> Turin wrote:

>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>> Turin wrote:

>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>> Brother Turin wrote:

>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>>>> Turin wrote:

>>>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> 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.

>>
>>
>> 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 [sic] 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.
>>
>> "Fuck that shit", said Baby Jesus.

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

>>> 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 [want to] 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 [won'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.
>>
>> Amen and amen.

>
> 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.

>>>>>> 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 [sic].

>>>> 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 [sic] had
>>> that she doesn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>>> 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>>>> 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 [sic] 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 and doormats like European and
>>>>>> American Men.

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

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Too much competition.

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

>>>>>> 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.

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

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

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

>>

>
>