> Turin wrote:

>> 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.

>
> I think you're the winner on this point Turin. Pelosi has
> no accomplishments behind her 'cept to draw Republican
> fire. Her record is pretty empty.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>

>
> LOL an' give up the special treatment? It's going to be
> up to you guys to take it away from them. Women like me
> are too much in the minority an' we get attacked too for
> trying to get by on merit. If some ugly fatso doesn't
> have his hands practically in my shirt then the
> parttimers are trying to shove cake down my throat an'
> spreading nasty gossip. It's ugly.

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>
> LOL!

>>>>>> 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?

>
> Maybe H ran a neighborhood daycare Turin. '**ring**
> ..hello can you help out today? big group today no time
> for internet".. LOL

>>>>>> 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.

>
> Cuba is still running despite embargo. China has broken
> free an' is establishing itself all over the world an'
> South America is like wow! Meanwhile capitalist schools
> are filled with unmotivated little dummies who can't
> study between their pricy video games and parents trying
> to blame it on the public system an' seeking escape in
> political theater. Everyone's in debt an' modern
> colonialism is the only way out to save the empire. Yah
> give me more capitalism.

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

>
> LOL!
>

>> 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?
>>

>
> Very interesting Turin

>>>>> 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".

>
> But she has nice hair Turin. :) Republican girls wear
> their hair longer an' have more cosmetics than Democrat
> girls. It's the identity.

>>>>>> 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!*

>
> He's a scary one.

>>>> 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)
>>

>
> LOL
>

>>>> 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

>
> Hee! hee! hee!
>

>>>>>> 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).
>>

>
> LOLOL
>

>>>>>>>>> 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
>>

>
> Sad but true :(
>

>>>>>>>> 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.

>
> She probably said no in the middle of sex. I think that's
> bull.

>>>> 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
>>

>
> Wicca is actually very boring. Once you grasp that it's
> about female leading male on a chase you have it.

> Stormy
>

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

>>>

>