Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
alt.psychology
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Sliding scale for domestic violence
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Greegor  
View profile  
 More options May 12 2012, 10:47 am
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, alt.psychology, soc.women, misc.legal, alt.feminism
From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 07:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat, May 12 2012 10:47 am
Subject: Sliding scale for domestic violence
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On May 11, 6:02 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > G > Oh the drama!   The pathos!
> > G > The intrigue and excitement!
> > BC > Sounds like it's win win for everyone.
> > It would motivate women to make
> > small timers out to be the monsters.

> Get a better social safety net.

> > (More conflict of interest)
> > This kind of enticement already exists
> > for some on the lower rungs when homeless
> > shelters are full and they're told that
> > criminally charging the man will get them
> > into the abuse shelter.  A former intake
> > worker pointed this out to me.

> There's no getting around the fact that you will first need to level
> incomes.  Women make less than men so they should be the first to
> support this solution, if only for its _direct_ benefits.

> The 0.01% pay their shills in the media to Jerry Springerize the
> political debate _just to_ prevent any leveling.  All the lofty talk
> on culture issues gushed every 4 years isn't motivated so much by
> lofty goals, but preserving the status quo.

> Of course, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor _is_ a lofty goal
> if you are one of the 0.01%

> Bret Cahill

> "A popular government without popular information . . ."

> -- James Madison

You complain about bureaucracy yet want MORE, Bret?

Privatized or not, such operations are
still an INDUSTRY where insiders promote
and exaggerate their own usefulness and
lobby for a larger share.

Has any socialist state or even communist
state ever truly made everybody's
income identical?

Maybe we should nationalize the Fed and all banks?

Andy Jackson went to WAR with the Fed and
banks are easy to hate, especially of late.

That secretive BS with the Fed is too much.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google