French stop fundamentalism against girls!
Hyerdahl1
Updated: 11:21 PM EST
France Bans Religious Attire in Schools
By ELAINE GANLEY, AP
AP
"French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin addresses the National Assembly in
Paris as Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, right, looks on, Tuesday, Feb. 10,
2004. France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban
students from wearing Islamic head scarves and other religious apparel in
public schools. The measure, which would outlaw conspicuous religious clothing
and symbols in classrooms, was approved 494-36. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours) "
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
Ritalin-Kid
> AP
> "French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin addresses the National Assembly in
> Paris as Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, right, looks on, Tuesday, Feb. 10,
> 2004. France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban
> students from wearing Islamic head scarves and other religious apparel in
> public schools. The measure, which would outlaw conspicuous religious clothing
> and symbols in classrooms, was approved 494-36. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours) "
>
> Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
> report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
> without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
> hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Never been prouder to be a frog, damnit.
Screw religion. Especially those who puits a gender as second class citizens.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>
>
> Updated: 11:21 PM EST
>France Bans Religious Attire in Schools
>By ELAINE GANLEY, AP
>
>
>AP
>"French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin addresses the National Assembly in
>Paris as Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, right, looks on, Tuesday, Feb. 10,
>2004. France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban
>students from wearing Islamic head scarves and other religious apparel in
>public schools. The measure, which would outlaw conspicuous religious clothing
>and symbols in classrooms, was approved 494-36. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours) "
>
>Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
>report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
>without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
>hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
As usual, Puke, you see and yet you intentionally fail to comprehend.
In the first place, this was a violation of the rights of Muslim
students to exercise what is supposed to be their freedom of religion.
And, in the second place, to the extent that "fundamentalism against
girls" has been stopped, it was MALE French politicians and a MALE
police/military force that saved them from it.
Even as you express your hatred and disdain for males, this is yet
ANOTHER example of how you rely on them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"The Germans are like women; you can scarcely fathom their depths -- they haven't any." - Freidrich Nietzsche
"No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they
have never thought seriously about them. As children, imbeciles and criminals would be justly prevented from
taking any part in public affairs even if they were numerically equal or in the majority; woman must in the
same way be kept from having a share in anything which concerns the public welfare." -- Otto Weininger
"There is nothing in the world like the devotion of a married woman. It is a thing no married man knows anything about." - Oscar Wilde
Hyerdahl1
>From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
>Date: 2/13/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04021...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>> AP "French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin addresses the National
Assembly
>in> Paris as Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, right, looks on, Tuesday,
Feb.>10,> 2004. France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday voted
overwhelmingly to ban> students from wearing Islamic head scarves and other
religious apparel in> public schools. The measure, which would outlaw
conspicuous religious clothing and symbols in classrooms, was approved 494-36.
(AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)
>"
>>
>
>
>Screw religion. Especially those who puits a gender as second class citizens.
>
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/13/04 7:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <t37r209hshb4bmpsj...@4ax.com>
>
>On 13 Feb 2004 17:19:15 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Updated: 11:21 PM EST
>>France Bans Religious Attire in Schools
>>By ELAINE GANLEY, AP
>>
>>
>>AP
>>"French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin addresses the National Assembly
>in
>>Paris as Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, right, looks on, Tuesday, Feb.
>10,
>>2004. France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to
>ban
>>students from wearing Islamic head scarves and other religious apparel in
>>public schools. The measure, which would outlaw conspicuous religious
>clothing
>>and symbols in classrooms, was approved 494-36. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)
>"
>>
>>Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP
>news
>>report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
>>without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
>>hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
>
>
>As usual, Puke, you see and yet you intentionally fail to comprehend.
>
>In the first place, this was a violation of the rights of Muslim students to
exercise what is supposed to be their freedom of religion.
The French don't see the oppression of girls as being a viable action, whether
or not their religion suggests it. Even in Puritanical America, we can discern
the right to believe ones religion from the right to honor it by the sacrifice
chickens in prison. :-)
>>And, in the second place, to the extent that "fundamentalism against>girls"
has been stopped, it was MALE French politicians and a MALE police/military
force that saved them from it.
>
Not so. You see, women in France vote, and it is French women who decide who
rules and who does not. AND, there are now women in the French military and
police force. Brava!
>Even as you express your hatred and disdain for males, this is yet>ANOTHER
example of how you rely on them.
You can tell Mark, when he returns from his alleged honeymoon that all is well
in France. French women comprise just over 50% of those eligible to vote as
well. I guess women's interests will be important to French politicians.
Grizzlie Antagonist
The "girls" don't necessarily see themselves as being "oppressed",
Puke.
Are Orthodox male Jews "oppressed" by virtue of the fact that their
religion often requires them to cover their heads and forbids them to
use a razor?
>Even in Puritanical America, we can discern
>the right to believe ones religion from the right to honor it by the sacrifice
>chickens in prison. :-)
It was a feminist, Mary Baker Eddy, who invented Christian Science,
under the dogma of which parents do not take sick children to the
hospital for medical treatment.
>>>And, in the second place, to the extent that "fundamentalism against>girls"
>has been stopped, it was MALE French politicians and a MALE police/military
>force that saved them from it.
>>
>Not so.
So!
> You see, women in France vote, and
..men could choose to take away their right to vote or simply
disregard the female vote if they chose.
>it is French women who decide who
>rules and who does not.
Really? Aside from the fact that men ALLOW women to vote, don't men
vote too?
> AND, there are now women in the French military and
>police force. Brava!
Nobody takes female officers seriously, Puke; they are there for show.
Read Van Creveld on Men, Women, and War.
>>Even as you express your hatred and disdain for males, this is yet>ANOTHER
>example of how you rely on them.
>
>You can tell Mark, when he returns from his alleged honeymoon that all is well
>in France. French women comprise just over 50% of those eligible to vote as
>well. I guess women's interests will be important to French politicians.
Until French politicians decide otherwise.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
More likely just until Muslims become the majority in France in about
20 years and reverse the decisions of white male liberal politicians...
...Ken
Grizzlie Antagonist
Very true. I wonder how Puke will like democracy then.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <66us209jl40o55kpp...@4ax.com>
The "girls" don't have to. That's like saying that people starving to death
don't have to see themselves as starving. :-)
>>Are Orthodox male Jews "oppressed" by virtue of the fact that their religion
often requires them to cover their heads and forbids them to use a razor?
>
That would depend upon whether or not the rites practiced resulted in a denial
of equal rights. IOW, I don't know that bearded men suffer any denial of
opportunity, whereas women wearing burqas have drowned because they can't
learn to swim in a burqa.
>
>
>>Even in Puritanical America, we can discern>the right to believe ones
religion from the right to honor it by the
>sacrifice>>chickens in prison. :-)
>
>It was a feminist, Mary Baker Eddy, who invented Christian Science,>under the
dogma of which parents do not take sick children to the>hospital for medical
treatment.
I have never heard of Eddy describe herself as a feminist, but she was an
influential business woman of her time whether or not she adhered to feminism.
And what does this have to do with ending the oppression of women?
>
>>>>And, in the second place, to the extent that
"fundamentalism>against>girls">>has been stopped, it was MALE French
politicians and a MALE police/military
>>force that saved them from it.
>>>
>Not so.>
>
>So!
>
>
>> You see, women in France vote, and
>..men could choose to take away their right to vote or simply
>disregard the female vote if they chose.
>
No, clearly they cannot. Just as they cannot here. Today women have the vote
AND GUNS. I don't see men doing any such thing.
>
>
>>it is French women who decide who
>>rules and who does not.
>
>Really? Aside from the fact that men ALLOW women to vote, don't men
>vote too?
Let me know when your brigade of bitter boys CAN take rights away from women,
dear.
>
>> AND, there are now women in the French military and
>>police force. Brava!
>
>
>Nobody takes female officers seriously, Puke; they are there for show.
Women will continue to laugh at your insecurity about women in the workplace,
and they will laugh will you have your Walter Mitty daydreams about men taking
away women's rights by force.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Really, Puke?
Who died and made you dictator?
I've read articles written by Muslim women who take their virtue very
seriously and who defend protective covering as enhancing it.
But you mean that you get to sit in your pizza parlor in Modesto or
whatever coven you live in and decide what's best for Muslim famlies
living on the other side of the world?
It doesn't seem to me as though you believe in freedom for women, at
all.
>>>Are Orthodox male Jews "oppressed" by virtue of the fact that their religion
>often requires them to cover their heads and forbids them to use a razor?
>>
>That would depend upon whether or not the rites practiced resulted in a denial
>of equal rights.
Of course, there's a denial of "equal rights", to use your
narrow-minded term for it, if men are deprived of a privilege which
women are not deprived of -- but Puke, you should understand that
people seeking a closer relationship with their Maker tend not to
address such issues in terms employed by the EOC.
> IOW, I don't know that bearded men suffer any denial of
>opportunity,
They are certainly being denied the privilege of being clean-shaven,
and if they apply for a job that requires them to be clean-shaven, as
the Marines would require, then they certainly would be "denied
opportunity".
>whereas women wearing burqas have drowned because they can't
>learn to swim in a burqa.
You're really stretching here, Puke. I wasn't aware that going to
school in Paris created a drowning hazard.
The Amish have probably suffered physical distress, due to their
refusal to use electricity; by your reasoning, maybe we should require
them to abandon their lifestyle.
Maybe we should require the Catholics to go back to meatless Fridays;
there were probably health benefits to them. Are there any other
changes to the lifestyles of others that should be imposed in order to
make you happy, Puke?
>>>Even in Puritanical America, we can discern>the right to believe ones
>religion from the right to honor it by the
>>sacrifice>>chickens in prison. :-)
>>
>>It was a feminist, Mary Baker Eddy, who invented Christian Science,>under the
>dogma of which parents do not take sick children to the>hospital for medical
>treatment.
>
>I have never heard of Eddy describe herself as a feminist, but she was an
>influential business woman of her time whether or not she adhered to feminism.
Yes, the Christian Science doctrine is feminist Puke, and I believe
that it even denies the maleness of God.
> And what does this have to do with ending the oppression of women?
Puke, the notion that women are "oppressed" is a conclusion that you
start with before working backward from it, and what does any of this
have to do with sacrificing chickens in prison?
>>>>>And, in the second place, to the extent that
>"fundamentalism>against>girls">>has been stopped, it was MALE French
>politicians and a MALE police/military
>>>force that saved them from it.
>>>>
>>Not so.>
>>
>>So!
>>
>>
>>> You see, women in France vote, and
>>..men could choose to take away their right to vote or simply
>>disregard the female vote if they chose.
>>
>No, clearly they cannot.
Clearly, they can, Puke.
>Just as they cannot here. Today women have the vote
>AND GUNS.
Men also have guns, Puke.
Look if guns were the solution to everything, why didn't you just kill
your sexist father?
I'm serious. Your solution to everything is to shoot a man.
I doubt that you've ever touched a gun in your life, but if your
father was so mean and hurtful, and if the solution to every problem
in life is to shoot a man, why didn't you just shoot him for being a
sexist? By your lights, he brought it on himself, didn't he?
> I don't see men doing any such thing.
Apparently, your dad, in your estimation, took away your rights and
lived to a ripe old age after doing it. I guess that he didn't fear
your Lady Smith.
And I remember men doing such thing in Iran when Khomeini took over in
Iran for the Shah, Puke.
And a woman was once chief of state in Pakistan - was she able to
"liberate" Pakistani women? <Chuckle>
So you see, women's rights really are ENTIRELY dependent on male
tolerance.
>>>it is French women who decide who
>>>rules and who does not.
>>
>>Really? Aside from the fact that men ALLOW women to vote, don't men
>>vote too?
>
>Let me know when your brigade of bitter boys CAN take rights away from women,
>dear.
They always can.
>>> AND, there are now women in the French military and
>>>police force. Brava!
>>
>>
>>Nobody takes female officers seriously, Puke; they are there for show.
>
>Women will
<snipping away Puke's rhetoric about women that she has never met and
who don't know her>
Women apparently will allow Puke to decide how they should and should
not dress.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/15/2004 6:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <RCUXb.2943$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2004 18:44:00 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>Date: 2/13/04 7:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <t37r209hshb4bmpsj...@4ax.com>
>
> More likely just until Muslims become the majority in France in about
>20 years and reverse the decisions of white male liberal politicians...
Not going to happen dear; if a group of people cause havoc in a country, that
country can limit their immigration. Read below; the cheese and wine of the
French are in no turmoil as to what to do. :-)
Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab League,
says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the September 11
attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that Muslim
communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0902/152.html
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <0mo0309cecro2cpb7...@4ax.com>
I don't have to be a DICtator in order to state my views. Why would you think
otherwise?
>
>I've read articles written by Muslim women who take their virtue very
>seriously and who defend protective covering as enhancing it.
No problem; those women can wear their misogyny at home, where it belongs.
They won't disrupt girls at school and girls at school can get a non-disruptive
education. That works for me.
>
>But you mean that you get to sit in your pizza parlor in Modesto or whatever
coven you live in and decide what's best for Muslim famlies>living on the other
side of the world?
I have the same right as you to voice my concerns, and to celebrate when we win
one for the Gipper. :-) This is a statement of the French clearly indicating
that vestiges of religion belong at home and NOT at school.
>
>It doesn't seem to me as though you believe in freedom for women, at>all.
Sure. They can keep their misogyny at home or their patriarchal church where
it belongs.
>
>>>Are Orthodox male Jews "oppressed" by virtue of the fact that their
>religion>>often requires them to cover their heads and forbids them to use a
razor?
>>>
>>That would depend upon whether or not the rites practiced resulted in
a>denial
>>of equal rights.
>
>
>Of course, there's a denial of "equal rights", to use your>narrow-minded term
for it, if men are deprived of a privilege which>women are not deprived of --
but Puke, you should understand that
>people seeking a closer relationship with their Maker tend not to>address such
issues in terms employed by the EOC.
>
Ah, well, then, off to private school with them, eh? :-)
>> IOW, I don't know that bearded men suffer any denial of
>>opportunity,
>
>
>They are certainly being denied the privilege of being clean-shaven,>and if
they apply for a job that requires them to be clean-shaven, as>the Marines
would require, then they certainly would be "denied>opportunity".
So, there you have it folks; Muslim men cannot be Marines either. That works
for me. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
(edit)
>>whereas women wearing burqas have drowned because they can't>>learn to swim
in a burqa.
>
>
>You're really stretching here, Puke. I wasn't aware that going to school in
Paris created a drowning hazard.
>
:-) I'm not stretching it. I run a swimming school :-) and I don't allow
women in burqas in my school. They'd drown.
>
The Amish have probably suffered physical distress, due to their>refusal to use
electricity; by your reasoning, maybe we should require>them to abandon their
lifestyle.
Not so; they can stay at home and stay in their own private schoolhouses;
what they cannot do is turn off the electricity in the public schoolhouse. Now
wasn't that easy?
>
>Maybe we should require the Catholics to go back to meatless Fridays;>there
were probably health benefits to them. Are there any other>changes to the
lifestyles of others that should be imposed in order to>make you happy, Puke?
>
Let's try again, Grizz....If you wish to practice Islam in France you can do so
but you cannot disrupt the French Public Schools by having sexism in the
classroom. The Catholics are free to eat meat or not, as they wish, but they
cannot DICtate what is on the public school cafeteria menu.
>
>>Even in Puritanical America, we can discern>the right to believe
ones>religion from the right to honor it by the
>>>sacrifice>>chickens in prison. :-)
>>>
>>>It was a feminist, Mary Baker Eddy, who invented Christian Science,>under
>the>dogma of which parents do not take sick children to the>hospital for
medical
>>treatment.
>>
>>I have never heard of Eddy describe herself as a feminist, but she was an
>influential business woman of her time whether or not she adhered to feminism.
>
>
>Yes, the Christian Science doctrine is feminist Puke, and I believe>that it
even denies the maleness of God.
???? I'm an agnostic, but I also deny the maleness of god. :-) However, what
does that have to do with feminism? Feminism is about equal rights whether god
is male, female, existent, non-existent, etc.
>>> And what does this have to do with ending the oppression of women?
Well, girls in the classroom won't have to wear what the family patriarch
forces or cajoles them to wear at home.>
>
>Puke, the notion that women are "oppressed" is a conclusion that you
>start with before working backward from it, and what does any of this>have to
do with sacrificing chickens in prison?
>
There is a religious group that believes in the sacrifice of chickens. When a
prisoner of that group is incarcerated, he cannot have chicken sacrifice in
jail ...so says the Supreme Court. The idea behind the holding was that while
one is entitled to believe his or her religion, the practice of it is not
guaranteed. Think if every prisoner wanted a special meal, for example, in the
practic of their religion. Hell, if I were a prisoner, I'd tell them my
religion dictates the serving of lobster tail, white asparagus and creme
brulee'. :-)
\
>
>>>>>>And, in the second place, to the extent
that>"fundamentalism>against>girls">>has been stopped, it was MALE French
>politicians and a MALE police/military
>>>>force that saved them from it.
>>>>>
>>>Not so.>
>>>
>>>So!
>>>
>>>
>>>> You see, women in France vote, and
>>>..men could choose to take away their right to vote or simply>>>disregard
the female vote if they chose.
>>>
>>No, clearly they cannot.
>
>
>Clearly, they can, Puke.
>
>
>>Just as they cannot here. Today women have the vote>AND GUNS.
>
>
>Men also have guns, Puke.
>
So what, tho. :-) If men couldn't stand the though of women starving
themselves to death in prison, what do you think they would think about women
getting killed for equal rights? :-) You see, men generically aren't quite
the animal that YOU are.
(edit of attempts at personal denigration)
>I'm serious. Your solution to everything is to shoot a man.
My solution for male backlash is to stand and be counted, whatever that
requires.
(edit of personal denigration attempt)
>And I remember men doing such thing in Iran when Khomeini took over in
>Iran for the Shah, Puke.
Civilized educated men are not quite the same as Fanny Talibanis, Grizz. They
have to rape children just to keep sexually active. AND, women there don't
have guns.
>And a woman was once chief of state in Pakistan - was she able to
>"liberate" Pakistani women? <Chuckle>
Cleopatra was genitally mutilated for the satisfaction of men's insurity, i.e.
that a woman might leave the farm of one man fo one with a bigger dick. A
woman without real power has no real power. A woman with equal rights has no
man who can stop her.
>So you see, women's rights really are ENTIRELY dependent on male
>tolerance.
No, they're dependent on upholding the law whether or not it's at the business
end of a gun. BTW, if sexists want to play rough, I don't mind more dead
sexists in the process. That's the price of war.
>
>>>>it is French women who decide who
>>>>rules and who does not.
>>>
>>>Really? Aside from the fact that men ALLOW women to vote, don't men
>>>vote too?
>>
>>Let me know when your brigade of bitter boys CAN take rights away from
>women,>>dear.
>
>
>They always can.
>
No, in fact, they cannot. They just wish and hope that things would return.
There's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>Date: 2/15/2004 6:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <RCUXb.2943$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>
>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 Feb 2004 18:44:00 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>>Date: 2/13/04 7:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <t37r209hshb4bmpsj...@4ax.com>
>>>>>(edit)
>
>
>> More likely just until Muslims become the majority in France in about
>>20 years and reverse the decisions of white male liberal politicians...
>
>
> Not going to happen dear; if a group of people cause havoc in a country, that
> country can limit their immigration. Read below; the cheese and wine of the
> French are in no turmoil as to what to do. :-)
Interesting, however it ignores the point that the immigrant Muslim
community in France (close to 7.5 million at last count) has a birth
rate almost ten times higher that the resident Gaelic population, which
is actually in decline (ie: is contracting). The French could stop all
Muslim immigration tomorrow and, unless they actively start to expel
Muslims, they will still become a minority by the year 2040...
> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab League,
> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the September 11
> attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that Muslim
> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
and relative oppression of women...
...Ken
Grizzlie Antagonist
Before, I speculated "How will Puke like democracy then?"
I also wonder how she likes reproductive rights now - as these trends
would only exacerbate while educated French women are exercising their
freedom to terminate a pregnancy - while Muslim women are presumably
not exercising theirs.
>> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab League,
>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the September 11
>> attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that Muslim
>> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
>
> Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
>be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
>Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
>and relative oppression of women...
>
>...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>Message-id: <vhfYb.3350$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>Date: 2/15/2004 6:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <RCUXb.2943$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>>
>>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 14 Feb 2004 18:44:00 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>>>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>>>Date: 2/13/04 7:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>Message-id: <t37r209hshb4bmpsj...@4ax.com>
>>>>>>(edit)
>>
>>
>>> More likely just until Muslims become the majority in France in about
>>>20 years and reverse the decisions of white male liberal politicians...
>>
>>
>> Not going to happen dear; if a group of people cause havoc in a country,
>that> country can limit their immigration. Read below; the cheese and wine
of
>the> French are in no turmoil as to what to do. :-)
>
> Interesting, however it ignores the point that the immigrant Muslim
>community in France (close to 7.5 million at last count) has a birth rate
almost ten times higher that the resident Gaelic population, which >is actually
in decline (ie: is contracting). The French could stop all >Muslim immigration
tomorrow and, unless they actively start to expel
>Muslims, they will still become a minority by the year 2040...
>
there's nothing to prevent white men from paying women to have more white
children. :-)
:-)
>> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
>League,>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
September 11 attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that
Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
>
> Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
>be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
>Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
>and relative oppression of women...
>
You don't get it, nimrod; the reason most people of Islamic faith MOVE to
western countries is to avoid the killing of fundamentalist Islam. In my own
community there are Islamic folk who enjoy the freedoms of the west.
>...Ken
gary o brien
so that was why so many feminists rushed over to fight the taliban
then? more mental masturbation, your a joke, if sexists played rough
theres fuck all you can do about it
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <1c83301e9vlumq0eh...@4ax.com>
like the members OF that society, and thus, the birth rate would tend to level
off. Also, I didn't see any stats at all on ten to one ratio in birthrate.
Are you just pretending again?
>I also wonder how she likes reproductive rights now - as these trends would
only exacerbate while educated French women are exercising their freedom to
terminate a pregnancy - while Muslim women are presumably not exercising
theirs.
>
You presume many things, none of which include any reality of how groups
assimilate into western culture, largely because they want to live in a free
country.
>
>>> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
>League,>>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
September 11> attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that
Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
>>
>> Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
>>be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
>>Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
>>and relative oppression of women...
Let's try again, Grizz; Here's a little blurb about what's really happening to
Muslims assimilated into western culture.
http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/april02_index.php?l=6
Not all analysts are convinced that the signs of Muslim activity are evidence
of Islamic health. Some of the trends among the younger generation of Muslims
cause pessimism in certain Muslim quarters. Older Muslims living in the West
are worried that their culture will be weakened over time. For example, Dr
Muzammil H. Siddiqi refers to a recent study of immigrant Muslim communities in
the West which showed that with each succeeding generation there was a decline
in strict adherence to specific Islamic values. Thus it is observed that few
Muslims care for five daily prayers. Some do not feel bad about drinking,
dating and dancing. Some Muslim girls feel there is nothing wrong in marrying
non-Muslims as long as they love and care for each other. Seventy to eighty
percent of all Muslims do not belong to any Islamic centre or mosque, and do
not care about them. Many think that Muslim countries (especially the oil-rich
countries) should build mosques for them, and they do not even contribute one
percent of their income to the Islamic centres and organisations.
(source: Muslims in the West by Akbar S. Ahmed)
It is undeniable that a statistically significant segment of Muslim Youth is
becoming assimilated into Western or American society to an extent that
seriously impacts their practice of Islam and their identity as Muslims
connor_a
> There's not a damn thing they can do about it.
>
Flying planes loaded with feminists into tall buildings does show 'a
return', how about the next step silly Hyerdahl?
I guess it's only a matter of time when Matriachy destroys civil
relations completely, eh?
Mark Sobolewski
Consider that 100 years after feminism and legal "equality"
for women in the west, the vast majority of women still
prefer to marry up, have the man initiate dates and pay
for them, etc. The majority of men continue to
desire or go along with these expectations.
It's possible that Muslims living in the west become flexible
and adapt their lifestyle to their own personal benefit
as well as to benefit their own culture. Assimilation is a term
that applied to the bad old days of Euro-centric bigotry
and an immigrant expected to give up their culture to fit in.
Today, "diversity" ensures that people who _don't_ assimilate
are given credit rather than criticism.
The statements above don't sound as if the Muslims living
in the west have given up their culture or even their
notions about women submitting to their men. "Some do not
feel bad" about dating, drinking, or dancing is a very
nebulous statement. How man is "some?" 10? 20?
A million? By becoming moderate, it's possible that Islam
(combined with P.C. notions of tolerance) could become
incredibly popular.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message news:<20040217125606...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
Oooh, the last refuge of the panicked: Show me the numbers!
Please don't let them be there! :-)
I checked out a few discussion groups and found them discussing
the possibility of a Muslim majority by the year _2020!!!_
A Muslim majority isn't necessary because in a democracy
(gotta love 'em! :-), a majority isn't necessary to grab
political power but rather a strong, committed voting
bloc and coalition. For example, you were unaware that
Bill Clinton did NOT have a majority vote (if it wasn't
for Forbes, Bush would have gotten a second term.)
Same thing with Nader: It's likely Gore would be president
if he didn't lose the majority vote due to him.
In regards to white men paying for children: They already
do just that. (Otherwise they're called deadbeat dads you know.)
Oh, you must mean socialist programs. Indeed. Working
French career women work long hours and have fewer children
to pay for generous welfare benefits for Muslim women
to have kids. Isn't that great? I guess they should
try to outlaw veils in schools and hope that solves
the problem. Good luck to 'em.
> >> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
> >League,>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
> September 11 attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that
> Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
> >
> > Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
> >be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
> >Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
> >and relative oppression of women...
> >
> You don't get it, nimrod; the reason most people of Islamic faith MOVE to
> western countries is to avoid the killing of fundamentalist Islam. In my own
> community there are Islamic folk who enjoy the freedoms of the west.
Indeed. They enjoy all those welfare benefits and special programs
to deal with previous discrimination against them and diversity
too! :-)
Yep, it's so great that the west in enlightened isn't it?
Oh, I'll have Polish and Ukrainian citizenship so I can move
away along with other white men and our families to countries
that have a high rate of growth and limited immigration.
Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack
a burqa. :-)
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>
>>community in France (close to 7.5 million at last count) has a birth rate
>
> almost ten times higher that the resident Gaelic population, which >is actually
> in decline (ie: is contracting). The French could stop all >Muslim immigration
> tomorrow and, unless they actively start to expel
>
>>Muslims, they will still become a minority by the year 2040...
>>
>
> I don't believe you. Show me where the Muslim BR is 10 to one. :-) AND,
> there's nothing to prevent white men from paying women to have more white
> children. :-)
I don't give a rats ass whether you believe me or not Parg, I'm
repeating what I've read in cosmopolitan FRENCH newspapers (where the
people ARE worried). If you chose to disbelieve me you do so at your own
peril...but plan to go to France in 20 years...unles you think you'll
like wearing a Burka...
>>>Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
>>
>>League,>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
>
> September 11 attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that
> Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
>
>> Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
>>be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
>>Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
>>and relative oppression of women...
>>
>
> You don't get it, nimrod; the reason most people of Islamic faith MOVE to
> western countries is to avoid the killing of fundamentalist Islam. In my own
> community there are Islamic folk who enjoy the freedoms of the west.
No, YOU don't "get it", most of them are "enjoying the freedoms of the
West" while at the same time condemning them as immoral indulgences.
Wake up Parg, there is a cultural war going on and Western, liberal,
pro-female culture is losing. Several of the major western liberal
democracies are in serious danger of being overwhelmed by the Islamic
fundamentalist invasion. The former Yugoslavia is an excellent example,
consider Kosovo, 50 years ago it was 99% Christian, today it is 66%
Muslim...overwhelmed by an influx, both legal and illegal, from Muslim
Albania (which itself was 75% Christian during WW II but now is 90%
Muslim) and if you don't believe me, look up any of the many news
articles from Croatian, Albania or Serbia about how "liberal" or
"western" their non-Arab, western educated muslim neighbors are...the
same neighbors who have imposed Sharia law on their Christian neighbors
in Albania and who are trying to do so in Kosovo...and if you don't know
what *THAT* means you are really lost...
The former Yugoslavia should be a warning to us all but idiots like you
will continue to dance around with your hands over your eyes singing
"lalalalala...I can't hear you" until some real (Muslim) patriarch comes
and sticks a Burka over it...AND IT WILL SERVE YOU RIGHT...
...Ken
Ken&Laura Chaddock
Here are a couple of articles which tend to differ in their
interpretation Parg
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/435tebxi.asp
http://www.meforum.org/article/337
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/black-october.html
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/198
and these are just a few. In fact when I did a Goggle search on Muslim
birthrate and France, I didn't find even ONE article supporting your
contentions...not one
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/18/2004 7:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04021...@posting.google.com>
>
(edit)
>Consider that 100 years after feminism and legal "equality" for women in the
west, the vast majority of women still prefer to marry up, have the man
initiate dates and pay for them, etc. The majority of men continue to>desire
or go along with these expectations.
>
I don't see what you call "marrying up" as being mutually exclusive to
feminism. Do you? I mean, some women obviously want to marry; others don't.
That being the case, how is what women CHOOSE going to effect their civil
rights and equal status?
It's the same for men. What they CHOOSE to do does not effect
>It's possible that Muslims living in the west become flexible>and adapt their
lifestyle to their own personal benefit
>as well as to benefit their own culture.
Sure. I don't see anythign wrong with that.
We have two brothers from Turkey who come into my business and they are
Islamic. They don't want to get married here because they don't want to share
their earnings with an American wife. They just date Mexican girls, they
insist are more compliant. They came here when they were in their early
twenties; they are now in their late thirties and have no children. I asked
them if they wanted kids and they do; they don't want to go back to Turkey;
they don't want an equal American wife. They are frustrated. :-)
BTW, their aunt and two sisters are happily married, and very Americanized.
Assimilation is a term that applied to the bad old days of Euro-centric bigotry
>and an immigrant expected to give up their culture to fit in.
Ah, but people DO "fit in", Mark; they do it one way or another. AND, there's
no real need for them to give up their religion or their culture. They can do
what these two men did and simply not have progeny. :-)
>Today, "diversity" ensures that people who _don't_ assimilate>are given credit
rather than criticism.
You can believe that if it makes you feel better, but the Latino people I know
who DONT' assimilate are all getting jobs scrubbing floors. I know what you're
suggesting...is that America used to be thought of as a great "melting pot" and
you're upset that now it's more of a 'tossed salad" with a bit of avacado here,
and a beet or cucumber there. The main thing is that it's still a salad with
everyone in the salad having equal rights. :-)
>The statements above don't sound as if the Muslims living>in the west have
given up their culture or even their notions about women submitting to their
men.
Well, the two men I told you about have not assimilated well, but their sisters
did and now their sisters have boys of their own who are assimilating nicely.
"Some do not>feel bad" about dating, drinking, or dancing is a very>nebulous
statement. How man is "some?" 10? 20?>A million? By becoming moderate, it's
possible that Islam>(combined with P.C. notions of tolerance) could become
>incredibly popular.
>
Well, other people seem to agree with me that Abdul might not like free and
equal American women, but that his sister,
Najma and her two boys really enjoy watching the girl in the family, play
soccer.
They all go to every practice. I call THAT assimilation, Mark.
>regards,
>Mark Sobolewski
Grizzlie Antagonist
Sobolewski) wrote:
>Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
Kind of. Sort of.
I still think that Puke is deluding herself into thinking that she's
happy, but a certain amount of reality is seeping in.
Actually, I work professionally with men and women who delude
themselves, so I'm starting to understand what makes them tick.
For one brief moment, I actually did get Puke to say something to the
effect of "So what? Most men wouldn't choose to suppress women's
rights" - from which I inferred a concession on her part that if men
DID so choose, it would be done (women's rights would be suppressed).
That's something she's never conceded before - she usually talks about
wiping out armies of male oppressors with her imaginary Lady Smith.
I think that you meant to say "Perot" instead of "Forbes".
>Same thing with Nader: It's likely Gore would be president
>if he didn't lose the majority vote due to him.
I'm not actually sure that Nader or Perot took votes away from anyone.
Those who voted for Perot were already displaying dissatisfaction with
the GOP ticket; those who voted for Nader were displaying
dissatisfaction with the Democratic ticket - if the dissatisfaction
wasn't there, those voters would have voted for their respective major
party candidates.
The Perot and Nader voters might have just stayed home if those
choices hadn't been available.
>In regards to white men paying for children:
Actually, there's at least two Pukish contradictionshere that you've
missed - Puke hates men, especially (but not only) white men, but
seems to be COUNTING on them to protect her by coming up with the
resources to enable non-Muslim women to bear more children
And Puke likes the idea of white men paying women to have children...
(Puke, you incurable romantic you! You really do have a mother's
heart! I'll bet you look as if you stepped right off of a Norman
Rockwell poster, complete with apron and flour-coated hands)
...because the idea of men paying women to have children means that
women have the upper hand if they can compel payment -- except that if
white men DON'T pay women to have children, doesn't that mean that the
Muslims take over that much quicker? Don't white women have an
incentive to give birth FOR FREE - which, of course, in a free market,
translates to fewer hours in the work force, fewer promotions, fewer
women at the top, etc.?
You're right; there are contradictions of feminism which would APPEAR
to have a tendency to pull apart the center - though I still think
that the feminist establishment is stronger than you give it credit
for and more able to hold the center together, despite these
contradictions, than you give it credit for.
> They already
>do just that. (Otherwise they're called deadbeat dads you know.)
>Oh, you must mean socialist programs. Indeed. Working
>French career women work long hours and have fewer children
>to pay for generous welfare benefits for Muslim women
>to have kids. Isn't that great? I guess they should
>try to outlaw veils in schools and hope that solves
>the problem. Good luck to 'em.
I'm afraid that I'm going to start sounding like a libertarian, which
is the last thing on my mind, because I really have contempt for the
libertarians.
But still, these solutions NEVER have their intended effect. Guns are
outlawed; drugs are outlawed; so they are bought and sold on the black
market.
Conversely, the Supreme Court EXPANDS abortion rights -- BUT --
fire-bombings of abortion clinics become an occasional fact of life in
the struggle between "choice" and "life". One can rant and rave
against the fire-bombers, but these incidents did not take place while
the pro-life movement was able to exert its influence through the
democratic process.
Religion is outlawed; religion goes underground and exerts a more
powerful influence as an underground movement - think of Khomeini
taking over Iran from the Shah in 1979 or Solidarity and the Polish
Pope.
Will Muslim students in France become more radicalized in the face of
what they presumably see as an affront?
>> >> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
>> >League,>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
>> September 11 attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that
>> Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
>> >
>> > Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
>> >be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
>> >Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
>> >and relative oppression of women...
>> >
>> You don't get it, nimrod; the reason most people of Islamic faith MOVE to
>> western countries is to avoid the killing of fundamentalist Islam. In my own
>> community there are Islamic folk who enjoy the freedoms of the west.
>
>Indeed. They enjoy all those welfare benefits and special programs
>to deal with previous discrimination against them and diversity
>too! :-)
>
>Yep, it's so great that the west in enlightened isn't it?
>
>Oh, I'll have Polish and Ukrainian citizenship so I can move
>away along with other white men and our families to countries
>that have a high rate of growth and limited immigration.
>
>Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack
>a burqa. :-)
I don't think that Puke has any serious concern about protecting her
virtue.
>regards,
>Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
> On 18 Feb 2004 13:25:33 -0800, mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark
> Sobolewski) wrote:
>
> >Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
>
>
> Kind of. Sort of.
>
> I still think that Puke is deluding herself into thinking that she's
> happy, but a certain amount of reality is seeping in.
>
> Actually, I work professionally with men and women who delude
> themselves, so I'm starting to understand what makes them tick.
>
> For one brief moment, I actually did get Puke to say something to the
> effect of "So what? Most men wouldn't choose to suppress women's
> rights" - from which I inferred a concession on her part that if men
> DID so choose, it would be done (women's rights would be suppressed).
>
> That's something she's never conceded before - she usually talks about
> wiping out armies of male oppressors with her imaginary Lady Smith.
There was a saying in a Polish film I saw recently:
"He punishes others for his sins". She secretly knows
that the vision of her liberating herself from big,
bad white males is an illusion (and even a laughable
contradiction) so she uses hate to try to deny it.
Not too many men engage in this form of denial as
far as I know (and if they do, they usually
drink or engage in other substance abuse.)
I suspect that other normal, heterosexual women are
doing a similar thing with prozac and smoking.
If you get a chance, rent "Sexmission" at a place
with foreign films. It's a parody of both feminism
and communism and REALLY dead on! What I love
about films of this era was the creativity with
special effects. Today, all this CGI stuff leaves
me feeling as if I saw a video game but I digress...
Doh!
> >Same thing with Nader: It's likely Gore would be president
> >if he didn't lose the majority vote due to him.
>
>
> I'm not actually sure that Nader or Perot took votes away from anyone.
>
> Those who voted for Perot were already displaying dissatisfaction with
> the GOP ticket; those who voted for Nader were displaying
> dissatisfaction with the Democratic ticket - if the dissatisfaction
> wasn't there, those voters would have voted for their respective major
> party candidates.
>
> The Perot and Nader voters might have just stayed home if those
> choices hadn't been available.
Nader's platform is basically hardcore leftist PC with a lot
of weed. So in general, he's not going to suck out too many
of the libertarian crowd (free weed but lots of new taxes)
and certainly not the relgious crowd. Nader cost Gore the election
and this is precisely why Gore's supporters wanted a new
vote and why some leftists hate Nader. Nader, on the other
hand, relished in being a spoiler candidate.
In many ways, he deserves the honor because he did cause
the Democratic party to swing left AND even pushed Bush
to the left as well (although what good it's doing him,
I don't know. How can a compassionate conservative hope
to compete with the drunken sailor spending of the democrats?)
> >In regards to white men paying for children:
>
>
> Actually, there's at least two Pukish contradictionshere that you've
> missed - Puke hates men, especially (but not only) white men, but
> seems to be COUNTING on them to protect her by coming up with the
> resources to enable non-Muslim women to bear more children
Bah! I've pointed that out several times before and I'm laughing
at her now as she engages in what would be considered race
bashing if the word "Muslim" was replaced with "Black."
This game has been played since the late 70's (as far as I know)
when defensive feminist supporters started trying to hold
white men accountable for the sins of less enlightened men
abroad. (Pardon the pun) Yet, at the same time, they
hold white men accountable for oppressing these same minority
men at home even as that oppression was what caused these
women to be privileged and protected in the first place.
It's similar to a child complaining that their parent makes
them do their homework or eat their supper and then whining
later that the parent didn't do enough and now they
didn't make the honor roll. Or something like that.
She's ultra protected and ultra spoiled and THIS is why
she's terrified about the real world beginning to creep in.
I'm reminded of a friend who dated this spoiled rich girl
feminist who came from a wealthy family and had daddy support
her. She hated her father and told everyone about it just
after she cashed all of his checks to live comfortably
at off-campus university housing. Then, after she graduated,
the REAL WORLD (TM) hit her like a bag of bricks.
She suddenly found that men weren't looking at her anymore,
that wages were low, and that apartments cost REAL money.
She moved back in with daddy and tried to still work
but hated the fact that her boss wasn't as accomodating
as the professors she batted eyelashes at. So she adapted
a bit.
What really could have had an impact was if my friend
didn't continue to date her. Or maybe that would have
been too extreme. She most likely would have gotten
knocked up and had her life ruined or wound up a spinster.
In general, I find that most women learn how to live well
early on or not at all AND they follow through while men
are more adaptive but also can slouch.
That's why so many of them tell me that my fiance just
HAS to become like them. Yet, there is no sign this
is happening because she is sincerely happy with
who she is. I point out to her just to observe whose
happy and whose not.
> And Puke likes the idea of white men paying women to have children...
>
> (Puke, you incurable romantic you! You really do have a mother's
> heart! I'll bet you look as if you stepped right off of a Norman
> Rockwell poster, complete with apron and flour-coated hands)
Well duh!
All she really has for recognition is pussy credits: If the woman
gestates the child for 9 months, and doesn't kill or abandon
it, she should get an award if the child actually grows
up and does something useful. (And if not, then the father
is to blame wherever he is.)
It sounds like housewifery to me but just without the responsibility.
> ...because the idea of men paying women to have children means that
> women have the upper hand if they can compel payment -- except that if
> white men DON'T pay women to have children, doesn't that mean that the
> Muslims take over that much quicker? Don't white women have an
> incentive to give birth FOR FREE - which, of course, in a free market,
> translates to fewer hours in the work force, fewer promotions, fewer
> women at the top, etc.?
Indeed and Parg's eyes are bulging out in terror because she
realizes (but cannot admit openly) that men are calling her
bluff.
Oh, another point: Parg secretly is dependent upon corporate welfare.
It's the corporate welfare piggies who enact the best socialist
goodies for career women. Michael Moore himself HATES small business
owners because they're so cheap and cut expenses to the bone.
She's happy with the American situation with Mexicans basically
taking over because she doesn't care about the well being
of the country if it degenerates into a corrupt socialism
similar to the Mexico city. ANYTHING is better than her admitting
she's wrong.
However, Muslim immigrants are basically Mexicans with real religious
convictions and they terrify her. Her traditional weapons
of "racist" cannot work against them. She has no kryptonite.
> You're right; there are contradictions of feminism which would APPEAR
> to have a tendency to pull apart the center - though I still think
> that the feminist establishment is stronger than you give it credit
> for and more able to hold the center together, despite these
> contradictions, than you give it credit for.
Oh, I'll be perfectly honest and agree I'm worried that before
it goes down, it takes a lot of the institutions of the west down
with it. I just read a very disturbing article on mensnewsdaily
about many young GenY girls deciding to play around with
lesbianism. Basically, feminism is not going down without
a struggle.
However, the fact remains that it's totally a creation of
white male indulgence. Even in Mexico, feminism is largely
a joke. It certainly was even in former communist nations.
(That's why I would love for you to check out sexmission.)
Feminism joined forced with the PC left and now they're
going to find themselves at odds with it as well as losing
the support and protection of their traditional sugar
daddies. Are you amusing by the Kobe Bryant thing?
I'm about to post a reply to Parg laughing in her face
if she thinks that the veil rule in schools is going to
destroy Islam in France. All it does is radicalize
them at a very small cost. It's similar to someone
trying to stop their neighbor from letting his dog
shit in his yard by throwing a dark look at him.
It just encourages them.
The MOMENT that the young girls leave the school, the
parents will have them throwing on their veils and
even getting the girls to view it as a kind of
new tradition to symbolize oppression. Young girls
who DON'T do this will be singled out even more
readily than if they wore the veils all day.
It will help parents identify which girls aren't
staying in line. Remember, too, that young boys
are educated at the same time and their influence
will not be discarded as it has here in the west
because the native french schoolchildren need to
think for themselves too.
> >> >> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
> >> >League,>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
> >> September 11 attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and that
> >> Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European pressure.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
> >> >be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
> >> >Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
> >> >and relative oppression of women...
> >> >
> >> You don't get it, nimrod; the reason most people of Islamic faith MOVE to
> >> western countries is to avoid the killing of fundamentalist Islam. In my own
> >> community there are Islamic folk who enjoy the freedoms of the west.
> >
> >Indeed. They enjoy all those welfare benefits and special programs
> >to deal with previous discrimination against them and diversity
> >too! :-)
> >
> >Yep, it's so great that the west in enlightened isn't it?
> >
> >Oh, I'll have Polish and Ukrainian citizenship so I can move
> >away along with other white men and our families to countries
> >that have a high rate of growth and limited immigration.
> >
> >Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack
> >a burqa. :-)
>
>
> I don't think that Puke has any serious concern about protecting her
> virtue.
Indeed. Puke is worried more about not losing. (I'm reminded
of the line in Patton where Patton says that Monty is
more worried about not losing than winning.) She doesn't want
to see her agenda go down in flames and wind up being
alone all for nothing. She wants company.
And to a certain degree, for now, she's getting it. The
last few years were her heyday. Now she sees France
and even Germany going down the tubes and fertility
rates for her agenda dropping.
The WORST that can happen is I'll move to Eastern Europe
and leave her beind. And she hates that because
us bitterboys can escape.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Grizzlie Antagonist
Sobolewski) wrote:
>Grizzlie Antagonist <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<k8a830tp1117dgmlu...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Feb 2004 13:25:33 -0800, mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark
>> Sobolewski) wrote:
>>
>> >Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
>>
>>
>> Kind of. Sort of.
>>
>> I still think that Puke is deluding herself into thinking that she's
>> happy, but a certain amount of reality is seeping in.
>>
>> Actually, I work professionally with men and women who delude
>> themselves, so I'm starting to understand what makes them tick.
>>
>> For one brief moment, I actually did get Puke to say something to the
>> effect of "So what? Most men wouldn't choose to suppress women's
>> rights" - from which I inferred a concession on her part that if men
>> DID so choose, it would be done (women's rights would be suppressed).
>>
>> That's something she's never conceded before - she usually talks about
>> wiping out armies of male oppressors with her imaginary Lady Smith.
>
>There was a saying in a Polish film I saw recently:
>"He punishes others for his sins". She secretly knows
>that the vision of her liberating herself from big,
>bad white males is an illusion (and even a laughable
>contradiction) so she uses hate to try to deny it.
>
>Not too many men engage in this form of denial as
>far as I know (and if they do, they usually
>drink or engage in other substance abuse.)
My male clients who are accused of spousal abuse are usually "in
denial" - the ones who really are guilty, anyway.
I have no doubt that there are more innocent men going through the
system than the judge or DA is willing to allow for - it's a tricky
proposition to try to figure out who's telling the truth and who's in
denial.
Women who are genuine victims of DV are also often in denial; they
often recant, even when they really have been abused - again, it's a
tricky proposition to figure out whether the bitch originally lied to
the police about the battering (again, this happens far more often
than the DA or judge is willing to allow for) or whether it's the
recantation that's false.
It's especially difficult here because if you're dealing with someone
who's changing her story, you KNOW that you're dealing with a liar -
it's just a question of figuring out which story is the lie.
But yes, there is certainly a correlation between spousal abuse and
alcohol or substance abuse and a heavy amount of denial connected with
all three.
There's also a lot of denial inherent in men who are truly guilty of
hitting women because it's still considered to be a shameful act --
notwithstanding a half century of women on the silver screen and on
the boob tube using martial arts to bounce men off of walls for the
pleasure of a laugh track machine -- it's still considered to be a
shameful act for a man to hit a woman.
If we could believe in the reality of what we see on the silver screen
or boob tube, hitting a woman wouldn't be a shameful act at all but an
act requirng tremendous courage.
But as it is, there's a lot of denial connected with it. And, of
course, there are female abusers and male victims too, but that's
another story.
It's fashionable to think of women as the "stronger sex" because they
give birth and live longer and stuff, but anyone who really thinks
this should come to DV court and just see how pitiably weak women
really are.
Not just because they usually come in second when fighting a man but
because of their infantile dependence on "the system".
>I suspect that other normal, heterosexual women are
>doing a similar thing with prozac and smoking.
>
>If you get a chance, rent "Sexmission" at a place
>with foreign films. It's a parody of both feminism
>and communism and REALLY dead on! What I love
>about films of this era was the creativity with
>special effects. Today, all this CGI stuff leaves
>me feeling as if I saw a video game but I digress...
It's not dirty, is it?
I really am not sure that he did. Nader's voters had the option of
voting for Gore or for "trading" their votes (I saw a lot of
vote-trading agreements taking place on the Internet before Election
Day 2000 - how the participants could have been sure about the bona
fides of the people they were dealing with is anyone's guess).
I think that Nader's voters might have just stayed home if Nader
hadn't been on the ballot.
But then again, I'm only speaking in generalities - out of 97,488
Nader voters in Florida, it doesn't seem so unlikely that 600 of them
might have otherwise voted for Gore, so maybe you're right.
>and this is precisely why Gore's supporters wanted a new
>vote and why some leftists hate Nader. Nader, on the other
>hand, relished in being a spoiler candidate.
>
>In many ways, he deserves the honor because he did cause
>the Democratic party to swing left
I don't know; they seem poised to nominate one of two "moderates" now.
> AND even pushed Bush
>to the left as well
No, they didn't. He embraced multiculturalism to prove himself a
"compassionate conservative". That was his mantra before the campaign
even began.
>(although what good it's doing him,
>I don't know. How can a compassionate conservative hope
>to compete with the drunken sailor spending of the democrats?)
>
>> >In regards to white men paying for children:
>>
>>
>> Actually, there's at least two Pukish contradictionshere that you've
>> missed - Puke hates men, especially (but not only) white men, but
>> seems to be COUNTING on them to protect her by coming up with the
>> resources to enable non-Muslim women to bear more children
>
>Bah! I've pointed that out several times before
Yes, but not in the context of men being money-laden studs and women
being brood mares.
>and I'm laughing
>at her now as she engages in what would be considered race
>bashing if the word "Muslim" was replaced with "Black."
Good point.
Well sure, Mark. I was being facetious in comparing Puke to a Norman
Rockwell character.
The idea of motherhood being something that a woman should engage in
ONLY for purely mercentary reasons and NEVER out of a genuine desire
to bear and love children is yet another example of Puke's venality.
>> ...because the idea of men paying women to have children means that
>> women have the upper hand if they can compel payment -- except that if
>> white men DON'T pay women to have children, doesn't that mean that the
>> Muslims take over that much quicker? Don't white women have an
>> incentive to give birth FOR FREE - which, of course, in a free market,
>> translates to fewer hours in the work force, fewer promotions, fewer
>> women at the top, etc.?
>
>Indeed and Parg's eyes are bulging out in terror because she
>realizes (but cannot admit openly) that men are calling her
>bluff.
>
>Oh, another point: Parg secretly is dependent upon corporate welfare.
>It's the corporate welfare piggies who enact the best socialist
>goodies for career women. Michael Moore himself HATES small business
>owners because they're so cheap and cut expenses to the bone.
>
>She's happy with the American situation with Mexicans basically
>taking over because she doesn't care about the well being
>of the country if it degenerates into a corrupt socialism
>similar to the Mexico city. ANYTHING is better than her admitting
>she's wrong.
>However, Muslim immigrants are basically Mexicans with real religious
>convictions and they terrify her. Her traditional weapons
>of "racist" cannot work against them. She has no kryptonite.
Just an imaginary gun and the ability to type smiley faces on a
newsgroup as a means of assuring everyone that life is beautiful.
>> You're right; there are contradictions of feminism which would APPEAR
>> to have a tendency to pull apart the center - though I still think
>> that the feminist establishment is stronger than you give it credit
>> for and more able to hold the center together, despite these
>> contradictions, than you give it credit for.
>
>Oh, I'll be perfectly honest and agree I'm worried that before
>it goes down, it takes a lot of the institutions of the west down
>with it. I just read a very disturbing article on mensnewsdaily
>about many young GenY girls deciding to play around with
>lesbianism. Basically, feminism is not going down without
>a struggle.
And I again hearken back to "Throw Rocks at Boys" T-shirts and "girls
rule, boys drool, soccer's cool" chanting.
This is where we differ; you see all of these things as the last dying
strikes of a fatally wounded feminist beast.
I see these things as proof that the Matriarchy is alive and well and
able to use its institutional might, its control of the instruments of
propaganda, and the tacit support that it receives from a compliant
female population (that allows itself to be used as a human shield) to
perpetuate itself for more generations.
>However, the fact remains that it's totally a creation of
>white male indulgence. Even in Mexico, feminism is largely
>a joke. It certainly was even in former communist nations.
>(That's why I would love for you to check out sexmission.)
>
>Feminism joined forced with the PC left and now they're
>going to find themselves at odds with it as well as losing
>the support and protection of their traditional sugar
>daddies.
I don't see that the PC left is dying, Mark. They will continue to
have control of the news media and of the university and of the
entertainment industry for the indefinite future. For the foreseeable
future, they will continue to have the ability to decide what we
"should" think and do far out of proportion to their actual numbers.
I don't see economics changing that.
Mark, I don't know what your experience is like in St. Louis, but I
moved from "blue" country to "red" country, as you know, when I moved
from Los Angeles to the Central Valley.
But the Fresno Bee is virtually indistinguishable from either the Los
Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner - not only
editorially, but in what the READERS say in the Letters to the Editor
section.
The PC left, which does include feminism, dominates conversation
EVERYWHERE.
>Are you amusing by the Kobe Bryant thing?
Not really. I was never a basketball fan, and this is just a rehash
of O.J. without a corpse. Just like that "scandal" involving the
supposed rape of that female placekicker.
You think these things are going to expose the fissures between
feminism and the civil rights of non-white men, but again, I don't see
it.
After supporting Clarence Thomas through his ordeal of character
assassination, the first George Bush should have tried to use the
incident to drive a wedge between black males and white feminists
(both Democratic blocs), but of course, he ran away from the whole
thing and black males continue to have their political alliance with
white feminists.
The O.J. case was another example of the tension between black males
and white feminists, but no damage resulted to the alliance between
black males and white feminists from that either.
I don't see any resulting from the Kobe Bryant thing or from this
thing with the female placekicker. In fact, those incidents might
turn out to be the Tailhook of sports.
The Tailhook incident (yes, male guilt was overstated and female guilt
was understated) was used NOT to question the suitability of allowing
women in the military and, in particular, of allowing them to
fraternize with testosterone-charged combat pilots - it was used as an
excuse to weaken the machismo of military culture altogether.
Who knows; maybe soon every college locker room will have a female
place-kicer and a chaperone overseeing locker-room conduct.
You see, Mark; I expect the bad guys to win again; I expect them to
ALWAYS win because they control the organs of public opinion and they
know how to manipulate news to their advantage.
Yes, we agree; the forbidding of the veil is likely to have
consquences the opposite of which was intended.
Hyerdahl1
>From: ro...@jerseymail.co.uk (gary o brien)
>Date: 2/17/2004 5:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b57b4077.04021...@posting.google.com>
No, YOUR solution to my debate points, is always to take away rigths from
women; women aren't buying.
>>
>> My solution for male backlash is to stand and be counted, whatever that
>> requires.
>>
>> (edit of personal denigration attempt)
>>
>> >And I remember men doing such thing in Iran when Khomeini took over in
> >Iran for the Shah, Puke.
>>
>> Civilized educated men are not quite the same as Fanny Talibanis, Grizz.
>They> have to rape children just to keep sexually active. AND, women there
don't
> have guns.
>>
>> >And a woman was once chief of state in Pakistan - was she able to
>"liberate" Pakistani women? <Chuckle>
>>
>> Cleopatra was genitally mutilated for the satisfaction of men's insurity,
>i.e.> that a woman might leave the farm of one man fo one with a bigger dick.
A> woman without real power has no real power. A woman with equal rights has
>no> man who can stop her.
>>
>>
>> >So you see, women's rights really are ENTIRELY dependent on male
>> >tolerance.
>>
>> No, they're dependent on upholding the law whether or not it's at
the>business> end of a gun. BTW, if sexists want to play rough, I don't mind
more dead> sexists in the process. That's the price of war.
>
>so that was why so many feminists rushed over to fight the taliban>then?
Are you suggesting there were no female military personnel in Afghanistan, or
do you propose things for civilian women to do that civilian men have no
responsibility to do?
more mental masturbation, your a joke, if sexists played rough>theres fuck all
you can do about it
>>
Sure there is; I can take you, or someone like you, down before I go.
>> >
>> >>>>it is French women who decide who>>>>rules and who does not.
>> >>>
>> >>>Really? Aside from the fact that men ALLOW women to vote, don't
men>>>vote too?
>> >>
>> >>Let me know when your brigade of bitter boys CAN take rights away from
>women,>>dear.
>> >
>> >
>> >They always can.
>> >
>> No, in fact, they cannot. They just wish and hope that things would
>return to what they once were. >> There's not a damn thing they can do about
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/17/2004 11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04021...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040216191024...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
>> >
>> No, in fact, they cannot. They just wish and hope that things would
do about it.
>>
>
>Flying planes loaded with feminists into tall buildings does show 'a>return',
how about the next step silly Hyerdahl?
>
>I guess it's only a matter of time when Matriachy destroys civil>relations
completely, eh?
If civilization breaks down because men are insecure; that's not my problem.
None of the men in MY life are insecure.
Mark Sobolewski
I was talking more specifically about people who engage
in aggressive denial: Who actually consider themselves
victims even as they are the abusers (and it's excessive.)
To make the comparison to DV, imagine if the men battering
women actually claimed to be victims themselves of
the wife attacking him and the wife apologizing for harming
him. It's bizarre but so is the current situation
with spoiled, middle-class American white-women comparing
themselves to colonial black slaves.
> >I suspect that other normal, heterosexual women are
> >doing a similar thing with prozac and smoking.
> >
> >If you get a chance, rent "Sexmission" at a place
> >with foreign films. It's a parody of both feminism
> >and communism and REALLY dead on! What I love
> >about films of this era was the creativity with
> >special effects. Today, all this CGI stuff leaves
> >me feeling as if I saw a video game but I digress...
>
>
> It's not dirty, is it?
No. The name is based upon these men waking up in a world
filled with women. The joke is that it's not quite
what they imagined it would be... (And it's not
quite what feminists imagined it would be either!)
There's a parody about east communist bloc communism
going on too.
Very few people actually participated in such a scheme
but, for now, we're talking about numbers. How many
votes were "stolen" (regardless of use) from Gore.
> I think that Nader's voters might have just stayed home if Nader
> hadn't been on the ballot.
Overall, it's conservatives and libertarians that wind up staying
home moreso, I think, than socialists who regard government
as a God. This would be similar to Ned Flanders of the Simpsons
skipping church. :-)
I imagine a lot of protest votes for Nader were done by the left.
I know a lot of hardcore democrats who went over to him.
Remember: His agenda is just P.C. democratic party platform
on steroids and with weed.
> But then again, I'm only speaking in generalities - out of 97,488
> Nader voters in Florida, it doesn't seem so unlikely that 600 of them
> might have otherwise voted for Gore, so maybe you're right.
Certainly, if Nader hasn't been in then Gore would be prez today.
If I might speculate with you, I wonder what the situation would be:
Gore probably wouldn't have gotten Kyoto passed, Republicans
would have been a little hesitant to go on a spending spree,
and no supreme court justices have been nominated this term.
Gore would have taken hits for 9-11 and the economy.
But then again, the way Gore lost (and cried his eyes out)
and the way democrats still have a temper tantrum over it
has been delightful. What do you think?
> >and this is precisely why Gore's supporters wanted a new
> >vote and why some leftists hate Nader. Nader, on the other
> >hand, relished in being a spoiler candidate.
> >
> >In many ways, he deserves the honor because he did cause
> >the Democratic party to swing left
>
>
> I don't know; they seem poised to nominate one of two "moderates" now.
I wouldn't call Kerry a moderate. He's more of an insider
with mullah. He no doubt supports and votes on all the hard-core
commie stuff.
> > AND even pushed Bush
> >to the left as well
>
>
> No, they didn't. He embraced multiculturalism to prove himself a
> "compassionate conservative". That was his mantra before the campaign
> even began.
True. Him and his old man both seem to love competing with the left.
> >(although what good it's doing him,
> >I don't know. How can a compassionate conservative hope
> >to compete with the drunken sailor spending of the democrats?)
> >
> >> >In regards to white men paying for children:
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually, there's at least two Pukish contradictionshere that you've
> >> missed - Puke hates men, especially (but not only) white men, but
> >> seems to be COUNTING on them to protect her by coming up with the
> >> resources to enable non-Muslim women to bear more children
> >
> >Bah! I've pointed that out several times before
>
>
> Yes, but not in the context of men being money-laden studs and women
> being brood mares.
Puke is especially angry (gasp!) that socialist money is going to
pay for non-feminist children rather than single mums.
> >and I'm laughing
> >at her now as she engages in what would be considered race
> >bashing if the word "Muslim" was replaced with "Black."
>
>
> Good point.
She's terrified that they'll basically hijack (pardon the pun)
the game of the left to gain political power.
Let's add that truly traditional women bore children also to
have a family that included a father. It was considered a
way to complete the whole marriage experience.
This is why feminists railed against kids during the 50's and 60's:
Not because the children themselves were bad but because the
mother reared them under authority and protection of a man.
As I believe I pointed out, there's more than just the Matriarchy
at work here. In fact, they are largely dupes for individual
power hungry socialists and industrialists whom are largely men.
Feminism cannot exist successfully without leftism and leftism,
at least in the states, could not have survived long
without feminism. Leftism will most likely outlive feminism
(in the states) as power shifts to ethnic and racial
lobbies.
When feminism (and ultimately leftism) collapses, it's a question
of what state the country and society will be in to recover
as Eastern Europe is undertaking. On top will be the
EXACT SAME bad "good 'ol boys" that the left and feminists
claim to have hated all along but still relied upon for
goodies. It will come to resemble what we see in Eastern Europe:
Mafia and organized crime and corruption and poverty but
more or less distributed PRECISELY as was done at the turn
of the previous century!!!
I don't think they're going through a death knell gasp of course.
Feminism, at least as defined by mainstream feminism, is gasping
as young women realize that the lipstick feminist days are just
about over. The butches have taken over and now many of
the "electorate" as we may refer to them are waking up in horror
and realizing they've been robbed. These women, IMO,
aren't necessarily evil or deserving of the misogynist label
anymore than young men who sold out to leftism and feminism
because of fear of not getting laid.
The left IS scared that their structure may fail leaving
them in a situation similar to Eastern Europe. They HATE
home schooling (which is why attacks on home schooling
kids being socially-inept are popular. Yeah, they don't
know how to socialize while getting beaten up and indoctrinated :-)
The university system may not be far behind. Sure, they
may give out diplomas like cheeseburgers but what this
will mean is they'll still have to hire conservatives
to do the work as contractors.
> >However, the fact remains that it's totally a creation of
> >white male indulgence. Even in Mexico, feminism is largely
> >a joke. It certainly was even in former communist nations.
> >(That's why I would love for you to check out sexmission.)
> >
> >Feminism joined forced with the PC left and now they're
> >going to find themselves at odds with it as well as losing
> >the support and protection of their traditional sugar
> >daddies.
>
> I don't see that the PC left is dying, Mark. They will continue to
> have control of the news media and of the university and of the
> entertainment industry for the indefinite future. For the foreseeable
> future, they will continue to have the ability to decide what we
> "should" think and do far out of proportion to their actual numbers.
> I don't see economics changing that.
Ironically, I have seen the NYT trying to beg for subscribers showing
a "Sally Forth" type scene of a handsome professional white guy,
yuppie career wife, and daughter each reading different fru-fru
sections of the paper.
I pointed out to my marxist friend who complained about a decline
in culture that whatever she thought of hillbillies such as me,
at least we are somewhat cultured. I can appreciate theater,
read a book here or there, and even know better than to put
my feet up on the table at a restaurant.
The left has successfully embraced a culture that largely
buys into rock music, etc. and doesn't really need to read
a newspaper. The MTV crowd is not loyal to them. It's mostly
geezer FDR types such as my parents who still use the
mainstream media such as ABC/CBS/NBC. (Sheesh! Whenever
I watch those channels it appears as if they really
are stuck in the 50's and so SLOW....)
That crowd (the geezers) only care about social security
and may find the left exposed as a bunch of wierdos to
be disturbing. Especially if those wierdos start to
loot their precious social security in order to pay
for their failing educational system.
> Mark, I don't know what your experience is like in St. Louis, but I
> moved from "blue" country to "red" country, as you know, when I moved
> from Los Angeles to the Central Valley.
oh, I just moved to the D.C. area. St. Louis did NOT work out.
> But the Fresno Bee is virtually indistinguishable from either the Los
> Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner - not only
> editorially, but in what the READERS say in the Letters to the Editor
> section.
You have me there. None of the hardcore conservatives or libertarians
I know read newspapers. Most of them are on the internet.
> The PC left, which does include feminism, dominates conversation
> EVERYWHERE.
Which is why they're so nasty here. They know they can't
play any trump cards so they stammer and yammer far more
than if we were on their pissing grounds.
> >Are you amusing by the Kobe Bryant thing?
>
>
> Not really. I was never a basketball fan, and this is just a rehash
> of O.J. without a corpse. Just like that "scandal" involving the
> supposed rape of that female placekicker.
>
> You think these things are going to expose the fissures between
> feminism and the civil rights of non-white men, but again, I don't see
> it.
>
> After supporting Clarence Thomas through his ordeal of character
> assassination, the first George Bush should have tried to use the
> incident to drive a wedge between black males and white feminists
> (both Democratic blocs), but of course, he ran away from the whole
> thing and black males continue to have their political alliance with
> white feminists.
That's because both Bushes take their support from the white male
coalition for granted and pander to the white feminist and black
votes.
> The O.J. case was another example of the tension between black males
> and white feminists, but no damage resulted to the alliance between
> black males and white feminists from that either.
It DID drive a wedge between black women and black men and white women,
but it's not being used at this time.
It's amazing really how many opportunities are out there.
Unfortunately, the left has been good at either scooping up
disenfranchized minorities or keeping them.
The geezers really should have left a long time ago for instance
because they aren't getting much plus seeing their families waste
away as I said. But they're idiots. They MAY change their mind
later when the frying pan gets hot as I mentioned.
Black women would REALLY benefit from a resurgence in conservativism
and from what I read, they're not very happy with their life
on the democratic plantation. Yet, they don't want to hop in
bed with the right which are still largely pandering to white
upper class feminist career women.
Black men: Ditto. More of them go to jail today than David Duke
could have dreamed due to both social programs that don't help them,
get them thrown into jail (such as deadbeat dad stuff) and
high taxes which harm the working poor.
Mexicans are Catholic but most largely don't care about
the cultural issues as has been the case with the Pope.
The Pope has been a dupe by giving the left ammo by saying
that social programs should be upheld to try to prevent
women from having abortions, but hasn't criticized the left
for it's abortion stance or feminism.
Jews: The left is starting to Jew and Israel bash which is
real incredible, I'm sure, to all the loyal democratic voting
Jews out there. I'm going to say something honest (not hateful
but honest) that I think about Jews: I believe they
are gifted, organized, and very very civilized BUT they
are a bit arrogant. They think they're just a bit smarter
than they really are and this causes them to always be
one step ahead of themselves. I wonder if Jews will
be the leaders of the libertarian faction of the Republican
party in the near future when they catch on. (I welcome them
because I know they would do a great job!)
Demographics indicate that middle class white women
and middle class women with some education tend to
have a reasonable number of kids while the extremely
educated women are having fewer kids and tend to
be the feminists. I suspect that we'll see a huge dieoff
of leftists in the next few decades.
No, we're not at the end yet, but it's in sight over the horizon.
A lot can happen before then, but there is hope.
> I don't see any resulting from the Kobe Bryant thing or from this
> thing with the female placekicker. In fact, those incidents might
> turn out to be the Tailhook of sports.
I doubt it. Bryant may come out as a victim and unlike
OJ, will still have credibility OUTSIDE of the black
community.
> The Tailhook incident (yes, male guilt was overstated and female guilt
> was understated) was used NOT to question the suitability of allowing
> women in the military and, in particular, of allowing them to
> fraternize with testosterone-charged combat pilots - it was used as an
> excuse to weaken the machismo of military culture altogether.
>
> Who knows; maybe soon every college locker room will have a female
> place-kicer and a chaperone overseeing locker-room conduct.
I doubt it. At worst, we'll see security tightened up and workplace
rules about fraternizing between hotel employees and athletes.
> You see, Mark; I expect the bad guys to win again; I expect them to
> ALWAYS win because they control the organs of public opinion and they
> know how to manipulate news to their advantage.
Perhaps this explains the outright temper tantrum the left had
when Gore lost (emphasis on Gore losing rather than Bush winning.)
In their eyes, they think the same as you do: They cannot lose
because they don't fight fair. So when they got a kick
in the crotch, they started crying. (Even if it was totally
fair considering they were crotch kicking too.)
This action may be seen, in hindsight, as a hugely significant
effect causing huge historical ramifications.
The EU is VERY fragile just now and as France struggles,
this uncertainty can spread to Germany and other core
"old europe" (isn't it cool how Bush coined that term?)
states causing the new republics (such as Poland) to
wield disproportionate power.
Sill...@famous.com
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message news:<20040216191024...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
>> >
>> No, in fact, they cannot. They just wish and hope that things would return.
>> There's not a damn thing they can do about it.
>>
>
>Flying planes loaded with feminists into tall buildings does show 'a
>return', how about the next step silly Hyerdahl?
Um . . . that's obviously a 9-11 reference, but how do you work the
idea of 'planes loaded with feminists' into it? There were a lot more
people than just feminists killed that day, and although I'm sure the
hijackers (if they had lived) would have shed no tears over dead
feminists that certainly wasn't the point of their action. And what
would the next silly step be? That's kind of a hard one to top. I
suspect you've let Hyerdahl bait you into being angry, the result
being you are typing faster than you think.
Sill...@famous.com
>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls! II
>>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>>Date: 2/17/2004 11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <6688b088.04021...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>>news:<20040216191024...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
>>> >
>>> No, in fact, they cannot. They just wish and hope that things would
>>return to a time when only men had rights.> There's not a damn thing they can
>do about it.
>>>
>>
>>Flying planes loaded with feminists into tall buildings does show 'a>return',
>how about the next step silly Hyerdahl?
>>
>Take the next step; I'm locked and loaded.
Oh, jeez, you're back to that again.
I don't know what he means by 'the next step' and he may not either. I
am fairly sure he doesn't mean coming to your door, knocking, and
waiting politley will you find and aim your pistol. With the obvious
reference to terrorists performing inconceivable acts of violence, you
can be as loaded as you like and it isn't going to help. If someone
lines up a plane to drop on you, you can shoot 'til your hand goes
numb and you'll still get blown up. I don't know how to top flying a
plane into a building, but anything that could is going to be beyond
your capacity to defend against. The strangest thing about your
machisma posturing is you actually seem to think we should take it
seriously.
Locked and loaded. Jeez. You two deserve each other.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>Message-id: <JiRYb.4107$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>>>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter; as people are assimilated into a society, they become
>more> like the members OF that society, and thus, the birth rate would tend to
>level> off. Also, I didn't see any stats at all on ten to one ratio in
birthrate.
Are you just pretending again?
>>
>> You presume many things, none of which include any reality of how groups
I already PROVIDED that article Ken. Articles from mens forums just go in my
trash bin.
>
>...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/18/04 1:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.0402...@posting.google.com>
>
>Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
Mark, you're mistaking celebration for panic. :-)
>> I don't believe you. Show me where the Muslim BR is 10 to one. :-) AND,
>> there's nothing to prevent white men from paying women to have more white
>> children. :-)
>> :-)
>
>Oooh, the last refuge of the panicked: Show me the numbers!>Please don't let
them be there! :-)
>
Well, Mark ...where are they?
>I checked out a few discussion groups and found them discussing
>the possibility of a Muslim majority by the year _2020!!!_
Where's your written proof, Mark?
>
>A Muslim majority isn't necessary because in a democracy
>(gotta love 'em! :-), a majority isn't necessary to grab>political power but
rather a strong, committed voting
>bloc and coalition. For example, you were unaware that
>Bill Clinton did NOT have a majority vote (if it wasn't
>for Forbes, Bush would have gotten a second term.)
>Same thing with Nader: It's likely Gore would be president
>if he didn't lose the majority vote due to him.
>
Poor Mark, can't get over the last election. :-) AND, he still hasn't been
able to provide proof for that 10 to one figure. :-)
>
>> >> Noureddine Hached, assistant secretary-general of the 22- member Arab
>> >League,>> says that xenophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the
>> September 11 attacks last year, that immigration has been restricted and
>that
>> Muslim> communities are "losing their Arab identity" under European
>pressure.
>> >
>> > Ah, but NOT their Muslim religion OR Islamic beliefs. You don't have to
>> >be an Arab to be a Muslim Parg, in fact about 70% of Muslims ARE NOT
>> >Arabs yet still believe in Islamic tenets...including the inferiority of
>> >and relative oppression of women...
>> >
>> You don't get it, nimrod; the reason most people of Islamic faith MOVE to
>> western countries is to avoid the killing of fundamentalist Islam. In my
>own
>> community there are Islamic folk who enjoy the freedoms of the west.
>
>Indeed. They enjoy all those welfare benefits and special programs
>to deal with previous discrimination against them and diversity>too! :-)
>
Actually, the folks I know own their own businesses, so it is unlikely that
they are using the "special programs".
>Yep, it's so great that the west in enlightened isn't it?
>
>Oh, I'll have Polish and Ukrainian citizenship so I can move>away along with
other white men and our families to countries>that have a high rate of growth
and limited immigration.
>
That sounds great, Mark. What can I do to help you pack? :-)
>Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack
>a burqa. :-)
I won't need one, Mark. I don't have to go to Siberia to get laid.
>
>regards,
>Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>From: Sill...@famous.com
>Date: 2/20/2004 12:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <4poc30lkie352qb45...@4ax.com>
Perhaps next, he'll fly the rest of the Fanny Talibani into the White House and
Congress when only the Republicans are in session. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>Message-id: <zWQYb.4105$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>
Interesting, however it ignores the point that the immigrant Muslim community
times higher that the resident Gaelic population, which >is actually> in
decline (ie: is contracting). The French could stop all >Muslim
>immigration> tomorrow and, unless they actively start to expel
>>
>>>Muslims, they will still become a minority by the year 2040...
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe you. Show me where the Muslim BR is 10 to one. :-) AND,
there's nothing to prevent white men from paying women to have more white
>> children. :-)
>
I don't give a rats ass whether you believe me or not Parg, I'm >repeating what
I've read in cosmopolitan FRENCH newspapers (where the >people ARE worried).
Ah, so you feel free to repeat what you heard Girard Depardeau say while
reading the Le Nouvel Observateur drunk; good for you Ken! I'm sure to take
your word for it. :-)
If you chose to disbelieve me you do so at your own >peril...
I DO disbelieve you, dear.
but plan to go to France in 20 years...unles you think you'll >like wearing a
Burka...
As a beach cover up? :-)
Ken&Laura Chaddock
Hahahaha...nice try...no cigar. These articles are all from major
French daily newspapers...not "men's journals"...but I *knew* you
wouldn't read them...you wouldn't want to upset you pre-conceived biases
would you Parg ?
...Ken
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>Date: 2/18/2004 2:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <zWQYb.4105$Ks6....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>
>>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls!
>>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>>
>
> Interesting, however it ignores the point that the immigrant Muslim community
> in France (close to 7.5 million at last count) has a birth ratealmost ten
> times higher that the resident Gaelic population, which >is actually> in
> decline (ie: is contracting). The French could stop all >Muslim
>
>>immigration> tomorrow and, unless they actively start to expel
>>
>>>>Muslims, they will still become a minority by the year 2040...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't believe you. Show me where the Muslim BR is 10 to one. :-) AND,
>
> there's nothing to prevent white men from paying women to have more white
>
>>>children. :-)
>>
> I don't give a rats ass whether you believe me or not Parg, I'm >repeating what
> I've read in cosmopolitan FRENCH newspapers (where the >people ARE worried).
>
> Ah, so you feel free to repeat what you heard Girard Depardeau say while
> reading the Le Nouvel Observateur drunk; good for you Ken! I'm sure to take
> your word for it. :-)
How would you know Parg ? I gave you links to several articles from
BOTH left and right wing French daily newspapers...which you ignored,
calling them "men's journals" I guess you can't read French can you Parg
?...well, unfortunately that's no excuse sine the links were to English
translations...just for you
> If you chose to disbelieve me you do so at your own >peril...
>
> I DO disbelieve you, dear.
I know you do Parg, the annoying thing is the stupidity of your
disbelief...particularly when you ask for references and cites and you
are given references and cites then can't be bothered to even look at
them...I really do sympathize, it must be difficult for you to maintain
your flawed opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence...much easier
to just ignore the evidence to the contrary is it ? ?
> but plan to go to France in 20 years...unles you think you'll >like wearing a
> Burka...
>
> As a beach cover up? :-)
Actually yes, that IS the implication of Sharai law in France Parg...as
a woman, you won't be *allowed* to go to the beech unless you're wearing
your Burka and are accompanied by a male relative...maybe your
"feminist" son would enjoy go along ?
...Ken
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/20/2004 12:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b2pc30lfp5l3ieent...@4ax.com>
>
>On 20 Feb 2004 17:24:37 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls! II
>>>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>>>Date: 2/17/2004 11:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <6688b088.04021...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>>>news:<20040216191024...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
>>>> >
>>>> No, in fact, they cannot. They just wish and hope that things
would>return to a time when only men had rights.> There's not a damn thing
they>can>>do about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Flying planes loaded with feminists into tall buildings does
show>'a>return',
>how about the next step silly Hyerdahl?
>>>
>>Take the next step; I'm locked and loaded.
>
>Oh, jeez, you're back to that again.
Sure; you claim the bogeyman is coming to get me, dear; I can be ready.
>>I don't know what he means by 'the next step' and he may not either. I>am
fairly sure he doesn't mean coming to your door, knocking, and>waiting politley
will you find and aim your pistol. With the obvious
>reference to terrorists performing inconceivable acts of violence, you
>can be as loaded as you like and it isn't going to help. If someone
>lines up a plane to drop on you, you can shoot 'til your hand goes
>numb and you'll still get blown up. I don't know how to top flying a
>plane into a building, but anything that could is going to be beyond
>your capacity to defend against. The strangest thing about your
>machisma posturing is you actually seem to think we should take it
>seriously.
>
I guess you didn't see the film, Bowling for Columbine. :-) It talks about
how men like you arouse the masses to FEAR everything. All I'm suggesting is
that I don't live my life by the FEARS of white guys. I live MY life knowing
full well that liars and cheats do what they do hoping to talk us into FEAR so
they can continue to rob us. I'm NOT AFRAID.
>Locked and loaded. Jeez. You two deserve each other.
Not really. You see, I'm really a pacifist who remains armed and my armour is
not within the reach of a younger bitter boy attempting to shoot up his
classmates.
Sill...@famous.com
>>
>>Oh, jeez, you're back to that again.
>
>Sure; you claim the bogeyman is coming to get me, dear; I can be ready.
I never said a word about the bogeyman. I never said anything was on
its way to get you. I never said most of what you are replying to.
Clearly you have lost the thread of who said what.
'Course, if the bogeyman WERE coming to get you, then the bogeyman
would have to be real. I would suggest that any monster that can creep
into your house and hide under your bed (or in your closet, or in your
clothes hamper) would have no trouble killing you in your sleep. So,
clearly, you would not be ready. Sleep being pretty much the
antithesis of readiness.
>
>>Locked and loaded. Jeez. You two deserve each other.
>
>Not really. You see, I'm really a pacifist who remains armed and my armour is
>not within the reach of a younger bitter boy attempting to shoot up his
>classmates.
?
One, clearly you do not understand what pacifist means. I don't
recommend pacifism, y'unnnerstan, but I would recommend you learn what
a word means before you use it. Perhaps you meant 'peaceful', or
something similiar.
Two, unless you have some evidence that friend Connor is planning to
strap on some rifles and go blow up schoolkids (and if you do have
some evidence wtf are you wasting time here for when you should be
talking to the cops?) then references to Columbine are grossly
irrelevant.
Oh, and if you had been in the cafeteria at Columbine facing two
heavily armed young men who were ready to shoot anything that moved,
and who didn't really care what the consequences were, would you have
had an ANSWER for them? Other than your guts and blood sprayed on the
walls?
You two certainly deserve each other.
Sill...@famous.com
>
>If civilization breaks down because men are insecure; that's not my problem.
>None of the men in MY life are insecure.
I hope the men in your life are every bit as secure as you think they
are. However, if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it
very much will be your problem.
Grizzlie Antagonist
If the men in Puke's life (assuming that there really ARE men in
Puke's life) are secure, it's because they sleep on their stomachs in
a separate room from her, with the door locked and bolted.
Sill...@famous.com
>Puke's life) are secure, it's because they sleep on their stomachs in
>a separate room from her, with the door locked and bolted.
Heh.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I will assume that
there are men in her life. Where and how they should sleep I'm not
going to get into.
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <sgvi30dsrkb3smh1l...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>Oh, jeez, you're back to that again.
>>
Sure; you claim the bogeyman is coming to get me, dear; I can be ready.
>
>I never said a word about the bogeyman. I never said anything was on>its way
to get you. I never said most of what you are replying to.
I was responding to what you deleted; it's not my fault that you cut the
context.
Clearly you have lost the thread of who said what.
In an ongoing post, with many postors, I respond to anything I like; don't
you?
>'Course, if the bogeyman WERE coming to get you, then the bogeyman>would have
to be real.
Indeed. The idea that the destruction of the twin towers should result in my
being afraid, that train has left the tracks. :-)
We all now know there were no WMDs.
Men who don't have zippers are unlikely to have WMDs and yet little white guys
seem VERY afraid of them. I am not.
I would suggest that any monster that can creep>into your house and hide under
your bed (or in your closet, or in your
clothes hamper) would have no trouble killing you in your sleep.
You are certainly free to engage in your Walter Mitty style daydreams if it
helps you to sleep at night. I don't rely on other men's dreams, tho. That
seems to work for me.
So,>clearly, you would not be ready.
Again, you are free to dream.
Sleep being pretty much the>antithesis of readiness.
Sleep is only a deterrent to protection when those who are sleeping do not
provide other forms of readiness. However, if the thought of my being killed
in my sleep helps YOU sleep, by all means, enjoy yourself.
>>
>>>Locked and loaded. Jeez. You two deserve each other.
>>
>>Not really. You see, I'm really a pacifist who remains armed and my armour
>is>>not within the reach of a younger bitter boy attempting to shoot up his
>>classmates.
>
>?
>
>One, clearly you do not understand what pacifist means.
Yes, I do.
I don't>recommend pacifism, y'unnnerstan, but I would recommend you learn what
>a word means before you use it. Perhaps you meant 'peaceful', or>something
similiar.
No. I believe that one uses a peaceful solution to a problem unless there is
an issue of self defense. For example, going to Iraq to kill the children of
people we don't like or understand is an act of total aggression. If they come
here to attack us, we are entitled to defend ourselves.
>
>Two, unless you have some evidence that friend Connor is planning to>strap on
some rifles and go blow up schoolkids (and if you do have>some evidence wtf are
you wasting time here for when you should be
>talking to the cops?) then references to Columbine are grossly>irrelevant.
>
I think connor is a total nutter. What makes you think I haven't already
reported his posts to the cops? :-) AND, references to the kinds of actions
that lead up to Columbine are almost always relevant.
>Oh, and if you had been in the cafeteria at Columbine facing two>heavily armed
young men who were ready to shoot anything that moved, and who didn't really
care what the consequences were, would you have>had an ANSWER for them?
That would have depended on how close the cafeteria was to my car, and how well
I could have slipped out the door in order to put them out of their misery, I
suppose.
Other than your guts and blood sprayed on the>walls?
>
Here's the thing, sillibilly; I have a grudging admiration for guns; it isn't
guns that kill people, it's FEAR that does the job. Bowling for Columbine may
have been perceived as being anti-gun, but if you look again, it's really about
FEAR. Gun control laws that keep the guns away from criminals are GOOD LAWS.
AND, Michael Moore had a very good point about loaded guns when he tricked
Moses into telling him why he kept a loaded gun in his home. Yes, I know
you're having a hard time understanding me. :-) Perhaps when you consider
that Michael Moore and I are BOTH card carrying members of the NRA you'll start
to understand.
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <n61j30p6hbsf81sa2...@4ax.com>
Hahahaha....you and the bitter boys keep suggesting that the asteroids are
coming.
:-)
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/22/2004 9:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <q02j30hbh1uiie8tq...@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 04:40:19 GMT, Sill...@famous.com wrote:
>
>>On 20 Feb 2004 17:24:37 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If civilization breaks down because men are insecure; that's not
my>problem.>None of the men in MY life are insecure.
>>
>>I hope the men in your life are every bit as secure as you think they>are.
However, if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it>very much
will be your problem.
>
>
>If the men in Puke's life (assuming that there really ARE men in>Puke's life)
are secure, it's because they sleep on their stomachs in>a separate room from
her, with the door locked and bolted.
:-) Only when they snore. :-)
Sill...@famous.com
>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls! II
>>From: Sill...@famous.com
>>Date: 2/22/2004 9:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <n61j30p6hbsf81sa2...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 20 Feb 2004 17:24:37 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If civilization breaks down because men are insecure; that's not my>problem.
>
>>>None of the men in MY life are insecure.
>>
>>I hope the men in your life are every bit as secure as you think they>are.
>However, if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it>very much
>will be your problem.
>
>Hahahaha....you and the bitter boys keep suggesting that the asteroids are
>coming.
I never said a word about asteroids. I never predicted disaster of any
kind. I said if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it
will be very much your problem. The breakdown of civilization, which
you depend on in every facet of your life (assuming you do not live in
a bunker with 10 yrs of food, fuel, and water stashed away) would
leave you just as fucked as everyone else. It was a ridiculous thing
for you to say.
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <ck7l301hck01vtg8a...@4ax.com>
>
>On 23 Feb 2004 15:50:06 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: French stop fundamentalism against girls! II
>>>From: Sill...@famous.com
>>>Date: 2/22/2004 9:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <n61j30p6hbsf81sa2...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On 20 Feb 2004 17:24:37 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
If civilization breaks down because men are insecure; that's not>my>problem.
>>
>>>>None of the men in MY life are insecure.
>>>
>I hope the men in your life are every bit as secure as you think they>are.
>However, if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it>very much
>>will be your problem.
>>
>>Hahahaha....you and the bitter boys keep suggesting that the asteroids are
>>coming.
>
>I never said a word about asteroids.
You may never have used the word, asteroid, but that is what your claim comes
down to, the breakdown of civilization.
I never predicted disaster of any
>kind. I said if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it>will be
very much your problem. The breakdown of civilization, which you depend on in
every facet of your life (assuming you do not live in>a bunker with 10 yrs of
food, fuel, and water stashed away) would>leave you just as fucked as everyone
else. It was a ridiculous thing>for you to say.
>
I'm not a survivalist, or a redneck Mormon with a food bunker. What is
"ridiculous" to say is that civilization is breaking down. You've been
watching too much reality tv.
Sill...@famous.com
> I never predicted disaster of any
>>kind. I said if civilization breaks down, regardless of the cause, it>will be
>very much your problem. The breakdown of civilization, which you depend on in
>every facet of your life (assuming you do not live in>a bunker with 10 yrs of
>food, fuel, and water stashed away) would>leave you just as fucked as everyone
>else. It was a ridiculous thing>for you to say.
>>
>I'm not a survivalist, or a redneck Mormon with a food bunker. What is
>"ridiculous" to say is that civilization is breaking down. You've been
>watching too much reality tv.
I never said it was. You really are very dense. Maybe you're just
dishonest. No, you're both.
And as you have pointedly said that you are neither a survivalist nor
a person with a food bunker, then, clearly, if civilization DID break
down (and I never said it would, only if) then you would be as fucked
as everyone else. Your statement about the breakdown of civilization
not being your problem is ridiculous.
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <1apl30tdthl97cdrq...@4ax.com>
>
>On 24 Feb 2004 01:10:58 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>> I never predicted disaster of any>>kind. I said if civilization breaks down,
regardless of the cause, it>will be
>very much your problem. The breakdown of civilization, which you depend on
in>every facet of your life (assuming you do not live in>a bunker with 10 yrs
>of>food, fuel, and water stashed away) would>leave you just as fucked as
>everyone>else. It was a ridiculous thing>for you to say.
>>>
>>I'm not a survivalist, or a redneck Mormon with a food bunker. What is
>>"ridiculous" to say is that civilization is breaking down. You've been
>watching too much reality tv.
>
>I never said it was.
You implied that it will.
You really are very dense.
You're trying to be a word magician, but, like your puppet master, you fail
utterly.
Maybe you're just>dishonest. No, you're both.
Your puppetmaster has accused the same way, sillybilly.
>And as you have pointedly said that you are neither a survivalist nor>a person
with a food bunker, then, clearly, if civilization DID break>down (and I never
said it would, only if) then you would be as fucked
>as everyone else. Your statement about the breakdown of civilization>not being
your problem is ridiculous.
>
I don't spend much time making problems for myself created out of fear. I
leave that to those who are bowling for columbine.
Sill...@famous.com
>
>>I never said it was.
>
>You implied that it will.
Nope, didn't. You're lying.
> You really are very dense.
>
>You're trying to be a word magician, but, like your puppet master, you fail
>utterly.
Not really sure what you mean by puppet master. Are you implying that
I'm not who I am, that someone else is pretending to be someone he
isn't by pretending to be me? If so, then no. Like Popeye, I yam what
I yam.
Is there an accepted definition of word magician? It sounds like a
compliment. I like the notion of being able to do magic with words.
For now I'll settle for using words correctly (ie, not trying to make
a word mean something it doesn't mean. pacifist, for example) and
striving for consistency in my arguments.
> Maybe you're just>dishonest. No, you're both.
>
>Your puppetmaster has accused the same way, sillybilly.
M'name's not Bill. And if you were to read over previous posts, well,
you'd find lots of people accusing you of lying, but you'd note that
the only one calling you dense and dishonest (in those words) is me.
Not that others wouldn't love to. They've probably been busy, haven't
had the time.
>
>>And as you have pointedly said that you are neither a survivalist nor>a person
>with a food bunker, then, clearly, if civilization DID break>down (and I never
>said it would, only if) then you would be as fucked
>>as everyone else. Your statement about the breakdown of civilization>not being
>your problem is ridiculous.
>I don't spend much time making problems for myself created out of fear.
Well, that's a good thing. Go with that. However, that doesn't address
the point I raised to you, which is, your statement that the breakdown
of civilization not being your problem is ridiculous. If you feel that
the breakdown of civilization is so unlikely that there is nothing to
achieve by speculating on it, that's one thing. Denying that the
breakdown of civilization, whatever the cause, would not be your
problem is (say it with me) ridiculous. You'd be as fucked as everyone
else. Which, I note, you didn't try to deny, you just tried to change
the subject.
Mark Sobolewski
> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >Date: 2/18/04 1:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <f741bce1.0402...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
>
> Mark, you're mistaking celebration for panic. :-)
Yeah, you're praying that banning headscarves in Parisian public
schools is somehow going to scare the Muslims off. :-)
Actually, it did have an interesting effect: Al Quaida has
included France in it's list of target countries. They're
in bed with the U.S. now!
> >Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack
> >a burqa. :-)
>
> I won't need one, Mark. I don't have to go to Siberia to get laid.
Ooooh.
For someone whose uninterested in my personal life, you sure
do seem to love to talk about it often.
I'll remind you again: I had marriage offers here in the states.
I could buy prostitutes here. No problem.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/26/2004 3:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04022...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040220162803...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>> >Date: 2/18/04 1:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <f741bce1.0402...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
>>
>> Mark, you're mistaking celebration for panic. :-)
>
>Yeah, you're praying that banning headscarves in Parisian public
>schools is somehow going to scare the Muslims off. :-)
Not so, Mark; banning head scarves will simply make fundies more aware of the
freedoms enjoyed by those in a free society. It will help integrate folks into
society.
>Actually, it did have an interesting effect: Al Quaida has>included France in
it's list of target countries. They're>in bed with the U.S. now!
Vive le France! :-) Ohh-la-la!
>
Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack>> >a burqa. :-)
>>
>> I won't need one, Mark. I don't have to go to Siberia to get laid.
>
>Ooooh.
>
>For someone whose uninterested in my personal life, you sure>do seem to love
to talk about it often.
Gee, Mark...I wasn't really refering to you.
>>I'll remind you again: I had marriage offers here in the states.>I could buy
prostitutes here. No problem.
>
Again, my statement wasn't directed at you, but if the shoe fits, I suppose you
can wear it. As to your personal stories, you and I have a deal on those. I
don't believe yours; you need not believe mine.
>regards,
>Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >Date: 2/26/2004 3:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <f741bce1.04022...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >news:<20040220162803...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> >> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >> >Date: 2/18/04 1:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <f741bce1.0402...@posting.google.com>
> >> >
> >> >Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
> >>
> >> Mark, you're mistaking celebration for panic. :-)
> >
> >Yeah, you're praying that banning headscarves in Parisian public
> >schools is somehow going to scare the Muslims off. :-)
>
> Not so, Mark; banning head scarves will simply make fundies more aware of the
> freedoms enjoyed by those in a free society. It will help integrate folks into
> society.
Yeah, freedom through banning. :-)
As you must know, this would never occur in the U.S. due to something
known as freedom of religion.
> >Actually, it did have an interesting effect: Al Quaida has>included France in
> it's list of target countries. They're>in bed with the U.S. now!
>
> Vive le France! :-) Ohh-la-la!
>
> >
> Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack>> >a burqa. :-)
> >>
> >> I won't need one, Mark. I don't have to go to Siberia to get laid.
> >
> >Ooooh.
> >
> >For someone whose uninterested in my personal life, you sure>do seem to love
> to talk about it often.
>
> Gee, Mark...I wasn't really refering to you.
>
> >>I'll remind you again: I had marriage offers here in the states.>I could buy
> prostitutes here. No problem.
> >
> Again, my statement wasn't directed at you, but if the shoe fits, I suppose you
> can wear it. As to your personal stories, you and I have a deal on those. I
> don't believe yours; you need not believe mine.
You are free to check up on my stories anytime. No problemo.
You won't, and I don't say this to be mean (really), but you
would have to show your face and you've grown quite old I hear.
Regardless, if you wanted to send a representative I wouldn't
mind receiving them for tea either and allowing them to verify
some of my stories.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 2/27/04 11:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04022...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040226182407...@mb-m28.aol.com>...
>> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>> >Date: 2/26/2004 3:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <f741bce1.04022...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>> >news:<20040220162803...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>> >> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>> >> >Date: 2/18/04 1:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: <f741bce1.0402...@posting.google.com>
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you just hear the panic in Parg's voice? :-)
>> >>
>> >> Mark, you're mistaking celebration for panic. :-)
>> >
>> >Yeah, you're praying that banning headscarves in Parisian public
>> >schools is somehow going to scare the Muslims off. :-)
>>
>> Not so, Mark; banning head scarves will simply make fundies more aware of
>the freedoms enjoyed by those in a free society. It will help integrate
folks
>into society.
>
>Yeah, freedom through banning. :-)
Indeed. :-)
>
>As you must know, this would never occur in the U.S. due to something
>known as freedom of religion.
>
We shall see. BTW, Germany is following suit.
>> >Actually, it did have an interesting effect: Al Quaida has>included France
>in>> it's list of target countries. They're>in bed with the U.S. now!
>>
>> Vive le France! :-) Ohh-la-la!
>>
>> >
>> Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack>> >a burqa. :-)
>> >>
>> >> I won't need one, Mark. I don't have to go to Siberia to get laid.
>> >
>> >Ooooh.
>> >
>> >For someone whose uninterested in my personal life, you sure>do seem to
>love to talk about it often.
>>
>> Gee, Mark...I wasn't really refering to you.
>>
>> ( Edit of Mark's personal info of no interest to me).
>> >
>> Again, my statement wasn't directed at you, but if the shoe fits, I suppose
>you> can wear it. As to your personal stories, you and I have a deal on
those.
>I> don't believe yours; you need not believe mine.
>
>You are free to check up on my stories anytime. No problemo.
>>You won't, and I don't say this to be mean (really), but you
>would have to show your face and you've grown quite old I hear.
>
???? We all keep aging Mark; some of us get long in the tooth and others of
us just get smarter. :-)
>Regardless, if you wanted to send a representative I wouldn't>mind receiving
them for tea either and allowing them to verify>some of my stories.
Mark, I have even less interest in hearing your stories in person than I do
here. :-)
Mark Sobolewski
Fighting evolution. :-) Do you think that banning headscarves in school
is going to stop someone from practicing their culture?
> >> >Actually, it did have an interesting effect: Al Quaida has>included France
> in>> it's list of target countries. They're>in bed with the U.S. now!
> >>
> >> Vive le France! :-) Ohh-la-la!
> >>
> >> >
> Good luck with your retirement. Just be sure to pack>> >a burqa. :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> I won't need one, Mark. I don't have to go to Siberia to get laid.
> >> >
> >> >Ooooh.
> >> >
> >> >For someone whose uninterested in my personal life, you sure>do seem to
> love to talk about it often.
> >>
> >> Gee, Mark...I wasn't really refering to you.
> >>
> >> ( Edit of Mark's personal info of no interest to me).
> >> >
> >> Again, my statement wasn't directed at you, but if the shoe fits, I suppose
> >you> can wear it. As to your personal stories, you and I have a deal on
> those.
> >I> don't believe yours; you need not believe mine.
> >
> >You are free to check up on my stories anytime. No problemo.
> >>You won't, and I don't say this to be mean (really), but you
> >would have to show your face and you've grown quite old I hear.
> >
> ???? We all keep aging Mark; some of us get long in the tooth and others of
> us just get smarter. :-)
Apparently, you're going to have to rethink your retirement plans. :-)
> >Regardless, if you wanted to send a representative I wouldn't>mind receiving
> them for tea either and allowing them to verify>some of my stories.
>
> Mark, I have even less interest in hearing your stories in person than I do
> here. :-)
> >
> >regards,
> >Mark Sobolewski
Or send someone.
Regardless, I'm not hiding. If you choose to argue I'm flinging cow
patties, you don't have much of a case for it.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski