> Oh, shit. I see that I got into the habit of referring to
> Pelosi as a senator. I did know that she was a
> representative. Hyerdahl never did catch that... ;D
>

>
> Turin postulated:

>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>> Turin wrote:

>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>> Turin wrote:

>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

>>>>>>> Brother Turin wrote:

>>>>>>>> Hyerdahl postulated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>> Talk about clinging to sexist relics.

>>>
>>> You mean you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> Standard liberal non sequitur.
>>
>>

>>> then good; she fits right in.

>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>>

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

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

>>
>>
>> (hahaha)
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>
>>>>> True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> Oh Ok.
>>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> As do men, eh?

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

>>> Or perhaps they ARE the boss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> Just a strawwoman.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Propaganda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> just not the same body parts or abilities.

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

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

>>
>>
>> That's a relief.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> I've explained that below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> Same thing.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>
>>>>> Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> I'm ok with that.

>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> More ignoring facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> His OTHER wife. Mary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> Hahaha
>>
>>

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

>>
>>
>> Sloganeering.
>>
>>

>>> They both MISSED!

>>
>>
>> Missed what? Rush Limbaugh?
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> That's the idea.
>>
>>

>>> What do you do with them?

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

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

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

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

>>> What about Israel.

>>
>>
>> What about it?
>>
>>

>>> You have fine ideas, Turin,

>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>

>>> but no way to accomplish them.

>>
>>
>> Cliche.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> What a treat, eh?
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> You mean like men promoting men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> INdeed.
>>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> Either that or an interpreter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> Sure. Vote the Dems out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> Yeah....assholes.

>>
>>
>> Calm down, Hyerdahl.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> That's ridiculous, Turin.

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> I'll remember that.

>>
>>
>> That's nice.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> The right to vote

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

>>> The right to control their own bodies

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

>>> The right to work for equal pay.

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

>>> The right to equal opportunity

>>
>>
>> (For women)
>>
>>

>>> Men already have all those rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>
>>> Thanks for that one.

>>
>>
>> Belated is better than never.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> Close enough.
>>
>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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