?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Many Men in jails today are really just political
>>>>> prisoners. The laws are drawn up to trap us using
>>>>> various forms of class status.
>>>>>
>>>>> The definitions of rape, for example, are
>>>>> ridiculously rigged so as to manufacture criminals
>>>>> and advance the false accusers within society. The
>>>>> female who had Mike Tyson jailed for three years
>>>>> for consensual sex is a great example of that. The
>>>>> sex was called rape because of Tyson's
>>>>> personality.
>>
>> Were you there? How do you know the sex was consentual?
>
> I heard the facts of the case. Does that count?
>
No. You weren't there; you don't know. Neither do I.
>
>>>>> The essence of the culture war is between passives
>>>>> vs. aggressives. Without grasping that fact, the
>>>>> myriad exceptions within all of the other neat
>>>>> little pet theories put out today can't really be
>>>>> understood. Today's jailed Men are often jailed by
>>>>> cowardly yes-men like Mark Sobolewski and Zed the
>>>>> Zen Priest who fear alpha males, if only out of
>>>>> jealousy. Of course, Zed is a bisexual, and of
>>>>> course they hypocritically explain it all away,
>>>>> anyway, with convoluted theories, based in class
>>>>> warfare, which refuse to admit this important fact.
>>
>> :-) Well, I might be able to agree with you that men
>> like Sobolewski are weak, but I'm not seeing how that
>> plays into men who are jailed for rape. Either they did
>> rape or they didn't.
>>
> Yeah, you see it.
>
No, to me rape is fairly simple....non-consentual sex.
> It relates to Michael Tyson's personality and why guys like
> him get thrown into prison on the word of a woman.
>
> A big baby middle class suburbanite like Slobberewski would
> gladly throw a guy like Tyson into prison simply for not
> being passive and sweet.
Well, Mark doesn't like Black people...so possibly....but I'm all for
throwing a rapist in jail.
>
> Too much competition.
>
>
>>>>> But, one short answer is that these Men are
>>>>> products of their environments, because they are
>>>>> socialized by everyday witches into roles that fit
>>>>> within highly dualized social units. The Men don't
>>>>> get the full benefit of patriarchy - only it's
>>>>> servile aspects - so the females effectively become
>>>>> protectors as well as clan-like mother figures.
>>
>> Ok. So....why not give up patriarchy all together? See
>> what pans out.
>>
> I don't support it to begin with. All that this society has
> to offer is puppet patriarchy, and that's what all of the
> weaklings run after. Men are ten times worse off under
> puppet patriarchy than flat-out matriarchy.
>
> So, I'm shooting for equality. Let the momma's boys, like
> eMasculist, finds themselves some easy chairs out on the
> streets, where they can set up their new empires of
> bullshit. They can't adapt.
>
> ?????
>>>>> Without them, the Men can't function within the
>>>>> community. Witchcraft.
>>
>> Witchcraft or Wicca....just another religion, right?
>>
> A religion of misandry, plotting and hate.
>
Actually no. It's just the worship of nature.
>
>>>>> And, that's what Jayne Kulikauskus really is.
>>
>> You mean _she_ changed herself from a man to a
>> woman...thru whichcraft? :-)
>
>
> And, through newspaper clippings, too, apparently.
>
:-) :-) :-) Thanks for that one. :-)
>
>>>>>>> But, to answer your question, I think that
>>>>>>> "poor women" are the best everyday lobby that
>>>>>>> the capitalists have ever come up with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I think I'm getting you figured out...at long
>>>>>> last. You want anarchy?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ????? You should talk to Debwhorah, Hyerdahl. She
>>>>> doesn't know what anarchy is, either.
>>
>> Well, that's the signal I'm getting from you, and I don't
>> wear a tinfoil cap.
>
>
> Then, something's wrong with your receiver.
>
Ok. You're in love with Marx.
>
>>>>>>>>>> As to getting the job done, I don't know
>>>>>>>>>> if I'll like her work any more than I
>>>>>>>>>> did those who went before. I guess time
>>>>>>>>>> will tell. Her, being a woman, won't have
>>>>>>>>>> any effect on what I think of her work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truth is, you won't even pay attention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turin....if you know anything at all about
>>>>>>>> me, from my writing, here, you would know
>>>>>>>> that I do "pay attention" whether or not you
>>>>>>>> agree with my body-politic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hahahaha ...you see the world through some of
>>>>>>> the most coke-bottled colored glasses that I've
>>>>>>> ever seen, Hyerdahl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like a good coke now and again, but I don't
>>>>>> want to buy the world a coke. :-) And again,
>>>>>> how does your statement indicate whether or not I
>>>>>> pay attention?
>
>
> If you need to ask, then you didn't pay attention.
>
>
>>>>> I think you know that.
>>
>> No....I want an admission from you, like me or not...that
>> I DO pay attention.
>
>
> This is funny ...a prolonged argument where I can't get you
> to supply your burden of proof on Pelosi but you demand that
> I clear up some silly aside. Hahaha
Hey you're the one with a stick up your $##$@ about Pelosi; that's
not me. I don't care a whit if she's male or female, just so she's
Democrat.
>>>>>>>> I'm surprised you're not better friends with
>>>>>>> Kulikauskus ....but, you say that's Dave Simm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes...it is. :-) Keep in mind, Turin, that
>>>>>> to a large degree, I'm on your side. I'm just
>>>>>> not of the 'line them all up and shoot them"
>>>>>> mode. :-) Or the 'let Israel get bombed the shit
>>>>>> out of existence" mode. Your problem is that
>>>>>> you're too pissed to come up with any solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I'm getting you, now. "Line them all up and
>>>>> shoot them" means that I'm not some waffling
>>>>> moderate. Aren't you the one who
>>
>> Hey, I don't care whether you're hot, cold or luke.....I
>> just want solutions. :-)
>
>
> For that matter, why would lining them and shooting them
> automatically not qualify?
>
> Only the Marquis de Sade would come up with that one. ARe you his cloned self?
>>>>> likes to invoke Godwin's Law? Well, here it comes.
>>>>> I guess you're too pissed to tear yourself away
>>>>> from that strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "These principles and these tastes, I am
>>>>>>>>> their fanatic adherent; and fanaticism in
>>>>>>>>> me is the product of the persecutions I
>>>>>>>>> have endured from my tyrants. The longer
>>>>>>>>> they continue their vexations, the deeper
>>>>>>>>> they root my principles in my heart, and I
>>>>>>>>> openly declare that no one need ever talk
>>>>>>>>> to me of liberty if it is offered to me
>>>>>>>>> only in return for their destruction."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ~ The Marquis de Sade
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Marquis was a sick man, Turin;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sade was a libertine and a genius with very
>>>>>>> well developed political ideas. A potential
>>>>>>> Thomas Jefferson of France.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But alas....he took on the theory of "line 'em
>>>>>> up, rape 'em, kill 'em or shoot 'em" mentality
>>>>>> and all his efforts were for naught.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But alas, you really don't know the first thing
>>>>> about him, what he did, what he said ...or even
>>>>> that he was primarily a writer. You're simply
>>>>> pulling shit out of your ass in a way that competes
>>>>> with Tom Smith's stock & trade.
>>
>> Jesus; I hope not. :-)
>
>
> Indeed. It's something to worry about, Hyerdahl.
>
>
>>>>>>>> he became the very monster to which he
>>>>>>>> objected. Don't do that to yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't make a fool of yourself by making things
>>>>>>> up. You obviously have only a Hollywood picture
>>>>>>> in your mind of who he was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that's true. I've never read anything of
>>>>>> his. So you get a point, there.
>>>>>
>>>>> hahahaha
>>
>> I've given you nothing to laugh at, Turin; I've admitted
>> not reading de Sade, and now I've done my homework.
>
>
> Sure, but you acted like an expert on him and then admitted
> otherwise when I called your bluff. I should've laughed
> even harder.
I never once acted an expert on de Sade. Not once.
>
>
>>>>> ....yeah, and now let's check yon score:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1,000,001 : 0
>>>>>
>>>>> mmm-hmmm
>>
>> Again, I still would not call de Sade the great white
>> hope. :-)
>
>
> I wouldn't, either.
>
>
>>>>>>> Find yourself a translation of "Yet Another
>>>>>>> Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would Become
>>>>>>> Republicans". You might have to read it as
>>>>>>> part of "Philosophy in the Bedroom". Whatever
>>>>>>> you read by him, you'll find that his atheism
>>>>>>> was the cornerstone of his thinking. He
>>>>>>> influenced some of the greatest thinkers of our
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, I'm not near a library or book store, but I
>>>>>> will be home in two more weeks. I'll give it a
>>>>>> go.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to give something else a go, too,
>>>>> before bluffing, again. Make sure you're near a
>>>>> toilet, first...
>>
>>
>> Please, no potty humor.
>
>
> I guess you figured it out...
Thanks for the enlightenment. I'm tired now.
>
> - - -
