National Organization for Worms
CB
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- WHY are feminists the principal lobbying
group for Congressmen Who Had Affairs With Missing Interns? In the case of
missing intern Chandra Levy, they're not even covering for a president who
will save their precious Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, Rep. Gary Condit has been so successfully portrayed as a
"CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING Democrat" that it would probably be safe even for
Dan Rather to mention the story on CBS News. Really clearing the way for
Rather, Condit was apparently a member of a congressional Bible study group.
(Can anybody make heads or tails of this commandment?)
The feminist enthusiasm for Condit goes something like this: Feminists have
always stood for freedom of "choice" (unless it involves something other
than abortion, adultery or sodomy), and isn't it wonderful that Chandra Levy
was able to choose to have an affair with a married man? Congratulations,
Chandra!
If you think I'm making this up, here is what Gloria Jacobs, editor of Ms.
Magazine said about Chandra on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor": "I
think the idea is that what feminism always wanted for women is the right to
choose their partners, their own sexuality, whether they're young women or
older women. ... I think it's really that one would have hoped that as women
had more access to power that this wouldn't be the way they would have to go
about it. But everybody makes their own choices."
Feminists are actually trying to claim credit for the dumb decision of a
girl who is now missing. Anyone who sees a connection between Chandra's
choice of sexual partners and her disappearance is probably the sort who
thinks promiscuous sexual behavior has some metaphysical link to venereal
disease, abortion and divorce, too. If rumors are correct that Chandra was
pregnant, a very broad definition of the "right to choose" could be at work.
Another triumph for feminism!
It wasn't just the Ms. magazine editor. The airwaves are lousy with liberal
women putting in a kind word for adultery these days.
On Fox News Channel's "The Edge With Paula Zahn," Eleanor Clift said:
"Congressman Condit, so far, is guilty of having extramarital affairs, and
that is something that a number of congressmen are probably familiar with."
On "The O'Reilly Factor," Geraldine Ferraro said: "If every member of
Congress or every public official in Washington were to resign because
they've been having an affair, dear God ..."
On "CNN Late Edition," Rep. Chris "Rape Is Not Impeachable" Shays,
"R"-Conn., said: "I mean, if infidelity is a test, there would be a number
of members of Congress that should resign."
I love the idea that a mass exodus from the U.S. Congress would constitute
some terrible tragedy. How could we ever replace these Titans! But what's
with the neurotic compulsion to assert that half of Washington is committing
adultery? How do these girls know what's going on in other people's "zones
of privacy"?
There has been only one serious sex survey ever conducted in America,
released in 1994. (Time magazine called it "the first truly scientific
survey of who does what with whom in America.") Using peer-approved methods,
a team of researchers at the University of Chicago surveyed thousands of
respondents over several years. They concluded that 75 percent of married
men and 85 percent of married women have never been unfaithful.
By contrast, Alfred Kinsey's purported "study" in the '40s concluded that 50
percent of men cheat. The reason his study is discounted by scientists --
but revered at Playboy magazine -- is that his sample group consisted of
prostitutes, prisoners and inmates in mental institutions.
I can understand why I would want to lump members of Congress in with this
crowd, as a measure of my esteem. But why do liberals want to make that
argument? They're the ones who think we should be sending more of our money
to these clowns. What are the feminists up to?
I put the question to a leading scholar of feminism, the author of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on "feminism." She explained that 30 years
ago what bugged feminists was that men had affairs and everyone thought it
was cute, whereas women had affairs and they were sluts. It wasn't the
immorality but the double standard that had them hopping mad. And there are
two ways of eliminating a double standard. Since feminists figured they
couldn't change men, their goal was simply to even the score.
So in a maniacal pursuit of equality -- we've fully transitioned into my
analysis now -- these querulous little feminists stripped women of the sense
that they can rely on the institution of marriage and gave men license to
discard their wives. But at least women can choose to be pigs now, too! This
is what happens when you allow women to think about public policy. It's also
what happens when you start assuming the whole country has the mores of
prostitutes, criminals, mental patients and, evidently, congressmen.
bob
CB wrote:
> On "CNN Late Edition," Rep. Chris "Rape Is Not Impeachable" Shays,
> "R"-Conn., said: "I mean, if infidelity is a test, there would be a number
> of members of Congress that should resign."
I'm sure Shays mean everyone but himself.
Bob
Judith Prietht
Oh Dear! Please cite the proof that Shays said that "Rape Is Not
Impeachable". While you're at it please cite proof that President
Clinton commited rape
Philip Bourgeois
wrote:Oh Dear! Please cite the proof that Shays said that "Rape Is Not
>Impeachable". While you're at it please cite proof that President
>Clinton commited rape
>
you?
CB....Loves his enemies, he turns the other cheek and forgives them
their sins.....
CB
Constitution. Humility is what the left have come to demand as an
entitlement. Democrats seem to have lost their moral foundation. They have
accepted the secular superiority of statehood as their gOD, unanswerable to
the people or the law. Without which leaders become endowed by their own
power and corrupted. It is through accountability that keeps our leaders
within the norms set forth by the founding fathers. They knew only tyranny
could come in the form of moral decay. That is why reminders of a Higher
Ruling Authority are present in all the Washington monuments and in every
court house. To help keep our leaders looking up for guidance.
What binds the DNC is a pack mentality, they stick together no matter how
wrong or and utterly corrupt an individual is. The GOP are individuals that
make up the party. Shame compels those that attempt to hold onto office into
forfeiting their service to the people.
As an institution the GOP does the right thing in their service to the
people. As an institution the DNC is socialist and do not serve the people.
CB
"Philip Bourgeois" <phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3b5733db...@news.so.centurytel.net...
JulianD.
The National Association of Gals sure look like hypocrites.
JD
JulianD.
states that they have morals and values as well.
CB
the majoritys'.
"JulianD." <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:osneltc0olg1l5f1m...@4ax.com...
Philip Bourgeois
>They'll just reinforce the fact that the DNC advocate secular values, not
>the majoritys'.
Majority????
How you wish......
Bill
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:15:26 -0400, "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote:
> The National Association of Gals sure look like hypocrites.
How so?
By the way, did anyone notice that Coulter's article is titled "National
Organization for Worms", which I suppose is an allusion to the National
Organization for Women, but nowhere in the article does Coulter present one
fact regarding NOW's position on the Condit matter.
Does Coulter always mislead her readers like that? Don't they resent it?
Ulysses
> I don't turn the other cheek to those who attempt to subvert America or its
> Constitution. Humility is what the left have come to demand as an
> entitlement. Democrats seem to have lost their moral foundation. They have
> accepted the secular superiority of statehood as their gOD, unanswerable to
> the people or the law. Without which leaders become endowed by their own
> power and corrupted. It is through accountability that keeps our leaders
> within the norms set forth by the founding fathers. They knew only tyranny
> could come in the form of moral decay. That is why reminders of a Higher
> Ruling Authority are present in all the Washington monuments and in every
> court house. To help keep our leaders looking up for guidance.
Besides being totally off thread, this posting is nothing but a series
of empty characterizations of institutions and forces of which the
poster obviously knows nothing.
On the otherhand, it's obvious he's studied Rush real well.
Ulysses
associates have already testified publically that almost everything
they've published in the last eight years was a put up job which
involving neither accuracy nor any regard for the truth, we can save A
LOT of time by not bothering to read this.
However, see below:
> >If you think I'm making this up, here is what Gloria Jacobs, editor of Ms.
> >Magazine said about Chandra on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor": "I
> >think the idea is that what feminism always wanted for women is the right to
> >choose their partners, their own sexuality, whether they're young women or
> >older women. ... I think it's really that one would have hoped that as women
> >had more access to power that this wouldn't be the way they would have to go
> >about it. But everybody makes their own choices."
> >
I agree. People who engage in adultery should be publically stoned to
death. Including all members of congress. I figure if it's good
enough for the Taliban, then it's good enough for us.
But I have a question: What does all this have to do with the fact
that the Bush administration has already pushed us into deficit
spending, and that, surprize, we don't have the money to support
social security or defense, 'cause we gave it all to the rich (and of
course, the economy collapsed the moment it became apparent we were
not going to pay of the Reagan administration's debt).
CB
"Ulysses" <sal...@scn.org> wrote in message
news:b1403989.01072...@posting.google.com...
Dennis Armstrong
> It's true non the less.
>
> "Ulysses" <sal...@scn.org> wrote in message
> news:b1403989.01072...@posting.google.com...
> > "CB" <c...@prayforme.com> wrote in message
> news:<9j7gs8$bl1$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com>...
faith and therefor have no credibility.
They have sponsored two Presidents who have created havoc in our nation.
One of these was so incompetent that he was totally unaware that those
around him were involved drug dealing, gun smuggling and possibly murder.
The one now in office has stated clearly that he will violate the law. In
doing so he will free the hands of Russia and permit this country which is
in a desparate economic condition to begin manufacturing atomic weapons,
rockets and put them on the open market.
I stated that the Christian right has abandoned their doctrinal foundation.
I offer you 1 Timothy 3:1-7. These are the Christain principle, not ideals,
by which the true Christain faith determines who is fit to serve in
positions of responsibility.
You can say, "God is on my side!) all you want. God's word calls you a lier.
>
>