Feminism (was Re: The National Organization for Women Declares War on Fathers (CORRECT URL)
Rich
paul avery wrote:
>
> In my opinion zoe could not be more correct.
Zoe could be correct, if she did not post lies. But
she does post lies.
CA voters voted in Prop 209, which states...
| 1 (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
| treatment to, any individual or
| 2 group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in
| the operation of public
| 3 employment, public education, or public contracting.
Feminism was absolutely opposed to this as it is in direct opposition
to everything feminism stands for. Feminists demand preferences for women
in all walks of life. Feminism in fact opposes every attempt at
equality under the law.
> It makes me proud to see
> people especially young women hold not just fast to the word
> feminist, but push for the equality for all sexes it represents.
Feminist liars and bigots make you proud? Not much more need to
be said about your <ahem> morals.
Rich
<Zoes aggravated lies and distortions deleted>
paul avery
In my opinion zoe could not be more correct. It makes me proud to see
people especially young women hold not just fast to the word
feminist, but push for the equality for all sexes it represents.
On 2 May 1997, zoe wilfong wrote:
> Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark Jebens) wrote:
> >
> >Feminism by its very name is the promotion of women over other groups.
> >Once equality has been achieved or in the areas where women already have
> >the upper hand, the promotion of women is antithetical to equality.
>
> You just don't get it. Feminism may be the promotion of women, but it is
> the promotion of women up to the level of men, NOT ABOVE. From what you
> wrote, I think you, like most men, believe that equality of the sexes,in
> terms of legal rights, social status, etc. has already been acheived, and
> now feminists are trying to go beyond that. Keep dreaming. Woman are
> nowhere near equal status in this society, and that is why feminism
> exists; in fact, men such as yourself ensure that it will continue to
> exist for a good long time.
>
> zoe
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ralph Taite
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970929...@shrike.depaul.edu>,
paul avery <pav...@shrike.depaul.edu> wrote:
>In my opinion zoe could not be more correct. It makes me proud to see
>people especially young women hold not just fast to the word
>feminist, but push for the equality for all sexes it represents.
Feminism is and has always been female chauvinism. Those of us who
lived through the bad old days of the 70's and 80's know that feminists,
when powerful, tend to hatefully oppose free expression under the guise
of promoting equality. Which is why most people understand that liberty
and equality are generally incompatible goals. Let nature decide who rules
human societies, not feminists.
Ralph D. Taite
---
"Remember, Red, hope is a good thing. Maybe the best thing. And a
good thing never dies..."
---from "The Shawshank Redemption"
Rich
amazon wrote:
>
> Rich posts:
>
> > Feminist liars and bigots make you proud? Not much more need to
> > be said about your <ahem> morals.
> >
> > Rich
>
> if your statement above is representational of your store of knowledge
> on the subject.
Funny thing, it's also the sum total knowledge of the feminists in alt.feminism.
Having for years been asking for examples of the so-called 'good feminism'
and finding that almost no feminist has a clue, further, they spend all their
time attacking men, masculinity, the Evil Male Heteropatriarchy [tm], the
so-called 'male privilege' and all manner of feminist myths and dogmas about
men, all the while ignoring everything every man has ever said.
Feminism is what feminists do, say, and advocate, nothing less, nothing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
more, and nothing different. And the NOW homepage is a good place to start,
----------------------------
they make not even the slightest pretense of being non-sexist, they do not
seem to realize that men even exist, much less as living breathing humans,
and everything they do is explicitly sexist (anti-male, pro-female, or both).
> Get an education on feminism and get back to us later.
I have an education about feminism Amazon, which is why I no longer believe
the feminist lies about it.
Give me one example of feminism today fighting for equality rather than
against it Amazon, just one. There are none.
> Amazon
Get an education yourself. Being a feminist bigot does not suffice.
Rich
amazon
Rich posts:
> Feminist liars and bigots make you proud? Not much more need to
> be said about your <ahem> morals.
>
> Rich
You are an ignorant ass to think that you know one IOTA about feminism
if your statement above is representational of your store of knowledge
on the subject.
Get an education on feminism and get back to us later.
Amazon
Max Burke
> Rich <pay...@earthlink.com> wrote in article
<34304CDE...@earthlink.com>...
> paul avery wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion zoe could not be more correct.
>
> she does post lies.
snip....
> > It makes me proud to see
> > people especially young women hold not just fast to the word
> > feminist, but push for the equality for all sexes it represents.
>
> Feminist liars and bigots make you proud? Not much more need to
> be said about your <ahem> morals.
>
> Rich
>
>
> <Zoes aggravated lies and distortions deleted>
>
The last part of Paul's last paragraph say's :
> > but push for the equality for all sexes it represents.
Feminism represents women, right?
He was being sarcastic about Zoe's post, not agreeing with her.
--
M...@ihug.co.nz
Replace MLV with mlvburke to email me
Rich
Ekkk, you are quite right. Mea culpa.
My apologies paul.
Rich
Jack Garbuz
amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Rich posts:
>
>> Feminist liars and bigots make you proud? Not much more need to
>> be said about your <ahem> morals.
>>
>> Rich
>
>
>if your statement above is representational of your store of knowledge
>on the subject.
>
>Get an education on feminism and get back to us later.
>
>Amazon<
Feminism is nothing more than thievery cloaked in a cause. It is a way of
giving women the right to rob men of their children and assets.
It is basically the instinctual desire to enslave males much like the
instinct of the black widow spider to kill her mate, or of the female
praying mantis to cannibalize him. Patriarchy was nothing more than the
institutionalizing of male defense against the feminist onslaught from
ancient times. Without patriarchy, men would have lost their children and
been in chains a long time ago.
Ray Fischer
Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Feminism is nothing more than thievery cloaked in a cause. It is a way of
>giving women the right to rob men of their children and assets.
Reminds me of a slaveowner describing abolitionists.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Rich
Jack Garbuz wrote:
Most divorced men do not either Jack. In fact, 60% of divorced
mothers think that the father has no place in 'their' children's
lives, and they have the power to enforce their beliefs. No
mother violating a visitation order has ever been prosecuted.
Not that you care...
Rich
Steen Goddik
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Rich wrote:
> CA voters voted in Prop 209, which states...
>
> | 1 (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
> | treatment to, any individual or
> | 2 group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in
> | the operation of public
> | 3 employment, public education, or public contracting.
>
> Feminism was absolutely opposed to this as it is in direct opposition
> to everything feminism stands for. Feminists demand preferences for women
> in all walks of life. Feminism in fact opposes every attempt at
> equality under the law.
So we are talking affirmative action good or bad, right?
What is your solution to rectify past inequalities and bring everybody
onto a level palyingfield (poor words we use. It has nothing to do with
playing, so I wonder why a sports metaphor is necessary)
The fact is, that as you get into the less obvious, and more entrenched
differences, it is harder to say: "You can't do that, because it is
blatantly bigoted." Rather, you end up adjusting the very fabric of our
society, and do it based on indirect meassures. Therefore, as individual
discrimination is hard to prove, we look at statistical inferences
instead. These are the ones looking at how many men and women work in
different (very broadly categorised) types of work, how many men and women
live below the powerty level, how many earn minimum wage, how many are on
welfare, etc. Then we pass laws to "fix" it, never mind that it creates
other problems as well.
So we have a choice. Do we leave the world as it is, because it is hard
to make clearcut yes/no decisions, or do we go into the gray areas of
affirmative action, welfare policies, odd conglomerates called divorse
laws, etc.
There are no easy answers, and the more vague the issue, the easier it is
for loudmouths protesting change to be heard, as we frequently read in the
NGs, but just because we cant point to absolutes and specifics, doesn't
mean that there isn't a problem to be fixed.
A great analog is water polution. It was very easy to tell a factory to
fix the pipe running into the lake, but it is a lot harder to say that you
have to use less fertilizer on your lawn, because we can not show your
lawn run-off as flodding out through a pipeline. However, the lake is
still polluted, so society imposes restrictions on your lawn fertilization
and you get mad, because "what does my little bit of fertilizer do to harm
the environment. The lake is a mile away!"
Steen Goddik
sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
"Go birdwatching and take a breath of air"
Jack Garbuz
Pat Winstanley
In article <611jm8$b...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Jack Garbuz
<JGA...@worldnet.att.net> writes
He has more kids than you, and he lives with his kids...
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Pat Winstanley
In article <34345AB1...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
> No
>mother violating a visitation order has ever been prosecuted.
Here they have. As I posted the other day a woman was sent to prison
this week for the *2nd* time this year for refusing the father access to
his child. Perhaps you should look at our laws for a guide as to how it
should be done! :-))
OTOH perhaps not, as you would also have to put up with abortion NOT
being 'on demand', so C4M wouldn't even get its head above water and
men having exactly the same welfare rights as women, while women have
exactly the same CS obligations as men.
You wouldn't have anything left to whine about! :-)
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Rich
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <34345AB1...@earthlink.net>, Rich
> <pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> > No mother violating a visitation order has ever been prosecuted.
>
> Here they have. As I posted the other day a woman was sent to prison
> this week for the *2nd* time this year for refusing the father access to
> his child. Perhaps you should look at our laws for a guide as to how it
> should be done! :-))
OK, I'll amend that statement. And the issue is not how the laws are
written, because the way they are written mothers who violate visitation
orders can and should be prosecuted. The problem is that violations by
mothers are almost never prosecuted, basically someone has to die as
a result of a criminal act by the woman before anything will be done
and there is a still a good chance she will walk if she only killed
her husband or some other non-human and the kids are alive.
> OTOH perhaps not, as you would also have to put up with abortion NOT
> being 'on demand', so C4M wouldn't even get its head above water and
> men having exactly the same welfare rights as women, while women have
> exactly the same CS obligations as men.
>
> You wouldn't have anything left to whine about! :-)
Except the then constant whining of feminists... :^}
Rich
> Pat Winstanley
> "http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Pat Winstanley
In article <3431640A...@earthlink.net>, Rich
<pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> Get an education on feminism and get back to us later.
>
>the feminist lies about it.
>
>Give me one example of feminism today fighting for equality rather than
>against it Amazon, just one. There are none.
Are you talking about NOW officials or women (who look to equality as a
good thing) in general?
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Dennis
>In article <34345AB1...@earthlink.net>, Rich
><pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>> No
>>mother violating a visitation order has ever been prosecuted.
>
>Here they have. As I posted the other day a woman was sent to prison
>this week for the *2nd* time this year for refusing the father access to
>his child. Perhaps you should look at our laws for a guide as to how it
>should be done! :-))
>
>OTOH perhaps not, as you would also have to put up with abortion NOT
>being 'on demand', so C4M wouldn't even get its head above water and
If abortion was NOT "on demand" and not used as just another method of
birth control, like the pill, etc...which from surveys done in this
country is why most abortions are done, than C4M would NOT be
required.
>men having exactly the same welfare rights as women, while women have
No problem there...glad to see that you women are willing to give all
those extra benefits up. Welfare as other than a temporary short term
safety net is not needed.
>exactly the same CS obligations as men.
From what | have read...women in your country are no more held
accountable for CS than women in our country.
Dennis
>
>You wouldn't have anything left to whine about! :-)
>
>Pat Winstanley
>"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Remove antispam .x from email address to send email.
Ray Fischer
Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Feminism is nothing more than thievery cloaked in a cause. It is a way of
>>>giving women the right to rob men of their children and assets.
>>
>>Reminds me of a slaveowner describing abolitionists.
>
>You don't have children, do you?
You don't have any brains, do you?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Jack Garbuz
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Feminism is nothing more than thievery cloaked in a cause. It is a way of
>>>>giving women the right to rob men of their children and assets.
>>>
>>>Reminds me of a slaveowner describing abolitionists.
>>
>>You don't have children, do you?
>
>You don't have any brains, do you?>
Enough brains to understand you don't have children.
Jack Garbuz
>>>You don't have any brains, do you?>
>>
>>Enough brains to understand you don't have children.
>
>children,<
You will be surprised to find out that you don't have any the instant she
decides to take them away from you. Many men on this NG have found
out exactly that. You simply haven't - yet. Consider yourself lucky, for
now.
Pat Winstanley
In article <34382fd3...@snews.zippo.com>, Dennis
<jam...@swbell.net> writes
>On Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:17:00 +0100, Pat Winstanley
><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <34345AB1...@earthlink.net>, Rich
>><pay...@earthlink.net> writes
>>> No
>>>mother violating a visitation order has ever been prosecuted.
>>
>>Here they have. As I posted the other day a woman was sent to prison
>>this week for the *2nd* time this year for refusing the father access to
>>his child. Perhaps you should look at our laws for a guide as to how it
>>should be done! :-))
>>
>>OTOH perhaps not, as you would also have to put up with abortion NOT
>>being 'on demand', so C4M wouldn't even get its head above water and
>
>If abortion was NOT "on demand" and not used as just another method of
>birth control, like the pill, etc...which from surveys done in this
>country is why most abortions are done, than C4M would NOT be
>required.
>
>>men having exactly the same welfare rights as women, while women have
>
>No problem there...glad to see that you women are willing to give all
>those extra benefits up.
I don't think women gave anything up as such, more that the government
recognised that men might well be custodials too!
Overall the benefits and tax system here over the past 10-15 years has
normed up in many respects to recognise that women, even married women,
are individuals rather than under the control of a father or husband,
and similarly that men are now very much an active member of the family
regarding childcare and caring for elderly relatives. I think what
sparked off this big rationalisation was when an enormous number of men
in manufacturing industries lost their permanent jobs due to redundancy
as whole industries closed down. It began to be seen that often the wife
was the breadwinner with the husband being the SAH parent and having a
part time job on the side.
For many years married women were allowed to pay a reduced "stamp"
(National Insurance Contribution) which, while it cost the woman less
than the normal stamp also reduced the benefits she might receive
because of it. That was phased right out so women now have to pay
exactly the same NI as a man in a similar situation.
Another big change that has recently, or is about to imminently come
into effect is the equalisation of 'official' retirement ages for men
and women, which up to now has been 60 for women and 65 for men for
state pension purposes. Now the women's is being upped and the men's
dropped, I think to abut 62 or 63, or perhaps just the woman's upped to
65. Not sure. But either way the women are 'losing' a few years of
pension on this one.
Another recent change is that on divorce women will now be able to take
a share of their husband's private/works pension value (and he a share
of hers if she has one).
> Welfare as other than a temporary short term
>safety net is not needed.
>
>>exactly the same CS obligations as men.
>
>From what | have read...women in your country are no more held
>accountable for CS than women in our country.
They are, but as in the US most main custody goes to the mother so women
paying (or defaulting on) CS isn't happenning so much/often as men doing
so, so doesn't tend to get much publicity.
The CS calculations in this country are entirely gender free - a woman
who has main custody is assessed along with the man, and vice versa.
The biggest CS problem here seems to be a transitional one. Until we had
a national CS agency, most divorce settlements were sorted on a "clean
break" system. So, for instance, the wife as the CP might get the house
and the husband might be deemed, by that, to have paid maintenance in
advance for the minority of the kids, or at least it would reduce the
regular cash maintenance payment considerably. But now if a woman needs
to claim welfare the man is chased by the bureaucrats, not the ex-wife,
for CS and no notice is taken of the lump-sum settlements that happened
BEFORE the CSA started to have authority.
This is one of those things that will iron out in the long run as such
settlements are no longer made now (much), but for those who divorced
about 5+ years ago and still have dependent kids it is a nightmare, and
a very unfair one at that.
I think steps are being taken to account for this unfair anomoly now,
but it has meant hardship for some people in the meantime, caused by the
red tape rather than an awkward ex-spouse.
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Kenneth S.
Since I have some contacts in Britain, I have my own sources
of information on the matters that Pat talks about above. Her
comments represent a somewhat sanitized version of what happens there.
First of all, I am not clear what is meant by the statement
that in Britain child support arrangements are "gender-free." (And,
as someone else pointed out, the very use of the word of the word
"gender" is a feminist invention. Gender is a purely grammatical
term. The correct word for human beings is "sex" and "sexes.") Does
Pat mean by "gender-free" that child support arrangements in Britain
are NOT determined in large measure by the fact that fathers pay child
support, and mothers receive it? If so, I don't think fathers' groups
in Britain would agree at all.
Exactly the same factors affect the situation in Britain as in
the U.S. I don't suppose for an instant that British child support
rules openly recognize that child support almost invariably is
received by mothers. Nor do child support rules in the U.S. But it's
the reality that counts -- not the vocabulary. People can talk all
they will about "custodial parents," not "mothers," and "noncustodial
parents," not "fathers." It makes no difference to the essential
discrimination involved.
As to the slight transitional problem with "clean break"
settlements in Britain, people had better understand what exactly
happened -- since it's an excellent example of the brutality and
stupidity frequently associated with child support arrangements.
In the past, lawyers in Britain frequently advised fathers to
go for "clean break" settlements with their wives in divorces. The
thinking was that, instead of paying money to the wife in dribs and
drabs over a long period of years, the father should make a clean
break. He should pay the wife some substantial lump sum, in return
for the wife not claiming a steady stream of payments from him over
the years. My understanding is that one of the most common ways of
doing this was for the husband to give the wife the family home --
which is a major element in the equation, since house prices,
particularly in the London area, are many multiples higher than even
the most expensive parts of the U.S.
Then along come the new child support arrangements, with
formulas modeled in part upon those used by states in the U.S. The
Child Support Agency went back to men who had been divorced for many
years under "clean break" arrangements, and told them that, regardless
of the agreements they made with their ex-wives at the time, they had
now to pay according to the formula. Many of these men were put in
VERY serious difficulties. For some of these men, the difficulties
will not "iron out in the long run," as Pat puts it. They were so
distraught about harassment from the Child Support Agency that they
committed suicide. Would such things have happened if women were the
sex paying child support? I very much doubt it.
I was in Britain at the time when some of the worst of these
situations were occurring. The one encouraging feature of the
situation was that the press, and some of the politicians, were not
the spineless, pander-to-the-feminist wimps that predominate in the
U.S. Substantial sections of the press attacked the Child Support
Agency, with none of the stupid pretenses about how "the money is
really for the children." Ultimately, the head of the Child Support
Agency had to go elsewhere. My recollection is that, since she was a
civil servant, she wasn't fired.
Ray Fischer
Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>Feminism is nothing more than thievery cloaked in a cause. It is a way of
>>>>>giving women the right to rob men of their children and assets.
>>>>
>>>>Reminds me of a slaveowner describing abolitionists.
>>>
>>>You don't have children, do you?
>>
>>You don't have any brains, do you?>
>
>Enough brains to understand you don't have children.
My wife will be very much surprised to hear that we don't have any
children.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Pat Winstanley
In article <rayEHH...@netcom.com>, Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com>
writes
>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Feminism is nothing more than thievery cloaked in a cause. It is a way of
>>>>giving women the right to rob men of their children and assets.
>>>
>>>Reminds me of a slaveowner describing abolitionists.
>>
>>You don't have children, do you?
>
>You don't have any brains, do you?
>
No he doesn't.
Is Lady three still a 'sleeper'? ;-)
Has Lady two asserted firstborn rights of bossiness yet? :-)
Hope Lady one is coping ok!
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
amazon
Jack the Wacked ponders further:
> You will be surprised to find out that you don't have any the instant she
> decides to take them away from you. Many men on this NG have found
> out exactly that. You simply haven't - yet. Consider yourself lucky, for
> now.
My, my, my - a little bitter, are we?
I think your ex-wife is the one considered lucky. You obviously have
decided to stew in the "she's a bitch so I hate all women" stage of your
divorce.
Too bad. But, then again, it may be best for all the women that aren't
meeting you.
Amazon
Jack Garbuz
Amazon, shouldn't you be going back into the jungle where you belong.
Your gorilla misses you.
amazon
Jack the Wacked continues with his in depth analysis:
>
> Amazon, shouldn't you be going back into the jungle where you belong.
> Your gorilla misses you.
Hate to disappoint you but I spend my time with people who live in THIS
reality and not in some neo-nazi, "Promise Keeping", world where women
serve men.
The ONLY thing you need is 72 hours observation, minimum, and a good
dose of lithium.
Your diatribe is as old as the day the men came home from the war and
their wives turned around and realized that the work they had been doing
at the factories was MORE fulfilling than the life they led back home.
Your fear of competition, being shown that you don't know anything and
learning that you might not be as good as a woman at something more than
cooking and birthing, is REAL apparent.
Go back to your all boys sandbox .... you can play king of the hill till
it all turns to mud.
Amazon
Michael Reedich
amazon wrote:
> Hate to disappoint you but I spend my time with people who live in THIS
> reality and not in some neo-nazi, "Promise Keeping", world where women
> serve men.
Show me where PK ever said the women should serve men?
Why do you lie and misquote like this?
Or don't you understand what leadership is?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ To reply remove the "NOSPAM" from my address ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jack Garbuz
Michael Reedich <reedic...@epix.net> wrote:
>amazon wrote:
>> Hate to disappoint you but I spend my time with people who live in THIS
>> reality and not in some neo-nazi, "Promise Keeping", world where women
>> serve men.
>
>Show me where PK ever said the women should serve men?
>Why do you lie and misquote like this?
>Or don't you understand what leadership is?
>
>
their knees for their sins bit, while women get away with the kitchen
sink. I really don't think this all boils down to men helping around the
house business, though they should I would agree. What it really comes
down is greedy b____s who are quick to jettison the old fart and take it
all when they sense something better might be out there. It's all about
power, greed and sex.
Jack Garbuz
amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jack the Wacked continues with his in depth analysis:
>
>>
>> Amazon, shouldn't you be going back into the jungle where you belong.
>> Your gorilla misses you.
>
>reality and not in some neo-nazi, "Promise Keeping", world where women
>serve men.<
What kinds of lizards and snakes occupy "your reality?"
>The ONLY thing you need is 72 hours observation, minimum, and a good
>dose of lithium.>
What you need is a dose of rat poison.
>Your diatribe is as old as the day the men came home from the war and
>their wives turned around and realized that the work they had been doing
>at the factories was MORE fulfilling than the life they led back home.>
Hey, Rosie the Riveter, too bad you weren't in Stalin's army in WWII.
You could have been in one of his female sniper units shooting his men in
the back. That would be very fulfilling work for you.
>Your fear of competition, being shown that you don't know anything and
>learning that you might not be as good as a woman at something more than
>cooking and birthing, is REAL apparent.>
I can outcook and raise a child better than you. and I don't enslave my
children to do my chores either. And I'm sure I could do any other kind
of work better than you, if they were hiring white males these days over
the age of 50. But by law (and to keep out of the hands of your shysters)
they have to give 'em to bitties, qualified or no.
>Go back to your all boys sandbox .... you can play king of the hill till
>it all turns to mud.>
Go play with your lesbian lovers and give me a break.
_*The Navigator*_
Michael Reedich wrote:
>
> amazon wrote:
> > Hate to disappoint you but I spend my time with people who live in THIS
> > reality and not in some neo-nazi, "Promise Keeping", world where women
> > serve men.
>
> Why do you lie and misquote like this?
> Or don't you understand what leadership is?
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ To reply remove the "NOSPAM" from my address ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hhhhmmmmm.
Something on the order of Taking something...
Ah, this is 1997, we normal couples believe
in co-operation... Key word..
john.
************************************************************
one more time...
if we worked just as hard at caring for one another..
we need'nt concern ourselves with false promise.
amazon
Jack the Wacked moves on with eloquence and flair:
> amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Jack the Wacked continues with his in depth analysis:
> >
> >>
> >> Amazon, shouldn't you be going back into the jungle where you belong.
> >> Your gorilla misses you.
> >
> >Hate to disappoint you but I spend my time with people who live in THIS
> >reality and not in some neo-nazi, "Promise Keeping", world where women
> >serve men.<
>
> What kinds of lizards and snakes occupy "your reality?"
Well, let's see, normal people with everyday concerns etc., etc. No one
you deal
with I am sure. Thank the Higher Power.
> >The ONLY thing you need is 72 hours observation, minimum, and a good
> >dose of lithium.>
>
> What you need is a dose of rat poison.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH, threatening my life? Wow, what a surprise!
I am sure you served your wife up some of that too, in spades.
>
> >Your diatribe is as old as the day the men came home from the war and
> >their wives turned around and realized that the work they had been doing
> >at the factories was MORE fulfilling than the life they led back home.>
>
> Hey, Rosie the Riveter, too bad you weren't in Stalin's army in WWII.
> You could have been in one of his female sniper units shooting his men in
> the back. That would be very fulfilling work for you.
No but 7 of my great uncles and 5 of my great aunts died in the ovens in
Auschwitz.
I am sure you believe that the women deserved it.
>
> >Your fear of competition, being shown that you don't know anything and
> >learning that you might not be as good as a woman at something more than
> >cooking and birthing, is REAL apparent.>
>
> I can outcook and raise a child better than you. and I don't enslave my
> children to do my chores either. And I'm sure I could do any other kind
> of work better than you, if they were hiring white males these days over
> the age of 50. But by law (and to keep out of the hands of your shysters)
> they have to give 'em to bitties, qualified or no.
I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say..... blah, blah, blah.
Grow up.
>
> >Go back to your all boys sandbox .... you can play king of the hill till
> >it all turns to mud.>
>
> Go play with your lesbian lovers and give me a break.
OOOOOH! Is that supposed to be a putdown? Damn, being that I am bisexual
(I know that pisses you off and you will procede to writhe in torment) I
don't find that a bad proposition but due to the fact that I am marrying
my male fiance next may, I don't think he would want me to go running
off with another woman.
Though if that is what your wife did then good for her.
Amazon
Jack Garbuz
>
>Still haven't figured out what it is to be a feminist, hmmmm Pablo?>
To be a feminist is to be a left winger with the new central ideology
that the man is the source of all oppression and therefore it is morally
good to rob and destroy him wherever and whenever possible. Marxism put
the evil capitalist at the center of your woes, but since that obviously
collapsed in abject failure, it had to be replaced by a new victims'
ideology which jsutifies wholesale thievery, and feminism is it. Feminism
is warmed over communism repackaged for the '90's. Just another failed
left wing ideology doomed to ultimate failure but to leave a lot of
misery in its wake first. Same as communism.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6191qa$6...@winter.news.erols.com> "SMotter" <hypoc...@mother.com>
writes:
>
> When 85+ACU- of mothers get sole custody of the children how can you
say>there's equality or a superiority of men over women?
----------
Actually, I heard that 90% of custody was female custody,
but not because of unfair laws, mostly because men walk,
leaving mother holding the baby.
>When men are forced into low paying dangerous jobs causing a higher
>mortality rate and an average difference in life expectancy of 6.5
years how>can you say theres equality?
----------
One cannot attribute consequences related to life style
choices with legal consequences based upon civil or
human rights. That's like comparing apples with bumquats.
:]
---------------
>When there's 20 men in prison for each woman how can you say there's
>equality?
---------
Would you like us to PRETEND that more women commit
violent crimes? There are also more women convicted
of shoplifting crimes, but murder assault is still
more serious. Of course, you don't seem to be sug-
gesting that we should train men to steal cosmetics
so they can maintain equality.
-----------------------------
>When 4 men commit suicide for each woman how can you say ther's
equality?
-----------
That's another area where men are more violent than
women, and they are also breaking the law since suicide
is against the law. Would it make you happy to force
more women to commit suicide? How would you draft that
law?
-----------------------------
>
>Keep your pride and keep your lies. Equality means equality and not
female>superiority.
>
----------
We have our pride; we also have a lower crime rate than
men because we commit less crime. Now, if you were to
ask me, if women are just as capable of crime as men, I
would have to answer "yes".
Lefty
Allan Cybulskie
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<619v6d$9...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <6191qa$6...@winter.news.erols.com> "SMotter" <hypoc...@mother.com>
> writes:
> >
> > When 85+ACU- of mothers get sole custody of the children how can you
> say>there's equality or a superiority of men over women?
>
> ----------
> Actually, I heard that 90% of custody was female custody,
> but not because of unfair laws, mostly because men walk,
> leaving mother holding the baby.
>
Evidence?
>
>
> >When men are forced into low paying dangerous jobs causing a higher
> >mortality rate and an average difference in life expectancy of 6.5
> years how>can you say theres equality?
>
> ----------
> One cannot attribute consequences related to life style
> choices with legal consequences based upon civil or
> human rights. That's like comparing apples with bumquats.
> :]
> ---------------
But you like to equate lower wages and promotional opportunties (often
caused by the life-style choices of women) with human rights for women.
Why wouldn't it also apply here?
>
> >When there's 20 men in prison for each woman how can you say there's
> >equality?
>
> ---------
> Would you like us to PRETEND that more women commit
> violent crimes? There are also more women convicted
> of shoplifting crimes, but murder assault is still
> more serious. Of course, you don't seem to be sug-
> gesting that we should train men to steal cosmetics
> so they can maintain equality.
> -----------------------------
What the gripe is is that even when women commit violent crimes, they don't
receive the same penalty.
>
> >When 4 men commit suicide for each woman how can you say ther's
> equality?
>
> -----------
> That's another area where men are more violent than
> women, and they are also breaking the law since suicide
> is against the law. Would it make you happy to force
> more women to commit suicide? How would you draft that
> law?
> -----------------------------
If men have it so good, why do more of them want to leave the world behind?
Your attitude above is very callous. Since more men commit suicide than
women, the solution is to figure out why and then help men deal with those
problems. I doubt the problem is too much "privilege".
--
Allan Cybulskie
" 'Do you ever feel lonely?' ' Every time I awake'
'Does your heart ever break? ' 'Every time I awake'
'Do you ever feel lonely?' 'Every time I awake'
'Do you think it's a mistake?' 'Every time I awake' "
-- from "Promises" by Frozen Ghost
Paul Robbins
Sunshine wrote:
>
> In article <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> >>
> >>Still haven't figured out what it is to be a feminist, hmmmm Pablo?>
> >
> >To be a feminist is to be a left winger
>
> s on feminism - that implies a plural as in more than one kind of
> feminism. Off hand I can think of amzaon veminism, eco-feminism,
> cultural feminism, liberal feminism, libertarian feminism, Christian
> feminism, spiritual feminism, socialist feminism, separatist feminism,
> radical feminism, and lesbianism. Each group has a different
> ideology-philosophy. Which specific types of feminism are refering to?
>
> Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
> generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
> dustbin of history.
>
There you go, using "feminism" without the "s" attached. I wish you
would make up your mind.
Paul R
Jack Garbuz
suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>In article <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>
>>>
>>>Still haven't figured out what it is to be a feminist, hmmmm Pablo?>
>>
>>To be a feminist is to be a left winger
>
>For starters, feminists use the term feminisms, not feminism. Note the
>s on feminism - that implies a plural as in more than one kind of
>feminism. Off hand I can think of amzaon veminism, eco-feminism,
>cultural feminism, liberal feminism, libertarian feminism, Christian
>feminism, spiritual feminism, socialist feminism, separatist feminism,
>radical feminism, and lesbianism. Each group has a different
>ideology-philosophy. Which specific types of feminism are refering to?<
It's all a babble of bullshit. Patriarchy and capitalism are the only
systmes that can really work. WHat we have now is a patchwork of insanity
which will inevitably self-destruct, like communism. It's only a question
of how much more misery it will sow before it finally does.
>> with the new central ideology
>> that the man is the source of all oppression
>
>I think all feminists agree that absolute power corrupts and absolute
>power corrupts absolutely. And when men are given power over women,
>some men misuse that power.<
Heh, as if women don't.
> Sounds a lot like classical liberal
>political theory, doesn't it. You know, the political theory that
>undermined the absolute European monarchies of the 17-20 centuries.>
There was nothing wrong with monarchy provided it was checked by
parliaments, as is the case in Britain, Sweden and Holland.
>> and therefore it is morally
>> good to rob and destroy him wherever and whenever possible.
>
>Bilge.
>
>> Marxism put the evil capitalist at the center of your woes, >
>Oh, you support laisse faire capitalism, the robber barons of the 19th
>century, and wage earners working for subsistance level wages?>
The concept "robber baron" was invented by "progressives" the forerunners
of what is now called liberalism. The captains of industry created the
great rate of economic growth that made the US the envy of the world, but
a few billionaires were besmirched. They were no angels, but produced
much more good than evil, which is more than can be said of your soviet
alternatives.
>> but since that obviously collapsed in abject failure, it
>> had to be replaced by a new victims' ideology which jsutifies
>> wholesale thievery, and feminism is it.
>
>Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.>
They already have. They have stolen the educational system and too much
more to even list here.
>> Feminism is warmed over communism repackaged for the '90's.
>
>Just how do you manage to turn, say. eco-feminism or Christian feminism
>into marxist feminism? Some feminists are marxists, some marxists are
>feminists, most feminists are not marxists.>
They haven't a clue as to what they are. All they care about is turning
every male in sight into a personal servant.
>> Just another
>> failed left wing ideology doomed to ultimate failure but to leave a
>> lot of misery in its wake first. Same as communism.>>
>
>Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
>generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
>dustbin of history. >
That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight Himself.
The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation of
fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
Christine A. Owens
Jack Garbuz wrote:
>
> It's all a babble of bullshit. Patriarchy and capitalism are the only
> systmes that can really work.
You know, I sure would love to see a substantiated demonstration of
that contention.
> >Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
> >generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
> >dustbin of history. >
>
> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
> societies run amok,
This one too.
> but were ultimately dealt with the Almight Himself.
Assuming you believe the Bible, literally, which most of the world does
not.
Chris Owens
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Jack Garbuz
<JGA...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
(edit)
>That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
>societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
Himself.
-----------
Thanks Jack; I was under the mistaken impression that
Sodom and Gommorrah were twin theaters where men went
to watch lesbians perform sex acts. I just figured
they went out of business.
Lefty
Jean Coyle
Jack Garbuz wrote:
>
> >
> >> >The ONLY thing you need is 72 hours observation, minimum, and a good> >> >dose of lithium.>
> >>
> >> What you need is a dose of rat poison.
> >
> >OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH, threatening my life? Wow, what a surprise!
> >
> >I am sure you served your wife up some of that too, in spades.>
>
> guarded by lunatic Freudian, lesbian social workers.
Hi Jack how ya doing ?
umm.. as far as "stalinist Socialist camps"(AKA psychiatric hospitals)
we're no longer into Freud, long term psychotherapy costs big
bucks, your insurance company won't pay. Everything now is biologically
and behaviorally based ie: we give you scripts for various and tell you
what time Dr Laura's show airs in your region ;- D
As far as "lesbian social workers" go you're behind the times. We
don't use them anymore,they cost too much. they've been replaced by
foreign born "mental health workers" $8 an hour, they generally spend
their shifts hidden in the linen closet, sleeping, drinking, making
unauthorized long distance calls home, and avoiding charge nurses
who might ask them to perform patient care.The sight of anything
remotely resembling a patient who might wish to actually talk to them.
results in a case of the vapors requiring at least 3 days on sick leave.
> >> >Your diatribe is as old as the day the men came home from the war and> >> >their wives turned around and realized that the work they had been doing> >> >at the factories was MORE fulfilling than the life they led back home.>
> >> Hey, Rosie the Riveter, too bad you weren't in Stalin's army in WWII.> >> You could have been in one of his female sniper units shooting his men in> >> the back. That would be very fulfilling work for you.
> >No but 7 of my great uncles and 5 of my great aunts died in the ovens in> >Auschwitz.>
>
> So? I was born in a GErman DP camp, and most of my family was killed by> Nazis. What of it? Lots of Ukrainians were also starved to death by
> commies like you in the 1930's. What of it?
that sucks Jack and I'm sorry...I don't know what else to say.
> >I am sure you believe that the women deserved it.>
>
> My family didn't. The commie Reds did.
>
> >> >Your fear of competition, being shown that you don't know anything and learning that you might not be as good as a woman at something more than cooking and birthing, is REAL apparent.>
>
> >> I can outcook and raise a child better than you. and I don't enslave my children to do my chores either.
What,in your opinion is your best dish Jack ? I cook just fairly
but really shine at baking. My breads and pies go FAST here and
at school bake sales. Have you ever taken cooking classes, I'm
thinking of taking a pastry course myself.
Also,surely you'll agree that there's a difference between overly
parentifying a child in regards to household duties, and in expecting a
child to learn by doing things they'll need to sustain them as adults.
And I'm sure I could do any other kind of work better than you, if they
were hiring white males these days over the age of 50. But by law (and
to keep out of the hands of your shysters) they have to give 'em to
bitties, qualified or no.>
too bad you don't live near me... my employer is finding that the $8
an hour "mental health workers" aren't the bargain they'd thought
they'd be , we're quite short handed here and being older is considered
a plus.
Seriously Jack, how are you, haven't see you around in a bit ?
Jean
Sunshine
In article <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>>
>>Still haven't figured out what it is to be a feminist, hmmmm Pablo?>
>
>To be a feminist is to be a left winger
For starters, feminists use the term feminisms, not feminism. Note the
s on feminism - that implies a plural as in more than one kind of
feminism. Off hand I can think of amzaon veminism, eco-feminism,
cultural feminism, liberal feminism, libertarian feminism, Christian
feminism, spiritual feminism, socialist feminism, separatist feminism,
radical feminism, and lesbianism. Each group has a different
ideology-philosophy. Which specific types of feminism are refering to?
> with the new central ideology
> that the man is the source of all oppression
I think all feminists agree that absolute power corrupts and absolute
power corrupts absolutely. And when men are given power over women,
some men misuse that power. Sounds a lot like classical liberal
political theory, doesn't it. You know, the political theory that
undermined the absolute European monarchies of the 17-20 centuries.
> and therefore it is morally
> good to rob and destroy him wherever and whenever possible.
Bilge.
> Marxism put the evil capitalist at the center of your woes,
Oh, you support laisse faire capitalism, the robber barons of the 19th
century, and wage earners working for subsistance level wages?
> but since that obviously collapsed in abject failure, it
> had to be replaced by a new victims' ideology which jsutifies
> wholesale thievery, and feminism is it.
Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.
> Feminism is warmed over communism repackaged for the '90's.
Just how do you manage to turn, say. eco-feminism or Christian feminism
into marxist feminism? Some feminists are marxists, some marxists are
feminists, most feminists are not marxists.
> Just another
> failed left wing ideology doomed to ultimate failure but to leave a
> lot of misery in its wake first. Same as communism.
>
Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
dustbin of history.
Sunshine
--
Sunshine for Women (and Men Who Love Women)
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html
remove antispam. from e-mail address to reply or
just enter suns...@pinn.net
Jack Garbuz
>> You threatened to put me into one of your Stalinist Socialist camps
>> guarded by lunatic Freudian, lesbian social workers.
>
>Hi Jack how ya doing ?
>
>umm.. as far as "stalinist Socialist camps"(AKA psychiatric hospitals)
>we're no longer into Freud, long term psychotherapy costs big
>bucks, your insurance company won't pay. Everything now is biologically
>and behaviorally based ie: we give you scripts for various and tell you
>what time Dr Laura's show airs in your region ;- D>
She's pulling down a nice buck, isn't she? Some of the stuff she dishes
out makes sense; most of it is hooey.
>As far as "lesbian social workers" go you're behind the times. We
>don't use them anymore,they cost too much. they've been replaced by
>foreign born "mental health workers" $8 an hour, they generally spend
>their shifts hidden in the linen closet, sleeping, drinking, making
>unauthorized long distance calls home, and avoiding charge nurses
>who might ask them to perform patient care.<
Keep the immigrants coming. I think there are about 2 billion waiting to
get in. That should keep wages competitive with the Chinese for the next
200 years at least :)
>The sight of anything
>remotely resembling a patient who might wish to actually talk to them.
>results in a case of the vapors requiring at least 3 days on sick leave. >
Can hardly blame 'em. Better to talk to the walls; it's cheaper and about
as helpful.
>> >> >Your fear of competition, being shown that you don't know anything and learning that you might not be as good as a woman at s=
omething more than cooking and birthing, is REAL apparent.>
>>
>> >> I can outcook and raise a child better than you. and I don't enslave my children to do my chores either.
>
>What,in your opinion is your best dish Jack ? I cook just fairly
>but really shine at baking. My breads and pies go FAST here and
>at school bake sales. Have you ever taken cooking classes, I'm
>thinking of taking a pastry course myself.>
I've been on the Atkins diet (low carbohydrate; high on proteins and fat)
and have lost over 20 pounds, so pastries are off my menu completely.
>Also,surely you'll agree that there's a difference between overly
>parentifying a child in regards to household duties, and in expecting a
>child to learn by doing things they'll need to sustain them as adults.>
I agree, but I think children need a little pampering, albeit not
spoiling. The way these single mother taskmasters yoke these kids is
frightening. Few fathers would be that brutal.
> And I'm sure I could do any other kind of work better than you, if they
>were hiring white males these days over the age of 50. But by law (and
>to keep out of the hands of your shysters) they have to give 'em to
>bitties, qualified or no.>>
>too bad you don't live near me... my employer is finding that the $8
>an hour "mental health workers" aren't the bargain they'd thought
>they'd be , we're quite short handed here and being older is considered
>a plus.>
The thing that restores "mental health" is a little dignity, work and
minimal respect. The social service industry only fosters dependence and
a condescending attitude towards the dejected and despondent. They do not
help at all. Quite the opposite; they need patients to keep their little
bureaucracies funded.
>Seriously Jack, how are you, haven't see you around in a bit ?>
Still around. Thanks. Be well.
Steen Goddik
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Michael Reedich wrote:
> Show me where PK ever said the women should serve men?
> Why do you lie and misquote like this?
> Or don't you understand what leadership is?
Back to that again?? I am getting tired of posting this: According to one
of the top PK leaders, men are supposed to go home and "free" their spouse
of the terible burden having to make decisions in the household, while
excusing to the spouse that he ever let it slide so far that he did not
make the decisions.
You can call that leadership, but I call it supression and a powergarb,
albeit cloaked in "niceness" (he is not going home and beating up the
wife in order to bring her into submission. At least I hope he wont.).
PKs have not been pushing that women should SERVE men, but they HAVE
pushed women be subservient to men, and men taking charge over women's
lives. No lies and misquotes here. Sorry to disapoint you, but you are
mistaken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steen Goddik
sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
"Go birdwatching and take a breath of air"
Max Burke
> Sunshine <suns...@antispam.pinn.net> wrote in article
<619ls2$6...@netaxs.com>...
> s on feminism - that implies a plural as in more than one kind of
> feminism. Off hand I can think of amzaon veminism, eco-feminism,
> cultural feminism, liberal feminism, libertarian feminism, Christian
> feminism, spiritual feminism, socialist feminism, separatist feminism,
> radical feminism, and lesbianism. Each group has a different
> ideology-philosophy. Which specific types of feminism are refering to?
And the basis of all the ideology-philosophy behind these fragmented
feminist groups is? That white middle/upper class males are to blame
for everything that has gone wrong on 'mother earth' simply because
they are white middle/upper class males.
>
> > with the new central ideology
> > that the man is the source of all oppression
>
> I think all feminists agree that absolute power corrupts and absolute
> power corrupts absolutely.
Well, we better not let the women have any power then had we, then
we'd really be up s*** creek without a paddle.
> And when men are given power over women, some men misuse that
> power. Sounds a lot like classical liberal political theory, doesn't it.
Not really, sounds more like the FemSpeak myth that all women are
victims of men simply because they are women.
snip.....
>
> Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.
No, feminist's want it ALL, handed to them on plate, with no questions
asked.
snip...
>
> Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
> generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
> dustbin of history.
>
> Sunshine
Yes, well, you carry on believing that, it doesn't matter that
feminist's are to blind to see that the rest of the world is very rapidly
waking up to the 'agenda's' of groups like 'NOW' and other radical
feminist groups, and telling them their warped victimisation philosophy is
not acceptable to society.
California is right wing? Oh, so that's why they voted in proposition 209.
Note : News groups trimmed
--
M...@ihug.co.nz
Replace MLV with mlvburke to email me
Leo Mauler
Jack Garbuz wrote:
>
> suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
> >In article <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> >JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>To be a feminist is to be a left winger
> >
> >s on feminism - that implies a plural as in more than one kind of
> >feminism. Off hand I can think of amzaon veminism, eco-feminism,
> >cultural feminism, liberal feminism, libertarian feminism, Christian
> >feminism, spiritual feminism, socialist feminism, separatist feminism,
> >radical feminism, and lesbianism. Each group has a different
> >ideology-philosophy. Which specific types of feminism are refering to?<
>
> which will inevitably self-destruct, like communism. It's only a question
> of how much more misery it will sow before it finally does.
Patriarchy is a system based on forcing women into subservient roles.
Banning half your population from reproducing the memes only means you
won't see them evolving, and will only see patriarchy stagnating.
Capitalism only works with a steady influx of new workers to screw.
Nationalists are working day and night to ensure that this will never
happen again, especially not with influxes of Hispanic workers from
Mexico. Don't see capitalism lasting very long, seeing as it depends on
a resource which needs to come in from outside the country, a system
based entirely on importing workers from other countries.
[snip!]
> > Sounds a lot like classical liberal
> >political theory, doesn't it. You know, the political theory that
> >undermined the absolute European monarchies of the 17-20 centuries.>
>
> There was nothing wrong with monarchy provided it was checked by
> parliaments, as is the case in Britain, Sweden and Holland.
Excepting of course the lack of the masses having any particular control
over the system of government. Parliaments which are formed by
monarchies typically have two branches of Monarchy, The Royalty and the
House Of Lords, and only one branch of Commoner, the House Of Commons.
Only recently did Prime Minister Tony Blair end the right of heritage to
be a member of the House Of Lords.
Not precisely the same as our democracy, where prior to the current
campaign finance problems caused entirely by capitalism, there were two
House Of Commons a Commoner President, and only one branch anywhere near
the concept of life-rule royalty, the Supreme Court.
Of course, thanks to capitalism, we are returning to feudalism, which of
course is always going to be the end result of capitalism: as more and
more wealth is located in only 10% of people, more and more of the 90%
are practically owned by those who have the wealth.
Hierarchical corporations are rather like the feudalistic systems of
government employed in England and in other monarchies in medevial
times, and they resemble feudalism more and more every day. Think
"lawyers" instead of "armies" or "knights"; "assistant managers",
"assistant directors", and "CEOs" instead of "lords", "barons" and
"dukes"; "the power of money in politics" instead of "the order of
succession"; and you have a pretty clear picture of how capitalism is
gradually turning into feudalism.
> >> and therefore it is morally
> >> good to rob and destroy him wherever and whenever possible.
> >
> >Bilge.
> >
> >> Marxism put the evil capitalist at the center of your woes, >
>
> >Oh, you support laisse faire capitalism, the robber barons of the 19th
> >century, and wage earners working for subsistance level wages?>
>
> The concept "robber baron" was invented by "progressives" the forerunners
> of what is now called liberalism. The captains of industry created the
> great rate of economic growth that made the US the envy of the world, but
> a few billionaires were besmirched. They were no angels, but produced
> much more good than evil, which is more than can be said of your soviet
> alternatives.
You are again forgetting that the "robber barons" gained their immense
wealth through massive influxes of immigrant workers continually
replacing the workers who were already hear and beginning to get the
idea that unions weren't such a bad thing after all.
The concept of "producing more good than evil" is a relative concept,
since it can be argued that Hitler did more for erasing antisemitism
worldwide than any other person in history (after his lost war and
death, of course) but the individuals who died in Auschwitz would not
agree that Hitler did more harm than good. The workers who died with
inadequate safety regulations, were underpaid and overworked, and who
were routinely treated like slaves in everything but name, would not
agree that the "robber barons" produced "much more good than evil".
Capitalism requires massive influxes of naive and ignorant immigrant
workers in order to produce the massive profits for the robber barons at
the top. We will not see the likes of the 19th and 20th Century economic
growth again, thankfully, since there is no further underclass to screw
in order to achieve such economic growth, again.
Unless of course the education system is removed from America, see
below.
> >> but since that obviously collapsed in abject failure, it
> >> had to be replaced by a new victims' ideology which jsutifies
> >> wholesale thievery, and feminism is it.
> >
> >Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.>
>
> They already have. They have stolen the educational system and too much
> more to even list here.
The education system is liberal to begin with! Only liberals actually
feel that an educated populace is a good thing for America.
Conservatives would rather entire generations of lower class people grew
up uneducated, so that they could have new armies of ignorant workers to
screw in order to repeat the profits of the early 19th and 20th
centuries.
[snip!]
> >> Just another
> >> failed left wing ideology doomed to ultimate failure but to leave a
> >> lot of misery in its wake first. Same as communism.>>
> >
> >Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
> >generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
> >dustbin of history. >
>
> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight Himself.
> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation of
> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
and Gomorrah. We can all see quite clearly with which gender your
sympathies lie, and how easily you overlook the evil of a type of
person--such as the robber barons or the followers of Jehovah--because
you feel that they did some kind of overall good.
--
Never do this at home. Look how it killed this .sig
_/\ __/\ __/\ ______________________________________________
\/ \/ \/ gi...@tfs.net.xx (remove xx to E-mail me)
DISCLAIMER: Everything I say is false, including this sentence.
[How Am I Posting? If you think this post is spam, E-mail me.]
Leo Mauler
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <6191qa$6...@winter.news.erols.com> "SMotter" <hypoc...@mother.com>
> writes:
> >
> > When 85+ACU- of mothers get sole custody of the children how can you
> say>there's equality or a superiority of men over women?
>
> ----------
> Actually, I heard that 90% of custody was female custody,
> but not because of unfair laws, mostly because men walk,
> leaving mother holding the baby.
Interesting. Irresponsible men want to change the child support laws
based on statistics caused by the actions of irresponsible men?
> >When men are forced into low paying dangerous jobs causing a higher
> >mortality rate and an average difference in life expectancy of 6.5
> years how>can you say theres equality?
>
> ----------
> One cannot attribute consequences related to life style
> choices with legal consequences based upon civil or
> human rights. That's like comparing apples with bumquats.
> :]
> ---------------
Thanks to liberal government regulations on job safety, the length of
the work week, and the minimum wage, there is NO WAY a man will ever
have to work a job which has the mortality rate of continuing a
pregnancy to term, no will he ever have to work a job as demanding as
taking care of children!
> >When there's 20 men in prison for each woman how can you say there's
> >equality?
>
> ---------
> Would you like us to PRETEND that more women commit
> violent crimes? There are also more women convicted
> of shoplifting crimes, but murder assault is still
> more serious. Of course, you don't seem to be sug-
> gesting that we should train men to steal cosmetics
> so they can maintain equality.
> -----------------------------
Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend to
skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement "there's
20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but women
commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all balances
out.
Mark Jebens
In article <619v6d$9...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> In <6191qa$6...@winter.news.erols.com> "SMotter" <hypoc...@mother.com>
> writes:
> >
> > When 85+ACU- of mothers get sole custody of the children how can you
> say>there's equality or a superiority of men over women?
>
> ----------
> Actually, I heard that 90% of custody was female custody,
> but not because of unfair laws, mostly because men walk,
> leaving mother holding the baby.
You heard wrong.
Approx. 50% of kids grow up without a biological parent in their home.
Unmarried births account for about 1/3rd of all births. As we all know,
it is almost impossible for an unwed father to get custody. So right
there, 66* of custody goes to mothers because of the mother's actions.
Even if you then take into account married families, women leave men
at a rate of 2 or 3 to one man leaving the woman, then you would be
wrong again.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com - to reply, remove the X from the user name
"I am happy and content because I think I am." Alain-Rene Lesage
Christine A. Owens
Rich wrote:
> No
> mother violating a visitation order has ever been prosecuted.
Violation of a court order is a matter for a contempt of court
hearing, not a prosecution. And, it does happen that women are found
in contempt of court on this issue; albeit rarely [which is wrong, ANY
parent violating a visitation order should be found in contempt of
court].
Chris Owens
Charlie Kester
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:35:34 -0500, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
>> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
>> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight Himself.
>> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation of
>> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
>
>Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
>instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
>and Gomorrah.
If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot to
turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
In Lot's mind, the impiety of allowing God's messengers to be violated
was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
oppression:
>We can all see quite clearly with which gender your
>sympathies lie, and how easily you overlook the evil of a type of
>person--such as the robber barons or the followers of Jehovah--because
>you feel that they did some kind of overall good.
The followers of Jehovah (i.e., Jews) are now to lumped together with
robber barons? Do I detect a hint of anti-semitism here?
charlie
Laura Akers
6D...@epix.net> <61929u$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
<343835...@mindspring.com> <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
<619ls2$6...@netaxs.com> <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <343C26...@tfs.net> <343de172...@news.nwlink.com>:
Distribution:
Charlie Kester (cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com) wrote:
: On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:35:34 -0500, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
:
: >> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
: >> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight Himself.
: >> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation of
: >> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
: >
: >Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
: >instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
: >and Gomorrah.
:
: If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot to
: turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
: They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
The point is, he put his daughters in harm's way. And according to the
Bible, Lot was a righteous man.
:
: In Lot's mind, the impiety of allowing God's messengers to be violated
: was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
So? He had the right to offer *himself*, not *them*. It's very telling
that those who are pro-life tend to base their beliefs on supposedly
Biblical standards.
Lot offered up his virgins daughters to rape and torture in order to
assuage his personal morality.
Pro-lifers offer up the bodies of pregnant women to the pain and trauma of
pregnancies in order to assuage their own private moralities.
:
: It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
: Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
: angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
: oppression:
How does the fact that they are angels change anything? How is it not
oppression? Lot had the power of life of life and death of his daughters
and offered *their* bodies to an angry mob to protect two men that he
didn't know--and who, according to the Bible, he may not have recognized
as angels to begin with. After all, if they were angels, they could have
protected themselves--which, in fact, they did.
How is this not gender inequity of an almost murderous sort?
Laura
DLP
Laura Akers <ez07...@catbert.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article
<61iufd$pks$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> 6D...@epix.net> <61929u$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
> <343835...@mindspring.com> <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
> <619ls2$6...@netaxs.com> <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
<343C26...@tfs.net> <343de172...@news.nwlink.com>:
> Distribution:
>
>
> Charlie Kester (cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com) wrote:
> : On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:35:34 -0500, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
> :
> : >> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
> : >> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
Himself.
> : >> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation
of
> : >> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
> : >
> : >Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
> : >instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
> : >and Gomorrah.
> :
> : If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot to
> : turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
> : They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
>
> The point is, he put his daughters in harm's way. And according to the
> Bible, Lot was a righteous man.
Lot could reasonably be assured that no harm would come to his daughters,
God's angels were right there. And he did not offer himself because it is
unlikely that that would have calmed the crowd down. He offered an
alternative that the crowd would have expected, but I think Lot knew the
crowd would not be able to harm his daughters. It served its purpose, it
kept them at bay. Since God's angels were right there, his daughters were
not in harm's way.
> :
> : In Lot's mind, the impiety of allowing God's messengers to be violated
> : was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
>
> So? He had the right to offer *himself*, not *them*. It's very telling
> that those who are pro-life tend to base their beliefs on supposedly
> Biblical standards.
If he had offered *himself*, not *them*, the crowd logically would have
refused the offer and pressed harder. What kind of substitute is one crusty
old man for 2 handsome, perfect messengers of God? On the other hand, 2
beautiful women is a viable alternative for the crowd, and it succeeded in
calming them down, since we know the crowd did not try to storm the house.
Lot did not believe his daughters would be raped right there because the
angels were there. Lot also probably knew that if he allowed the angels to
be taken, they would not be harmed, as they would save themselves. Were not
the angels promising to save him? Then couldn't they also save his
daughters? And, if you own a copy of the Bible, you would know that they
DID in fact, save his daughters.
> Lot offered up his virgins daughters to rape and torture in order to
> assuage his personal morality.
Oh, I missed where his daughters were raped and tortured! Could that be
because they weren't? And why weren't they? Because the angels saved them!
But would have the angels have saved them from a worse fate, that of dying
with the rest of Sodom and Gomorrah, if Lot had offered up the angels
themselves? For if Lot had offered up himself, he would have been rejected,
and he would have had to end up offering the angels, for there would be no
one left but his wife and his daughters. And you have already said his
daughters couldn't be offered up. Being a feminist, I KNOW you would
disagree with him offering his wife. That leaves the angels.
No, I like Lot's strategy a whole lot better than yours. He was able to
stall for time, until God stepped in and physically prevented the crowd
from harming his family. The only way to stall for time was to give the
crowd a hope of receiving something they wanted, if not the two men
(angels), then two beautiful women.
> Pro-lifers offer up the bodies of pregnant women to the pain and trauma
of
> pregnancies in order to assuage their own private moralities.
WAIT A MINUTE!!! You would advocate women brutally murdering their
children, but if its a man who offers his children to be raped and probably
murdered, then that's wrong, even if he knew nothing would happen.
Hypocrite! Typical feminist double-standard.
> :
> : It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
> : Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
> : angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
> : oppression:
>
> How does the fact that they are angels change anything? How is it not
> oppression? Lot had the power of life of life and death of his daughters
> and offered *their* bodies to an angry mob to protect two men that he
> didn't know--and who, according to the Bible, he may not have recognized
> as angels to begin with. After all, if they were angels, they could have
> protected themselves--which, in fact, they did.
THE FACT THAT THERE WERE ANGELS PRESENT PROMISING SALVATION CHANGES
EVERYTHING.
If they were angels, they could have protected themselves, but would they
have protected Lot when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? No, why would
they, after he had offered them up? If Lot had the power of life and death
over his daughters and he offered them up, WHY DIDN'T ANYTHING HAPPEN TO
THEM? If Lot had such power, surely, after his deciding to offer them up,
they should have been raped, right? Well, why weren't they? Because someone
had a greater power, and physically incapacitated the crowd. Its a good
thing Lot had faith in that person and not someone else, like himself, else
his daughters and the rest of his family would have perished. The angels
saved his daughters, no harm done, stop bitching about it.
> How is this not gender inequity of an almost murderous sort?
Talk about gender inequity!!!! Women can murder their children but men
can't. Why can't men do it?
>
> Laura
>
DLP
--
NuYou Health and Nutrition Services -- Lose Weight Quick and Keep it off!
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/debtcon/nuyou.html
Ray Fischer
Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net.xx> wrote:
>Thanks to liberal government regulations on job safety, the length of
>the work week, and the minimum wage, there is NO WAY a man will ever
>have to work a job which has the mortality rate of continuing a
>pregnancy to term, no will he ever have to work a job as demanding as
>taking care of children!
Wrong on both counts. Men already work at jobs that are nmore
dangerous than childbirth and at jobs that are at least as demanding
as taking care of a child. And these are typically jobs that are
dominated by men, with few women being willing to take jobs that are
hazardous and not particularly well paying.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Charlie Kester
Laura Akers wrote in message <61iufd$pks$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>6D...@epix.net> <61929u$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
><343835...@mindspring.com> <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
><619ls2$6...@netaxs.com> <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
<343C26...@tfs.net> <343de172...@news.nwlink.com>:
>Distribution:
>
>
>Charlie Kester (cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com) wrote:
>: On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:35:34 -0500, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
>:
>: >> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
>: >> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
Himself.
>: >> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation
of
>: >> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
>: >
>: >Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
>: >instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
>: >and Gomorrah.
>:
>: If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot to
>: turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
>: They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
>
>The point is, he put his daughters in harm's way. And according to the
>Bible, Lot was a righteous man.
Yes, and that's why the following statement is true:
>: In Lot's mind, the impiety of allowing God's messengers to be violated
>: was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
>
>So? He had the right to offer *himself*, not *them*. It's very telling
>that those who are pro-life tend to base their beliefs on supposedly
>Biblical standards.
>
>Lot offered up his virgins daughters to rape and torture in order to
>assuage his personal morality.
>
>Pro-lifers offer up the bodies of pregnant women to the pain and trauma of
>pregnancies in order to assuage their own private moralities.
Clearly, you don't get it, because you're still looking at this from a
secular viewpoint.
"To assuage his personal morality"?!? That's a very 20th Century way of
looking
at it. There is no "personal morality" in the Bible; there's only one
morality
and it's God's Law. The people in the Bible either respect that Law or they
don't, and
those who don't are unhesitatingly condemned.
But even by today's relativistic standards, you have to take the story on
its own terms:
in the story those angels were *real*, and showing respect for the sacred
was serious stuff.
The moral point of the episode is actually somewhat similar to the one
in the story about Abraham and Isaac: the love for God takes precedence
over everything else, including our love for own children.
By assuming that Lot had no love for his daughters, you rob the story
of its meaning. You would make those daughters more important than
God or his angels, and that's precisely what the story denies.
>: It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
>: Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
>: angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
>: oppression:
>
>How does the fact that they are angels change anything? How is it not
>oppression? Lot had the power of life of life and death of his daughters
>and offered *their* bodies to an angry mob to protect two men that he
>didn't know--and who, according to the Bible, he may not have recognized
>as angels to begin with. After all, if they were angels, they could have
>protected themselves--which, in fact, they did.
Whether they could have protected themselves is irrelevant.
God could certainly have taken Isaac by himself, but that wouldn't
have demonstrated anything about Abraham's faith.
>How is this not gender inequity of an almost murderous sort?
It is not about gender inequity at all. It's only your feminist revisionism
that makes it seem so. You're reading things into the story that simply
aren't there, and in the process you're missing the whole point. You've
read the angels (and God) out of the story just as surely as the original
poster did.
Not surprising, however.
Some feminists seem to worship "Woman" above all else.
charlie
DLP
Charlie Kester <cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com> wrote in article
<343de172...@news.nwlink.com>...
> >> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
Himself.
> >> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation
of
> >> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
> >
> >Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
> >instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
> >and Gomorrah.
>
> turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
> They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
>
> was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
As a side note on this interesting discussion, I'd argue that Lot could be
reasonably sure the angels would protect his daughters regardless, just
like the angels would definitely have protected themselves. Were his
daughters raped? No, so the fact that he offered them instead of the angels
had no bearing on what happened to them. If, however, Lot had offered the
angels up to be raped, after the angels had saved themselves, they would
probably not have saved Lot.
> It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
> Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
> angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
> oppression:
I agree. By ommitting the angels it appears as if Lot expected his
daughters to be violated when he offered them up. I do not think Lot
thought that would happen at all, and it didn't.
> >We can all see quite clearly with which gender your
> >sympathies lie, and how easily you overlook the evil of a type of
> >person--such as the robber barons or the followers of Jehovah--because
> >you feel that they did some kind of overall good.
>
> The followers of Jehovah (i.e., Jews) are now to lumped together with
> robber barons? Do I detect a hint of anti-semitism here?
"The evil of a type of person such as...the followers of Jehovah". That's
more than a hint of anti-semitism.
> charlie
Gerard S. Harbison
Leo Mauler wrote:
[long Marxist tirade deleted. It's been done before, and far better, and
even then it wasn't very good]
Hey Leo, if Capitalism requires a steady influx of foreign workers,
explain its success in Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK in the 19th century,
the current growth of the high-tech sector, etc.
Marxists have absolutely no connection to the Universe as we know it.
Maybe that's why when you scratch a feminist you usually find a
socialist.
Jack Garbuz
cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com (Charlie Kester) wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:35:34 -0500, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net> wrote:
>
>>> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight Himself.
>>> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation of
>>> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
>>
>>Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
>>instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
>>and Gomorrah.
>
>If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot to
>turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
>They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!<
The two "messengers" were not known to be angels by Lot. He offered his
daughters in place of the two messengers to spare them from being
sodomized. They blinded the mob and lead Lot and his family out. The
towns were then devastated with what might have been the equivalent of a
nuclear blast judging by the description in the text, of smoke rising up
to the heavens.
But the point I was trying to make was, that we may well ultimately reach
the time when there will be no more good people left to stand against
this satanic femiNazi onslaught, and then there will be no choice but
direct intevention from the ALmighty himself. They have very effectively
neutralized or taken over key social institutions, and are working
very hard to take control within the armed forces, driving as many
non-cuckolded officers out as they can.
However, i found the rest of your post regarding "robber barons", et al,
a bit confused and hard to respond to.
Jack Garbuz
>> In Lot's mind, the impiety of allowing God's messengers to be violated
>> was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
>
>As a side note on this interesting discussion, I'd argue that Lot could be
>reasonably sure the angels would protect his daughters regardless, just
>like the angels would definitely have protected themselves. Were his
>daughters raped? No, so the fact that he offered them instead of the angels
>had no bearing on what happened to them.<
If you are interested you should read the actual text. There is no
indication that Lot knew his visitors to be anything other than strangers
in town that he was offering hospitality to. It was only when they
blinded the mob coming to get them that he may have understood. Your
suppositions and hypthesizing is extraneous to the plain text.
Jack Garbuz
>Marxists have absolutely no connection to the Universe as we know it.
>Maybe that's why when you scratch a feminist you usually find a
>socialist.<
Marxists are malcontents seeking power without having done an honest hard
day's work in their lives. Feminism takes up where failed Marxism left
off.
Cici in Texas
On 9 Oct 1997 21:06:03 GMT, DLP wrote:
<Mega-thnip>
>"The evil of a type of person such as...the followers of Jehovah". That's
>more than a hint of anti-semitism.
>
>DLP
Unless, of course, we're talking about the doorbell-ringing folks.
Which reminds me, I really like Gallagher's idea to save money on the
Post Office budget -- let the Jehovah's Witnesses deliver the mail!
Cici in Texas
(Remove * from email addresss to reply)
Jack Garbuz
>: >Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a mob,
>: >instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from Sodom
>: >and Gomorrah.
>:
>: If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot to
>: turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
>: They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
>
>Bible, Lot was a righteous man.<
Father in a patriarchal society is the owner of his children who must
obey him until his death, at which time they get his property. Until
then, they must do as he says and in turn their children would do the
same for them in old age, and so on, THe family system operates on mutual
dependence; the parents feed and raise the children until they are strong
and self reliant, and expect help in their old age. If not, the whole
family system becomes pointless and useless and fades away, as is now the
case. It is obvious that the old man was no use to the lusty crowd, but
offering up his family to protect the strangers in his care, even at the
cost of the honor of the family, is counted towards righteousness.
>: In Lot's mind, the impiety of allowing God's messengers to be violated
>: was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his daughters.
>
>So? He had the right to offer *himself*, not *them*. It's very telling
>that those who are pro-life tend to base their beliefs on supposedly
>Biblical standards. <
The father had the right to do almost anything with his children except
slaughter them on the altar, which is more than can be said of the
abortion lovers who slaughter their own in the womb today.
>
>Lot offered up his virgins daughters to rape and torture in order to
>assuage his personal morality.
>
>Pro-lifers offer up the bodies of pregnant women to the pain and trauma of
>pregnancies in order to assuage their own private moralities.
>
>:
>: It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
>: Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
>: angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
>: oppression:
>
>How does the fact that they are angels change anything? How is it not
>oppression? Lot had the power of life of life and death of his daughters
>and offered *their* bodies to an angry mob to protect two men that he
>didn't know--and who, according to the Bible, he may not have recognized
>as angels to begin with. After all, if they were angels, they could have
>protected themselves--which, in fact, they did.
>
>How is this not gender inequity of an almost murderous sort?
>
>
>Laura
>
Sunshine
In article <61iufd$pks$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
ez07...@catbert.ucdavis.edu says...
>
>6D...@epix.net> <61929u$a...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
><343835...@mindspring.com> <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
><619ls2$6...@netaxs.com> <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
>s.net> <343de172...@news.nwlink.com>:
>Distribution:
>
>Charlie Kester (cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com) wrote:
>: On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 19:35:34 -0500, Leo Mauler <gi...@tfs.net>
wrote:
>:
>: >> That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were
feminist/homosexual
>: >> societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
Himself.
>: >> The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and
degradation of
>: >> fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
>: >Lot handed over his two daughters to be raped and sodomized by a
mob,
>: >instead of offering up his own body instead, and he escaped from
Sodom
>: >and Gomorrah.
>:
>: If I remember the story correctly, the mob was actually asking Lot
to
>: turn over the angels who had come to assess the moral situation.
>: They weren't looking to rape crusty old Lot himself!
>
>The point is, he put his daughters in harm's way. And according to
the
>Bible, Lot was a righteous man.
>
violated
>: was worse than anything that might happen to himself or his
daughters.
>
>So? He had the right to offer *himself*, not *them*. It's very
telling
>that those who are pro-life tend to base their beliefs on supposedly
>Biblical standards.
>
>assuage his personal morality.
>
>Pro-lifers offer up the bodies of pregnant women to the pain and
trauma of
>pregnancies in order to assuage their own private moralities.
>
>:
>: It's interesting that you would twist the story this way, however.
>: Because it reveals where your own sympathies lie. By omitting the
>: angels from the story, you turn it into yet another example of
>: oppression:
>
>How does the fact that they are angels change anything? How is it not
>oppression? Lot had the power of life of life and death of his
daughters
>and offered *their* bodies to an angry mob to protect two men that he
>didn't know--and who, according to the Bible, he may not have
recognized
>as angels to begin with. After all, if they were angels, they could
have
>protected themselves--which, in fact, they did.
>
>How is this not gender inequity of an almost murderous sort?
>
>
>Laura
>
For a similar biblical story on the same topic, see Judges 19-20
Judges 19
In those days, when there was no king in Israel, a certain Levite,
residing in the remote parts of the hill country of Ephraim, took to
himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But his concubine became
angry with † him, and she went away from him to her father’s house at
Bethlehem in Judah, and was there some four months. 3 Then her husband
set out after her, to speak tenderly to her and bring her back. He had
with him his servant and a couple of donkeys. When he reached † her
father’s house, the girl’s father saw him and came with joy to meet
him. 4 His father-in-law, the girl’s father, made him stay, and he
remained with him three days; so they ate and drank, and he † stayed
there. 5 On the fourth day they got up early in the morning, and he
prepared to go; but the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, “Fortify
yourself with a bit of food, and after that you may go.” 6 So the two
men sat and ate and drank together; and the girl’s father said to the
man, “Why not spend the night and enjoy yourself?” 7 When the man got
up to go, his father-in-law kept urging him until he spent the night
there again. 8 On the fifth day he got up early in the morning to
leave; and the girl’s father said, “Fortify yourself.” So they lingered
† until the day declined, and the two of them ate and drank. † 9 When
the man with his concubine and his servant got up to leave, his
father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Look, the day has worn
on until it is almost evening. Spend the night. See, the day has drawn
to a close. Spend the night here and enjoy yourself. Tomorrow you can
get up early in the morning for your journey, and go home.” 10 But the
man would not spend the night; he got up and departed, and arrived
opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). He had with him a couple of
saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him. 11 When they were near
Jebus, the day was far spent, and the servant said to his master, “Come
now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites, and spend the
night in it.” 12 But his master said to him, “We will not turn aside
into a city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel;
but we will continue on to Gibeah.”
13 Then he said to his servant, “Come, let us try to reach one of these
places, and spend the night at Gibeah or at Ramah.” 14 So they passed
on and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which
belongs to Benjamin. 15 They turned aside there, to go in and spend the
night at Gibeah. He went in and sat down in the open square of the
city, but no one took them in to spend the night. 16 Then at evening
there was an old man coming from his work in the field. The man
was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was residing in Gibeah.
(The people of the place were Benjaminites.) 17 When the old man looked
up and saw the wayfarer in the open square of the city, he said, “Where
are you going and where do you come from?” 18 He answered him, “We are
passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote parts of the hill country
of Ephraim, from which I come. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; and I am
going to my home. † Nobody has offered to take me in. 19 We your
servants have straw and fodder for our donkeys, with bread and wine for
me and the woman and the young man along with us. We need nothing
more.” 20 The old man said, “Peace be to you. I will care for all your
wants; only do not spend the night in the square.” 21 So he brought him
into his house, and fed the donkeys; they washed their feet, and ate
and drank
22 While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse
lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said
to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came
into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him.” 23 And the
man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No,
my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not
do this vile thing. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine;
let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to
them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.” 25 But the men
would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her
out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the
night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her
go. 26 As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of
the man’s house where her master was, until it was light. 27 In the
morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he
went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of
the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 “Get up,” he said to
her, “we are going.” But there was no answer. Then he put her on the
donkey; and the man set out for his home. 29 When he had entered his
house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into
twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory
of Israel. 30 Then he commanded the men whom he sent, saying, “Thus
shall you say to all the Israelites, ‘Has such a thing ever happened †
since the day that the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until
this day? Consider it, take counsel, and speak out.’
Sunshine
In article <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>>In article <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>>JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>>
>>>>
>>> Marxism put the evil capitalist at the center of your woes,
>>Oh, you support laisse faire capitalism, the robber barons of the
19th
>>century, and wage earners working for subsistance level wages?>
>
>The concept "robber baron" was invented by "progressives" the
forerunners
>of what is now called liberalism. The captains of industry created the
>great rate of economic growth that made the US the envy of the world,
but
>a few billionaires were besmirched. They were no angels, but produced
>much more good than evil, which is more than can be said of your
soviet
>alternatives.
>
Most Americans admit that Liberals have ruled this country for the last
50 years. America looks pretty good to me considering the abject
poverty in many parts of the world. I do credit liberalism with the
economic success of this country. An economic system where the
greediest son-of-a-bitch on the block wins the game seems a poor excuse
for rational policy to me.
>
>>> but since that obviously collapsed in abject failure, it
>>> had to be replaced by a new victims' ideology which jsutifies
>>> wholesale thievery, and feminism is it.
>>
>>Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.>
>
>They already have. They have stolen the educational system and too
much
>more to even list here.
>
>>> Feminism is warmed over communism repackaged for the '90's.
>>
>>Just how do you manage to turn, say. eco-feminism or Christian
feminism
>>into marxist feminism? Some feminists are marxists, some marxists are
>>feminists, most feminists are not marxists.>
>
>They haven't a clue as to what they are. All they care about is
turning
>every male in sight into a personal servant.
I for one do no such thing and my feminist friends don't either.
>
>>> Just another
>>> failed left wing ideology doomed to ultimate failure but to leave a
>>> lot of misery in its wake first. Same as communism.>>
>>
>>Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
>>generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
>>dustbin of history. >
>
>That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
>societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
Himself.
>The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation
of
>fathers will not ultimately go unpunished.
>
I think that if patriarchy is allowed to reclaim its former power,
hateful, vindictive people like you will institute a blood-bath against
women. But it most assuredly won't be God's will.
Jack Garbuz
suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>In article <61b3k9$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>
>>suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>>>In article <619jnd$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>
>but
>>a few billionaires were besmirched. They were no angels, but produced
>>much more good than evil, which is more than can be said of your
>soviet
>>alternatives.
>>
>
>Most Americans admit that Liberals have ruled this country for the last
>50 years. America looks pretty good to me considering the abject
>poverty in many parts of the world. I do credit liberalism with the
>economic success of this country. An economic system where the
>greediest son-of-a-bitch on the block wins the game seems a poor excuse
>for rational policy to me.<
No, this country was blessed by natural obstacles to invasion (two seas)
richness of resources, but most important of all, Founding Fathers who
demanded that we keep government as small as possible, and be
continuously vigilant against tyranny that will try to rear its head at
any moment. THere may be some problems in the "economic system" but none
is greater than the destruction of the family. All else is minor by
comparison. Yes there is greed, and there is envy, and both are sins. But
at least greedy captains of industry do create jobs and do a better job
of creating wealth than the Soviet system, for sure. Except for the
homeless, it is MATERIALLY better to be poor in AMerica than lower middle
class in most countries. I know, believe me I KNOW. But what is often
better "there" is that most families are still relatively intact and
fathers have not yet been thrown into the the dustbin, yet.
Alas, FemiNazism, along with most US pop cultural artifacts, is rapidly
conquering the world.
>>>> but since that obviously collapsed in abject failure, it
>>>> had to be replaced by a new victims' ideology which jsutifies
>>>> wholesale thievery, and feminism is it.
>>>
>>>Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.>>>
>>They already have. They have stolen the educational system and too
>much
>>more to even list here. >>
>>They haven't a clue as to what they are. All they care about is
>turning
>>every male in sight into a personal servant.
>
>I for one do no such thing and my feminist friends don't either.>>>
>>>> Just another
>>>> failed left wing ideology doomed to ultimate failure but to leave a
>>>> lot of misery in its wake first. Same as communism.>>
>>>
>>>Actually, feminism is alive and well. Feminism is well enough to
>>>generate a very strong right-wing backlash that is destined for the
>>>dustbin of history. >
>>
>>That remains to be seen. Sodom and Gomorrah were feminist/homosexual
>>societies run amok, but were ultimately dealt with the Almight
>Himself.
>>The mass murder of innocent children, the robberies, and degradation
>of
>>fathers will not ultimately go unpunished. >>
>
>I think that if patriarchy is allowed to reclaim its former power,
>hateful, vindictive people like you will institute a blood-bath against
>women. But it most assuredly won't be God's will.>
There will certainly have to be years of suffering and torment to pay
for, that's for sure. As in Nuremberg, Germany in 1946, the whole truth
will come out in a trial, and as then, there will be millions shocked who
will say "We had no idea this was happening. How could we know?" They
didn't know because they closed their eyes to those who were disappearing
and suffering far away. But they "knew." They just didn't want to think
about it. It is too bad that so few people know about the 4-7 million
Ukrainians starved to death under communist bureaucrats. There has still
been no trial of the communists for the 70 years of death and destruction
they sowed. Perhaps there may never be a trial of the femiNazis
for the patricidal gendercide they perpetuated by tearing millions of
children from fathers, and murdering millions more inside their own
wombs. But those of us who have been victims know our pain; we are
shocked veterans of a form of assault we were caught unprepared for. We
won't forget, or forgive, ever.
Jack Garbuz
Since this man is my guest, do not
>do this vile thing. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine;
>let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to
>them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.” 25 But the men
>would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her
>out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the
>night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her
>go. 26 As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of
>the man’s house where her master was, until it was light. 27 In the
>morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he
>went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of
>the house, with her hands on the threshold.<
The father of the house had three options:(1) to futiley resist the
crazy bisexual mob in which case he would be killed, and the young man
and the women would be probably have been ravished and killed as well, to
get rid of witnesses, (2) to let the young man be homosexually ravished,
a great sin and evil, or (3) let the concubine get raped and hopefully
she would live, as would the rest of them. Which would have been the best
decision?
As a result of this heinous act, all of the other tribes almost wiped out
entirely the tribe of Benjamin, from which these deranged bisexuals
emanated.
Ray Fischer
Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>>JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>Most Americans admit that Liberals have ruled this country for the last
>>50 years. America looks pretty good to me considering the abject
>>poverty in many parts of the world. I do credit liberalism with the
>>economic success of this country. An economic system where the
>>greediest son-of-a-bitch on the block wins the game seems a poor excuse
>>for rational policy to me.<
>
>No, this country was blessed by natural obstacles to invasion (two seas)
>richness of resources, but most important of all, Founding Fathers who
>demanded that we keep government as small as possible, and be
>continuously vigilant against tyranny that will try to rear its head at
>any moment. THere may be some problems in the "economic system" but none
>is greater than the destruction of the family.
While "destruction of the family" is good right-wing propaganda, it
really has no meaning or truth to it. And you are a first-class idiot
if you think that corporate tyranny is any less oppressive than
government tyranny.
> All else is minor by
>comparison. Yes there is greed, and there is envy, and both are sins. But
>at least greedy captains of industry do create jobs and do a better job
>of creating wealth than the Soviet system, for sure.
Let's look at how good a job they do. Go back to the beginning of the
century, before the FDR's New Deal created what your type likes to
call the "welfare state". People typically worked six 10-hour days
each week. There was no paid sick time. There were no paid vacations.
Working conditions routinely killed people. Children were sent to
work in mines and in mills. Workers were sometimes required to live
in company-owned towns and buy at company-owned stores and the company
was able to extract all the workers' efforts and take back what little
wages they earned. Wealth was created, but concentrated in a small
minority of very rich people.
Pure capitalism tends to create large monopolies and a poor and
powerless working class. That is its greatest failing. And it does
NOT create as much wealth as does a more equitable distribution.
2000 people with $50,000 each or going to spend and circulate a far
greater portion of the wealth they hold than will one person with
$1,000,000,000. By concentrating wealth in a few very rich people,
you effectively take that wealth out of the economy and make everyone
poorer.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Sunshine
In article <61lgvi$n...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
Seems to me that the strength of the family has been eroding just as
the conservatives power has been increasing. Since the primary
objective of the political right is to increase the inequality in
wealth (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer by shifting the
tax burden from the wealthy to the middle, working, and lower classes),
more stress, this time of a financial nature, has been placed on the
family. Women have been forced to enter the workforce to keep the
family's living standard up, adding even more stress to families. These
additional financial stresses caused by the concentration of wealth in
the hands of a few is the cause of the family break down, not the
women's liberation movement.
> All else is minor by
>comparison. Yes there is greed, and there is envy, and both are sins.
And some people just want a roof over their heads, clothes on their
backs, food on the table, and an education for their children.
Wanting these things is not greedy.
> But
>at least greedy captains of industry do create jobs and do a better
job
>of creating wealth than the Soviet system, for sure.
Ever hear of demand side economics. During the depression there was
plenty of venture capital to start new businesses but there was no
demand for the goods and services which those business would supply
because no one had any money. Only when wealth was redistributed from
the few to the many was a sizable enough demand for new goods and
services generated to spur the creation of new companies. We are
reversing this trend by concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few
through changes in the tax code and the deterioration of the
middle-class is a consequence of these tax policies. The statement
"what's good for the middle-class is what's good for America including
the wealthy and the poor" is very true.
> Except for the
>homeless, it is MATERIALLY better to be poor in AMerica than lower
middle
>class in most countries.
I agree.
> I know, believe me I KNOW. But what is often
>better "there" is that most families are still relatively intact and
>fathers have not yet been thrown into the the dustbin, yet.
Imagine that. Here's some one who apparantly would rather be king of a
dung heap with a woman as his servant than master of a home with clean
running water, an indoor toilet, a garden, and a car in the driveway.
>Alas, FemiNazism, along with most US pop cultural artifacts, is
rapidly
>conquering the world.
It's hard to stop a good idea and winning policy, isn't it?
>
>
[snip]
> Perhaps there may never be a trial of the femiNazis
>for the patricidal gendercide they perpetuated by tearing millions of
>children from fathers, and murdering millions more inside their own
>wombs. But those of us who have been victims know our pain; we are
> shocked veterans of a form of assault we were caught unprepared for.
What exactly is "patricidal gendercide"? Is that some of that po-mo
mumble-jumble?
> We won't forget, or forgive, ever.
No doubt in my mind that you are speaking the truth. You will carry a
grudge until the day you die.
Richard Harter
suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>Ever hear of demand side economics. During the depression there was
>plenty of venture capital to start new businesses but there was no
>demand for the goods and services which those business would supply
>because no one had any money.
Essentially true although its much more complex than that.
>Only when wealth was redistributed from
>the few to the many was a sizable enough demand for new goods and
>services generated to spur the creation of new companies.
This is wrong. There was no signifigant redistribution of wealth during
the depression and even during WW II. The depression was ended by the
debt financing of the war which pumped orders of magnitude more money
into the economy than was ever pumped in during the 30's. It was the
printing of money equivalents that ended the depression - it's a
technique that works fairly well when there is serious underemployment.
It is true that income tax rates were very high during and immediately
afterwards. However that was pretty much of an optical illusion - almost
nobody paid such rates. [Ronald Reagan did - he was in the 90% bracket -
and his revulsion at being subjected to confiscatory taxation caused him
to go into politics.]
You are generally right in focusing on demand - without effective demand
business contracts. However the answer lies not in redistribution of
existing wealth but in the creation of new wealth in those sectors which
are relatively improverished.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
Think of me as Santa Claus bearing little mind stuffers
for people with stuffy minds.
DLP
Cici in Texas <cclovis@gte*.net> wrote in article
<61kt6j$7eq$4...@gte2.gte.net>...
> On 9 Oct 1997 21:06:03 GMT, DLP wrote:
>
> <Mega-thnip>
>
> >"The evil of a type of person such as...the followers of Jehovah".
That's
> >more than a hint of anti-semitism.
> >
> >DLP
>
> Unless, of course, we're talking about the doorbell-ringing folks.
> Which reminds me, I really like Gallagher's idea to save money on the
> Post Office budget -- let the Jehovah's Witnesses deliver the mail!
That would be a very funny joke if I was not a Jehovah's Witness.
As a matter of fact, my father, a JW, is also a letter carrier. I guess the
two kind of go well together.
>
> Cici in Texas
> (Remove * from email addresss to reply)
>
>
DLP
Jack Garbuz
>>No, this country was blessed by natural obstacles to invasion (two seas)
>>richness of resources, but most important of all, Founding Fathers who
>>demanded that we keep government as small as possible, and be
>>continuously vigilant against tyranny that will try to rear its head at
>>any moment. THere may be some problems in the "economic system" but none
>>is greater than the destruction of the family.
>
>really has no meaning or truth to it. And you are a first-class idiot
>if you think that corporate tyranny is any less oppressive than
>government tyranny.<
Obviously you have never lived in a socialist country, nor been in
a labor camp, or any of that. I have lived overseas and poverty in
America is usually materially better than lower middle class in most
other countries. There is certainly room for improvement in our corporate
world, and I have personally suffered much more than you have in every
way imaginable. I have done more than study in school and read many
books. I have experienced virtually every facet of life and can speak
fairly authoratively on most of these matters based on the experiences in
my 51 years of life.
>> All else is minor by
>>comparison. Yes there is greed, and there is envy, and both are sins. But
>>at least greedy captains of industry do create jobs and do a better job
>>of creating wealth than the Soviet system, for sure.>
>Let's look at how good a job they do. Go back to the beginning of the
>century, before the FDR's New Deal created what your type likes to
>call the "welfare state". People typically worked six 10-hour days
>each week. There was no paid sick time. There were no paid vacations.
>Working conditions routinely killed people. Children were sent to
>work in mines and in mills. Workers were sometimes required to live
>in company-owned towns and buy at company-owned stores and the company
>was able to extract all the workers' efforts and take back what little
>wages they earned. Wealth was created, but concentrated in a small
>minority of very rich people.<
The transition from rural life to industrial life was an arduous process,
for sure. You are not factoring in that many children died early in life
in rural settings, and that drought and famine were quite common. The
industrial revolution spread hygiene, supported scientific progress, and
enabled more people to survive and great population growth. Such major,
massive transitions of the human condition in the span of a century did
not come without cost. But it is much easier to be critical in retrospect
looking back from today's conditions, than if you looked forward from the
way most people lived at the end of the eighteenth century at the dawn of
the great industrial revolution. Farmers and peasants, and their
children, worked from sunup to sundown in backbreaking work on farms
trying to eke out a subsistence not unlike conditions still prevailing in
parts of the third world today. You wish to give great credit to the
alleviation of industrial suffering to government regulators but a truly
careful reading and understanding of history would find a rather
different story. Recall that Henry Ford established the eight hour work
day in this country, and offered the highest wages at the time, to
attract farm boys to his emerging automobile factories. Yes, he was
tyrannical and a slave master too, but if those farm boys didn't see an
improvement in their material existence, they would not have come. Gice
some credit to the "greedy capitalists" too if you wish to be honest and
fair. Also, many of these greedy capitalists in time gave back a
considerable part of their wealth into the public domain, in the form of
charities, grants, creation of libraries and institutions of higher
learning, hospitals for the poor, and such.
As for my "type," I was raised a typical Jewish liberal who after a long
and tortuous life learned the truth the hard way. I was once thoroughly
esconced in the liberal view of life that I had been permeated with in
much of my earlier life. Change is hard, and the truth comes out
eventually.
>Pure capitalism tends to create large monopolies and a poor and
>powerless working class. That is its greatest failing.<
Tell it to the masses of peasants who toiled the earth for centuries. The
merchant, the "entrepreneur," the "capitalist" has liberated more than
half the world from miserable subsistence that has long been forgotten
in the West. And the same goes for the Asian rice paddy farmers of three
decades ago who today, thanks to the liberation of multinational
corporations, have begun to live at a standard of living inconceivable to
them a mere two decades back.
> And it does
>NOT create as much wealth as does a more equitable distribution.
>2000 people with $50,000 each or going to spend and circulate a far
>greater portion of the wealth they hold than will one person with
>$1,000,000,000. By concentrating wealth in a few very rich people,
>you effectively take that wealth out of the economy and make everyone
>poorer.>
That is typical socialist reasoning, and is fallacious. While it is true
that a handful of capitalists amass huge amounts of capital into their
hands, they do lift up many behind them in the process. In India today,
as a result of the nascent transition to capitalism, even the poor
garbage pickers who live on top of garbage heaps today have a better
class of garbage to live off of :) The idea that the capitalist is
"stealing" something from the rest of us is sheer Marxist hooey. It is
the envious, leftist college professors who have instilled millions of
young malcontents into believing this tripe. It is true that in the
transitional phase there appears to be more suffering, but that is
because more people live and population booms for a while as
industrialization spreads health and hygiens. So the masses of people
created do have to wait till infrastructure catches up to their needs.
For example, between 1780 and 1825, the population of Britain nearly
trebled as a result of the industrial revolution and yes the conditions
in which many lived were deplorable, without sewage, etc. One reads those
accounts in the literature of the time. But a scant 25 years later, the
average Englishman was middle class and the earlier hardships of most
was forgotten. The third world is going through such transitions today,
but in another two decades they too will forget from whence they had been
uplifted by capitalism.
Doug Tanoury
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------973BCB6E5DCBF6FF40A49229
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--
Athens Avenue Poetry Circle at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6915/
--------------973BCB6E5DCBF6FF40A49229
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="ayear.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ayear.jpg"
<encoded_portion_removed>
P//Z
--------------973BCB6E5DCBF6FF40A49229--
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <Xmjebens-081...@tlauren.fu.hac.com> Xmje...@primenet.com
(Mark Jebens) writes:
>
>In article <619v6d$9...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>> In <6191qa$6...@winter.news.erols.com> "SMotter"
<hypoc...@mother.com>
>> writes:
>> >
>> > When 85+ACU- of mothers get sole custody of the children how can
you>> say>there's equality or a superiority of men over women?
>>
>> ----------
>> Actually, I heard that 90% of custody was female custody,
>> but not because of unfair laws, mostly because men walk,
>> leaving mother holding the baby.
>
>You heard wrong.
---------
I suppose that would depend upon which study one uses,
would it not?
-----------
>
>Approx. 50% of kids grow up without a biological parent in their home.
--------
That sounds possible.
>Unmarried births account for about 1/3rd of all births. As we all
know,>it is almost impossible for an unwed father to get custody. So
right >there, 66* of custody goes to mothers because of the mother's
actions.
--------
That makes sense, after all, many unwed fathers don't
act until well after the child is born, giving the unwed
mother first shot at bonding with the child. Also, there
are SOME unwed fathers who simply fuck and run allowing
the winds of chance to play havoc with their paternity
status. I call them Johnny Spermalseeds.
-------------
>
>Even if you then take into account married families, women leave men
>at a rate of 2 or 3 to one man leaving the woman, then you would be
>wrong again.
---------
That women file papers doesn't mean anything; in my
own situation, the decision to divorce was mutual;
I filed. Usually there is one party in each family
who pays the bills, and files the paperwork; that is
probably the same party who files for divorce in many
situations. You are only assuming that it is the choice
of the woman over the man.
Lefty
>
Jack Garbuz
>>No, this country was blessed by natural obstacles to invasion (two
>seas)
>>richness of resources, but most important of all, Founding Fathers who
>>demanded that we keep government as small as possible, and be
>>continuously vigilant against tyranny that will try to rear its head
>at
>>any moment. THere may be some problems in the "economic system" but
>none
>>is greater than the destruction of the family. >
>Seems to me that the strength of the family has been eroding just as
>the conservatives power has been increasing.<
Under Ronald Reagan, who represented the first political resurrection of
conservatism since 1932, the main emphasis was first to bring down the
communist empire which meant a huge buildup in the US military. To get
this through congress he had to allow the democrats also to increase
social spending to, which together accounted for the huge deficits. Since
the fall of communism, the conservatives have pushed for deficit
reduction and taking on the social service bureaucracies that helped
destroy family structure through welfare to single mothers, and funding
feminist causes. As long as there is a large welfare state that
subsidizes family breakdown, the work of conservatism is only half
finished.
> Since the primary
>objective of the political right is to increase the inequality in
>wealth (the rich get richer while the poor get poorer by shifting the
>tax burden from the wealthy to the middle, working, and lower classes),
>more stress, this time of a financial nature, has been placed on the
>family.<
No, wealth in any society will ALWAYS flow to those who are best at
creating or amassing it. You cannot redistribute luck, pluck, good looks,
intelligence, boldness, cunning, shrewdness, talent, health, capability,
etc. Even in the old USSR where the state ("the people") supposedly owned
everything, there were underground billionaires and rich bureaucrats who
in effect amassed power into their hands. I got to know a few personally
later in life. No matter what schemes of redistribution we have imposed,
through confiscatory taxes, or whatever, wealth always flows back to
those who know how to "do it."
> Women have been forced to enter the workforce to keep the
>family's living standard up, adding even more stress to families. These
>additional financial stresses caused by the concentration of wealth in
>the hands of a few is the cause of the family break down, not the
>women's liberation movement.>
I partially agree, that unlike the Japanese, our industries did not put
the family at the center of economic life, and when the "MBA's" got a
hold in the 1950's, they were eager to get in cheap female labor and
chuck out older men who had spent decades in building their companies to
save on immediate costs. It is true that we have sucked women into the
labor force en masse, and imported armies of immigrants to keep labor
costs in check while the managerial class has awarded itself handsomely
in the process. While the creation of the two paycheck family has
increased income it has also contributed to the great stresses presently
faced by many if not most families.
>> All else is minor by
>>comparison. Yes there is greed, and there is envy, and both are sins.
>
>And some people just want a roof over their heads, clothes on their
>backs, food on the table, and an education for their children.
>Wanting these things is not greedy.>
No, but there has been a great distortion of priorities in the last four
decades. Just how much "roof" and how much education is REALLY necessary,
and how much of it is contrived? The liberal establishment expanded the
college network in the '60's to create jobs for itself. Most work only
requires a GOOD, old fashioned high school education if it is
comprehensive and focussed. Many of our present "captains of industry"
are college dropouts. The liberal establishment has duped us into
believing that everyone must go to college, thereby funding their own job
base handsomely, and they have destroyed the elementary and secondary
school educational system so that college is only remedial work for most.
As for how much roof someone actually needs, the two paycheck system has
duped people into buying more house than they could afford to maintain
over time, both in terms of money and energy. I can still remember when
people lived in aparments for many, many years before they risked going
in deep over their heads in debt. Many families today are only a few
paychecks away from disaster if something bad happened to this economy.
We are very fortunate so far, but lady luck can turn into a bitch when
least expected.
>> But
>>at least greedy captains of industry do create jobs and do a better
>job
>>of creating wealth than the Soviet system, for sure. >
>Ever hear of demand side economics. During the depression there was
>plenty of venture capital to start new businesses but there was no
>demand for the goods and services which those business would supply
>because no one had any money. Only when wealth was redistributed from
>the few to the many was a sizable enough demand for new goods and
>services generated to spur the creation of new companies.<
Keyensian economics has its short term place, that you can rob a little
in taxes and spread it around in public works to "prime the pump" when
the business cycle hits bottom. The graduated income tax, and conficatory
marginal income taxes, were justified earlier in this century as a
"fiscal stabilizer" that would act as a shock absorber to smooth out the
business cycle in bad times. But even the great New Deal experiment
petered out around 1938 and unemployment remained at around 10% till
wartime debt spending pulled us out. And after the war, because the
competitive economies of Europe and Japan were in ruins, we were able to
reap the rewards on their misfortune. There is too little available
evidence that long term deficit spending can continue this charade
forever. At some point, debt becomes dangerous and government theft has
to be curtailed. Both parties have come to realize this now, I hope.
> We are
>reversing this trend by concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few
>through changes in the tax code and the deterioration of the
>middle-class is a consequence of these tax policies. The statement
>"what's good for the middle-class is what's good for America including
>the wealthy and the poor" is very true.>
The idea that the middle class was brought into being by
redistributionist policies is one that I used to hold, but I think is
tenuous. There are too many extraneous factors not taken into account
with this arguement. For one thing, we had high tariffs until 1960 which
protected our workers and industries against foreign competition. To
protect Asia from communism, we opened up our economy big time in the
1970's to Asian imports, to raise their standard of living. This froze
the real wages of the workers. But free trade helped bring down the
communists who couldn't compete. But I agree we now have a two tier
economy; those who are involved either in global technology or media, and
all of the rest stuck in industries that are having trouble to compete.
But another major factor is the 5 or more trillion dollars wasted in the
social services industries on poverty pimps and all kinds of failed
programs that have eaten up vital resources. The way to compete again is
to bring broken families together, cut living costs, start saving again
to make the whole economy competitive on the global stage.
>> Except for the
>>homeless, it is MATERIALLY better to be poor in AMerica than lower
>middle class in most countries. >
>I agree.
>
>> I know, believe me I KNOW. But what is often
>>better "there" is that most families are still relatively intact and
>>fathers have not yet been thrown into the the dustbin, yet. >
>Imagine that. Here's some one who apparantly would rather be king of a
>dung heap with a woman as his servant than master of a home with clean
>running water, an indoor toilet, a garden, and a car in the driveway.<
"Master" you said? :) Hmmm, King or master, which would I rather be??? :)
No, I would like to have an intact home, regardless of size, with or
without a garage and car, if you really want to know the truth. I would
have liked to continue to sit at the table with my son, and yes, my wife.
>>Alas, FemiNazism, along with most US pop cultural artifacts, is >rapidly conquering the world.
>
>It's hard to stop a good idea and winning policy, isn't it?>
It's a novelty with early appeal. It wears thin with time.
>>
>[snip]
>
>> Perhaps there may never be a trial of the femiNazis
>>for the patricidal gendercide they perpetuated by tearing millions of
>>children from fathers, and murdering millions more inside their own
>>wombs. But those of us who have been victims know our pain; we are
>> shocked veterans of a form of assault we were caught unprepared for.
>
>What exactly is "patricidal gendercide"? Is that some of that po-mo
>mumble-jumble?>
"Patricide" means killing father, and "gendercide" is a term I coined as
a one word expression of what many of us feel is happening to our gender
under the feminist onslaught. Do you like it?
>> We won't forget, or forgive, ever.
>
>No doubt in my mind that you are speaking the truth. You will carry a
>grudge until the day you die.>
Yes, or until we are vindicated and justice is done. No justice, no
peace.
Scott
DLP <ALPE...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<01bcd5e9$76de2ee0$8cf9edcc@default>...
Gosh, DLP - does your father sell Herbalife like you do?
Next time you go to your local Kingdom Hall, ask the folks around you
what they think about telling lies to fascilitate getting money from
others, and whether Jehovah would find this acceptable.
Also, your father isn't a "letter carrier" for the United States
Postal Service, is he? I mean, where I live no JW would work for a
government agengy, for obvious reasons. So I am assuming he is a "letter
carrier" for some other entity, he is a non-practicing JW, or they run
things differently out there in Pennsylvania than they do in my neck of the
woods.
And hey, what happened to that snazzy tag-line you were sporting?
Scott (rom...@ibm.net)
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Bruce Forest
This post has been cancelled because this is a binary post in an
unmoderated discussion newsgroup.
Don't do it again, please.
In article <343F7D9A...@ix.netcom.com>, Doug Tanoury
<dtan...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------973BCB6E5DCBF6FF40A49229
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> --
> Athens Avenue Poetry Circle at:
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6915/
>
>
> --------------973BCB6E5DCBF6FF40A49229
> Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="ayear.jpg"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ayear.jpg"
--
bfo...@mindspring.com/bfo...@snet.com/flex...@usa.net
"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."
- Thomas Jefferson
Sunshine
In article <rayEHu...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com says...
>
>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>suns...@antispam.pinn.net (Sunshine) wrote:
>>>JGA...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
last
>>>50 years. America looks pretty good to me considering the abject
>>>poverty in many parts of the world. I do credit liberalism with the
>>>economic success of this country. An economic system where the
>>>greediest son-of-a-bitch on the block wins the game seems a poor
excuse
>>>for rational policy to me.<
>>
>>No, this country was blessed by natural obstacles to invasion (two
seas)
>>richness of resources, but most important of all, Founding Fathers
who
>>demanded that we keep government as small as possible, and be
>>continuously vigilant against tyranny that will try to rear its head
at
>>any moment. THere may be some problems in the "economic system" but
none
>>is greater than the destruction of the family.
>
>really has no meaning or truth to it. And you are a first-class idiot
>if you think that corporate tyranny is any less oppressive than
>government tyranny.
>
>>comparison. Yes there is greed, and there is envy, and both are sins.
But
>>at least greedy captains of industry do create jobs and do a better
job
>>of creating wealth than the Soviet system, for sure.
>
>century, before the FDR's New Deal created what your type likes to
>call the "welfare state". People typically worked six 10-hour days
>each week. There was no paid sick time. There were no paid
vacations.
>Working conditions routinely killed people. Children were sent to
>work in mines and in mills. Workers were sometimes required to live
>in company-owned towns and buy at company-owned stores and the company
>was able to extract all the workers' efforts and take back what little
>wages they earned. Wealth was created, but concentrated in a small
>minority of very rich people.
>
>NOT create as much wealth as does a more equitable distribution.
>2000 people with $50,000 each or going to spend and circulate a far
>greater portion of the wealth they hold than will one person with
>$1,000,000,000. By concentrating wealth in a few very rich people,
>you effectively take that wealth out of the economy and make everyone
>poorer.
>
>Ray Fischer
>r...@netcom.com
Ray
I have to commend you for a turly outstanding post.
Max Burke
> Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<61om80$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <Xmjebens-081...@tlauren.fu.hac.com> Xmje...@primenet.com
> >(Mark Jebens) writes:
> >Unmarried births account for about 1/3rd of all births. As we all
> > know,>it is almost impossible for an unwed father to get custody. So
> >right >there, 66* of custody goes to mothers because of the mother's
> >actions.
>
> --------
> That makes sense, after all, many unwed fathers don't
> act until well after the child is born, giving the unwed
> mother first shot at bonding with the child. Also, there
> are SOME unwed fathers who simply fuck and run allowing
> the winds of chance to play havoc with their paternity
> status. I call them Johnny Spermalseeds.
> -------------
Yeah and these women were entirely innocent, they had no chance once
these men appeared, they just had to submit, surrender, and get pregnant,
as we ALL know all men are evil oppressors, who use women and then
discard them like the clueless stupid bimbo's they really are.
It still does take two to make a baby, and if they are too stupid to practice
contraception (the women), then they will be left holding the baby.
They ARE just as responsible for the men for the situation they find
themselves in.
snip....
Note : News groups trimmed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Contraceptives should be used on all conceivable occasions.
Spike Milligan (b. 1918), British comedian, humorous writer.
The Last Goon Show of All, 1972; BBC Radio program.
--
M...@ihug.co.nz
Replace MLV with mlvburke to email me
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <01bcd778$f49e6580$86814dd1@default> "Max Burke"
<Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><61om80$f...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>> In <Xmjebens-081...@tlauren.fu.hac.com>
Xmje...@primenet.com
>> >(Mark Jebens) writes:
>> >Unmarried births account for about 1/3rd of all births. As we all
>> > know,>it is almost impossible for an unwed father to get custody.
So
>> >right >there, 66* of custody goes to mothers because of the
mother's
>> >actions.
>>
>> --------
>> That makes sense, after all, many unwed fathers don't
>> act until well after the child is born, giving the unwed
>> mother first shot at bonding with the child. Also, there
>> are SOME unwed fathers who simply fuck and run allowing
>> the winds of chance to play havoc with their paternity
>> status. I call them Johnny Spermalseeds.
>> -------------
>
>Yeah and these women were entirely innocent, they had no chance once
>these men appeared, they just had to submit, surrender, and get
pregnant,>as we ALL know all men are evil oppressors, who use women and
then >discard them like the clueless stupid bimbo's they really are.
----------
Not at all; the "stupid bimbos" have just as much
culpability (praise or blame) in any birth as her
"dickhead" co-creators.
-------------------------------
>
>It still does take two to make a baby, and if they are too stupid to
practicecontraception (the women), then they will be left holding the
baby.>They ARE just as responsible for the men for the situation they
find >themselves in.
---------
YUP; I never stated otherwise.
Lefty
>
pwal...@removethismerlin.ebicom.net
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:10:26 +0100, Pat Winstanley
<pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <61b4co$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Jack Garbuz
><JGA...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>I have 13 & 14 yr old sons. In what way would you pamber boys of that
>age, and in what way would you be a taskmaster (ie. strict)?
>
>Pat Winstanley
>"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Well, I had the oportunity to consider this when my second son was
born 21 years almost to the day after my first son. My older son gave
me a list...at my request...of 1. things I did for him that he
regarded as pampering 2. Things I made him do that he {as an adult}
was glad I made him do 3. Things that I had done to or with or for him
that I shouldnt have done or said.
They were very interesting lists.
In list two was:
1. Taught him how to sort clothes, and iron, and made him do his own
laundry after about 13....
2. Taught him how to cook...or at least open a can so he would never
starve
3. Taught him how to balance a check book and open a savings account
and insisted he do this.
These things were all resented at the time...and I had to be very
strict to get them done....
Patricia
"Maybe there's a god above
But all I ever learned from love
Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew ya..."
Leonard Cohen
Paul Robbins
Leo Mauler wrote:
>
> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> > In <6191qa$6...@winter.news.erols.com> "SMotter" <hypoc...@mother.com>
> > writes:
> > >
> > > When 85+ACU- of mothers get sole custody of the children how can you
> > say>there's equality or a superiority of men over women?
> >
> > ----------
> > Actually, I heard that 90% of custody was female custody,
> > but not because of unfair laws, mostly because men walk,
> > leaving mother holding the baby.
>
> based on statistics caused by the actions of irresponsible men?
Leo, do you really believe men lose custody simply because they walk?
Ever heard of divorce? Of restraining orders? Of forced eviction from
your own home? There's a great big sign over most custody courts that
says "No men need apply."
> > >When men are forced into low paying dangerous jobs causing a higher
> > >mortality rate and an average difference in life expectancy of 6.5
> > years how>can you say theres equality?
> >
> > ----------
> > One cannot attribute consequences related to life style
> > choices with legal consequences based upon civil or
> > human rights. That's like comparing apples with bumquats.
> > :]
> > ---------------
>
> Thanks to liberal government regulations on job safety, the length of
> the work week, and the minimum wage, there is NO WAY a man will ever
> have to work a job which has the mortality rate of continuing a
> pregnancy to term, no will he ever have to work a job as demanding as
> taking care of children!
So what's the mortality rate for taking care of children vs. the
mortality rate for rigging steel or even picking up garbage or working
as a street cop? Any ideas? Or are you just spouting off here?
> > >When there's 20 men in prison for each woman how can you say there's
> > >equality?
> >
> > ---------
> > Would you like us to PRETEND that more women commit
> > violent crimes? There are also more women convicted
> > of shoplifting crimes, but murder assault is still
> > more serious. Of course, you don't seem to be sug-
> > gesting that we should train men to steal cosmetics
> > so they can maintain equality.
> > -----------------------------
>
> Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend to
> skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement "there's
> 20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but women
> commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all balances
> out.
Don't know your source on this, assuming you have one, but historically
the number of men put to death far exceeds the number of women put to
death, which leads me to doubt very much the truth of your statement. If
you've got some stats and a source, then I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I
think you're making this up.
Paul R
John Reinhagen
In article <619ls2$6...@netaxs.com>,
Sunshine <suns...@antispam.pinn.net> wrote:
>For starters, feminists use the term feminisms, not feminism.
Do they, now? This is the first I've seen of it, and I subscribe to
several newsgroups on which feminists are active.
I note that you only employ this plural form when someone tries to
criticize feminism. When it comes time to claim credit for something or
another, you'll revert to the singular form in a hurry.
>> with the new central ideology
>> that the man is the source of all oppression
>I think all feminists agree that absolute power corrupts and absolute
>power corrupts absolutely.
Not only are you cribbing that from Lord Acton, you're misquoting it.
>> Marxism put the evil capitalist at the center of your woes,
>Oh, you support laisse faire capitalism, the robber barons of the 19th
>century, and wage earners working for subsistance level wages?
Where did he say so?
>Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.
Well, since you reassure us...hey, waitaminnit!
JCR
--
"I feel like a sad old man with a boiled owl in his stomach..."
-- Jim Woodring, "Invisible Hinge"
Jack Garbuz
>This is very easy to understand: the term feminist is political shorthand
>for a particular group of people working to further a particular agenda.
>
>However, from a philosophical point of view, there are many branches of
>feminism--feminisms--which provide various reasons and ideologies for
>working under the political rubric of "feminism."
>
>I am a feminist because I vote and advocate along feminist lines.
>
>But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
>Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
>philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and sexuality
>exist inthe world.>
It sounds like you are a mixed up liberal, period.
Pat Winstanley
In article <344221c7...@nntp.ebicom.net>, pwalters@REMOVETHISmerlin
.ebicom.net writes
Oh well... not far off then - I do (though they can do) the laundry
(load and unload the washer and hang clothes to dry...) the rest they
do! :-)
What did lists #1 and #3 contain? ;-)
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Laura Akers
Jack Garbuz (JGA...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >This is very easy to understand: the term feminist is political shorthand
You know, you could just admit that even such an easy explanation was
beyond your ken. That way, you might have saved *some* dignity.
Laura
GVro...@worldnet.att.net
> >
> > Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend to
> > skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement "there's
> > 20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but women
> > commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all balances
> > out.
>
> Don't know your source on this, assuming you have one, but historically
> the number of men put to death far exceeds the number of women put to
> death, which leads me to doubt very much the truth of your statement. If
> you've got some stats and a source, then I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I
> think you're making this up.
>
As of a year ago over three hundred men and one woman had been
executed since 1976. I recently learned that the total number of
executions since 1976 is now over four hundred, but I have not heard
of another woman being executed. If one had been executed I am sure it
would have made the headlines. I think it is safe to say that the
ratio male to female executions is now about 400 : 1.
Jerry Vrooman
Ray Fischer
Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Seems to me that the strength of the family has been eroding just as
>>the conservatives power has been increasing.<
>
>Under Ronald Reagan, who represented the first political resurrection of
>conservatism since 1932, the main emphasis was first to bring down the
>communist empire which meant a huge buildup in the US military. To get
>this through congress he had to allow the democrats also to increase
>social spending to, which together accounted for the huge deficits.
Arguable. That he "needed" to do this is questionable. Reagan also
signed into law the biggest tax increase in history, and yet even with
that the deficit ballooned.
It's likely that the deficit was _intentional_, and the USSR was
merely the ploy used to justify it. The right-wing hates social
services with such an all-consuming passion, that they were and are
quite willing to force the country into debt in order to make such
programs unaffordable.
And for a classic example of this perverse mindset ...
> Since
>the fall of communism, the conservatives have pushed for deficit
>reduction and taking on the social service bureaucracies that helped
>destroy family structure through welfare to single mothers, and funding
>feminist causes. As long as there is a large welfare state that
>subsidizes family breakdown, the work of conservatism is only half
>finished.
[...]
>No, wealth in any society will ALWAYS flow to those who are best at
>creating or amassing it.
Good that you added that bit about "amassing it". Many who are very
rich have done so at the expense of others. Creating wealth is good,
but there is nothing useful in concentrating wealth into the hands of
a few.
> You cannot redistribute luck, pluck, good looks,
>intelligence, boldness, cunning, shrewdness, talent, health, capability,
>etc.
But we can restrain the robber barons. Again.
[...]
>>And some people just want a roof over their heads, clothes on their
>>backs, food on the table, and an education for their children.
>>Wanting these things is not greedy.>
>
>No, but there has been a great distortion of priorities in the last four
>decades.
You're right. Wealth is ever increasingly being concentrated in the
hands of a few wealthy while the rest of the people continue to live
in poverty and see their wealth shrink away.
> Just how much "roof" and how much education is REALLY necessary,
>and how much of it is contrived? The liberal establishment expanded the
>college network in the '60's to create jobs for itself.
Yo! Shit for brains! Do you think that it's a coincidence that
Silicon Valley, one of the biggest and most important economies in the
world, happens to have several world-class universities? Do you think
that it's of no consequence that Stanford and UC Berkeley and UC Santa
Cruz and several other universities happen to be located here? Do you
have ANY idea how many major companies in this area got their start
from this "liberal" moneywasting? Hewlett-Packard, Varian, Sun Micro,
Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Apple.
> Most work only
>requires a GOOD, old fashioned high school education if it is
>comprehensive and focussed. Many of our present "captains of industry"
>are college dropouts.
Yourself included, rather obviously.
College dropouts don't go on to become engineers.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Kenneth S.
On 13 Oct 1997 15:16:18 GMT, Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
wrote:
>Leo Mauler wrote:
>>
> -----------------------------
>>
>> Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend to
>> skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement "there's
>> 20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but women
>> commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all balances
>> out.
>
>Don't know your source on this, assuming you have one, but historically
>the number of men put to death far exceeds the number of women put to
>death, which leads me to doubt very much the truth of your statement. If
>you've got some stats and a source, then I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I
>think you're making this up.
>
>Paul R
Paul R's comment is a VERY understated way of describing the
present situation. Essentially, in the United States, the death
penalty has been abolished for women, but not for men. I haven't
checked the statistics, but I doubt whether ANY woman has been
executed in the United States for many, many years. (I also find it
very hard indeed to credit that there are more women on death row than
there are men. However, I feel sure that Leo Mauler wouldn't have
made such a claim without watertight evidence to back it up, and
doubtless we will see his evidence shortly.)
It's also relevant to point out in this context that women who
have committed murder -- including those who have hired hit men --
have been increasingly successful in using the "battered woman"
defense. In some cases, these women have been released from prison,
on the view that the court that sentenced them should have paid more
attention to this defense. I doubt whether any man has been able to
use that defense. But then there's a much greater likelihood that a
man would have been subjected to the death penalty, so it wouldn't do
him much good anyway. Not much sense in a posthumous "battered man"
defense.
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
Laura Akers wrote:
>
> John Reinhagen (wr...@freeside.fc.net) wrote:
> : In article <619ls2$6...@netaxs.com>,
> : Sunshine <suns...@antispam.pinn.net> wrote:
> : >For starters, feminists use the term feminisms, not feminism.
> :
> : Do they, now? This is the first I've seen of it, and I subscribe to
> : several newsgroups on which feminists are active.
> :
> : I note that you only employ this plural form when someone tries to
> : criticize feminism. When it comes time to claim credit for something or
> : another, you'll revert to the singular form in a hurry.
>
> for a particular group of people working to further a particular agenda.
>
> However, from a philosophical point of view, there are many branches of
> feminism--feminisms--which provide various reasons and ideologies for
> working under the political rubric of "feminism."
>
> I am a feminist because I vote and advocate along feminist lines.
>
> But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
> Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
> philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and sexuality
> exist inthe world.
>
> :
> : >> that the man is the source of all oppression
> : >I think all feminists agree that absolute power corrupts and absolute
> : >power corrupts absolutely.
> :
> : Not only are you cribbing that from Lord Acton, you're misquoting it.
>
>
> :
> : >> Marxism put the evil capitalist at the center of your woes,
> : >Oh, you support laisse faire capitalism, the robber barons of the 19th
> : >century, and wage earners working for subsistance level wages?
> :
> : Where did he say so?
> :
> : >Feminists and liberals are not trying to steal anything from anyone.
> :
> : Well, since you reassure us...hey, waitaminnit!
>
>
> Laura
I don't know about John, but I think she is trying to steal my money.
Anytime a group gets the government to take my money and give it to
someone else, they are stealing it because if I don't give it under
those
circumstances the governments guns will come out very quickly.
Rich Soyack
Charlie Kester
Jack Garbuz wrote in message <61uc3g$n...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
[This is Laura Akers talking:]
>>: >But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
>>: >Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
>>: >philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and
sexuality
>>: >exist inthe world.>
>>:
[...and this is Jack:]
>>: It sounds like you are a mixed up liberal, period.
>>
[...and then Laura (?) once again:]
>>You know, you could just admit that even such an easy explanation was
>>beyond your ken. That way, you might have saved *some* dignity.>
[Jack again:]
>Yes, I am a dense male. Please do explain:
>
>post-modernism
>structuralist as opposed to post-structuralist
>The enlightenment
>And any of the other ad hoc clap trap nonsense as it pertains to "how
>gender, sex, and sexuality exist in the world."
I too would like to hear Laura's explication of these terms, since I have
seen
them used by so many different writers in so many different ways. I no
longer feel sure that I know what anyone means by them.
I'm especially puzzled by the juxtaposition of postmodernism with
Enlightenment. Descartes, Leibniz, et. al. believed that truth is
accessible
to human reason, but postmodernism holds that our beliefs are always
culturally or historically conditioned. For postmodern structuralists, if I
understand them correctly, "reality" is a Text which is susceptible of
interpretation --- and there are no convincing grounds for preferring
one interpretation over another. Instead, the issue is decided by *power*
relationships...
charlie
Blair Zajac
In article <344221c7...@nntp.ebicom.net>,
pwal...@REMOVETHISmerlin.ebicom.net wrote:
>Patricia
Looks as though Patricia raised a boy that is a perfect candidate for a
house husband.
--
Zajac says, 'Laws are like paper money -- they are only valid as long as
people have faith in them.'
Blair Zajac
In article <rayEI0...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Seems to me that the strength of the family has been eroding just as
>>>the conservatives power has been increasing.<
>>
>>Under Ronald Reagan, who represented the first political resurrection of
>>conservatism since 1932, the main emphasis was first to bring down the
>>communist empire which meant a huge buildup in the US military. To get
>>this through congress he had to allow the democrats also to increase
>>social spending to, which together accounted for the huge deficits.
>
>Arguable. That he "needed" to do this is questionable. Reagan also
>signed into law the biggest tax increase in history, and yet even with
>that the deficit ballooned.
>
>It's likely that the deficit was _intentional_, and the USSR was
>merely the ploy used to justify it. The right-wing hates social
>services with such an all-consuming passion, that they were and are
>quite willing to force the country into debt in order to make such
>programs unaffordable.
snip
Goes to show you, sometimes the conservatives do show signs of having some
brains.
>--
>Ray Fischer
>r...@netcom.com
Laura Akers
John Reinhagen (wr...@freeside.fc.net) wrote:
: In article <619ls2$6...@netaxs.com>,
: Sunshine <suns...@antispam.pinn.net> wrote:
: >For starters, feminists use the term feminisms, not feminism.
:
: Do they, now? This is the first I've seen of it, and I subscribe to
: several newsgroups on which feminists are active.
:
: I note that you only employ this plural form when someone tries to
: criticize feminism. When it comes time to claim credit for something or
: another, you'll revert to the singular form in a hurry.
This is very easy to understand: the term feminist is political shorthand
for a particular group of people working to further a particular agenda.
However, from a philosophical point of view, there are many branches of
feminism--feminisms--which provide various reasons and ideologies for
working under the political rubric of "feminism."
I am a feminist because I vote and advocate along feminist lines.
But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and sexuality
exist inthe world.
:
Jeremy Sammons
> > Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend
> to
> > skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement
> "there's
> > 20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but
> women
> > commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all
> balances
> > out.
>
> Don't know your source on this, assuming you have one, but
> historically
> the number of men put to death far exceeds the number of women put to
> death, which leads me to doubt very much the truth of your statement.
> If
> you've got some stats and a source, then I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I
>
> think you're making this up.
>
He is. The amount of women put to death is something like 2% of all
executions. I think only one has been put to death in the past few
years. Men far outweigh the amount of women on death row.
Ray Fischer
Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Under Ronald Reagan, who represented the first political resurrection of
>>>conservatism since 1932, the main emphasis was first to bring down the
>>>communist empire which meant a huge buildup in the US military. To get
>>>this through congress he had to allow the democrats also to increase
>>>social spending to, which together accounted for the huge deficits.
>>
>>Arguable. That he "needed" to do this is questionable. Reagan also
>>signed into law the biggest tax increase in history, and yet even with
>>that the deficit ballooned.<
>
>It is obvious you do not know your history.
And yet you don't address my comment at all, much less provide any
evidence to the contrary.
[...]
>>It's likely that the deficit was _intentional_, and the USSR was
>>merely the ploy used to justify it. The right-wing hates social
>>services with such an all-consuming passion, that they were and are
>>quite willing to force the country into debt in order to make such
>>programs unaffordable.<
>
>That is the most convoluted logic I ever heard.
What's convoluted about it? It's quite simple.
> I guess it is what they
>teach in college these days. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans,
>who increased social service spending.
And it's the Republicans who pushed through a massive military
increase and pushed through spending on B1 bombers and Star wars
and military pork across the country.
And it was Reagan who signed all those budgets that pushed spending
ever higher.
> Most of those programs have turned
>too many people into wards of the state.
People like, say, Lockheed-Martin?
[...]
>>> You cannot redistribute luck, pluck, good looks,
>>>intelligence, boldness, cunning, shrewdness, talent, health, capability,
>>>etc.
>>
>>But we can restrain the robber barons. Again.
>
>The best way to "restrain robber barons" is to be an informed,
>intelligent consumer.
Bullshit. Once a company has a monopoly there's nothing you can
do about it.
> There is no way that the government can protect you
>against your own folly.
What "folly"? If a big compnay decides to give away for free a
product in order to drive their competitor out of business, is it
folly to spend money you don't have to spend? Or is it folly to
surrender all your power to the company?
> I am not saying that there is no place for some
>regulation and oversight, but in the final analysis the smaller the
>government, and the more intelligent the consumer, the less opportunity
>for fraud and waste.
Evidence?
> But people are stupid, and there is little the
>government can do about it.
Wrong. There's a LOT the government can do about it.
> For example there is a free operating system
>out there called Linux, better than Windows95, NT, etc., and if everyone
>who uses computers was to learn about it and install it, it would put
>Bill Gates out of business.
And yet people don't use Linux. Why? Because setting up and using
Unix is far more difficult that setting up and using Windows, and
because nobody can afford to provide support for Linux. Why? Because
Linux is free.
> However, people are sheep and will do what
>everyone does, so Bill Gates is now worth $40 billion dollars. You cannot
>force most people to refrain from their stupidity thereby making a few
>others very, very rich.
No? The latest tax "cut" raises taxes for the poor and reduces taxes
for the rich. It's not impossible to raise taxes for the rich and
reduce them for the poor.
>>> Just how much "roof" and how much education is REALLY necessary,
>>>and how much of it is contrived? The liberal establishment expanded the
>>>college network in the '60's to create jobs for itself.
>>
>>Yo! Shit for brains! Do you think that it's a coincidence that
>>Silicon Valley, one of the biggest and most important economies in the
>>world, happens to have several world-class universities? Do you think
>>that it's of no consequence that Stanford and UC Berkeley and UC Santa
>>Cruz and several other universities happen to be located here? Do you
>>have ANY idea how many major companies in this area got their start
>>from this "liberal" moneywasting? Hewlett-Packard, Varian, Sun Micro,
>>Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Apple.>
>
>Actually, Steven Wozniak, the designer of the Apple II, one of the best
>pieces of consumer product engineering ever done was a college dropout,
>though I think he did go back and finish.
And yet it was an environment of computer engineers and hackers which
provided him the opportunity to learn about computers.
And there are still five other well-known companies on that list.
> I have worked overseas with
>crackerjack assembler programmers who had little more than a few years of
>hands on army training and a little bit of technical school behind them.
So have I. They usually program like shit.
>And many of the best engineers in Silicon Valley are foreign engineers
>trained abroad who came to take their advanced degrees at Stanford, but
>mainly to get work and a green card to stay in the opulent US. Most of
>the truly great designers have their talent in place before they get to
>college. Most of the Ivy League guys and gals go into sales, marketing,
>finance, and such "high visibility" positions. The real technology is
>done by talented grunts, about half of who are from abroad.
You must live in a different Silicon Valley than do I.
[...]
>>College dropouts don't go on to become engineers.>
>
>Not officially, but there are some good technicians who could be better
>engineers but the snobs above won't give their break due to the lack of
>that sheepskin.
Guess again. I've been in both positions, and a university degree
_is_ worth something.
> As a society we have become very overcredentialized and I
>am not sure the bloated university system is really producing net value
>these days compared to all that is being invested into it. You do know
>that about 30% to half of Microsoft and Intel's technologies are now
>being developed abroad?
Produced abroad is not the same as developed abroad. Besides, I
though that Microsoft's techology was developed by Apple in Cupertino?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Paul Robbins
Cici in Texas wrote:
>
> On 13 Oct 1997 15:16:18 GMT, Paul Robbins wrote:
>
> >Leo Mauler wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend to
> >> skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement "there's
> >> 20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but women
> >> commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all balances
> >> out.
> >
> >Don't know your source on this, assuming you have one, but historically
> >the number of men put to death far exceeds the number of women put to
> >death, which leads me to doubt very much the truth of your statement. If
> >you've got some stats and a source, then I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I
> >think you're making this up.
> >
>
> There's a major difference between 'people on death row' and 'people
> put to death.' Not everyone 'on death row' gets 'put to death.'
> Dunno why this is so, but it is.
>
> Cici in Texas
> (Remove * from email addresss to reply)
True enough, which is why I was willing to give Leo some benefit of the
doubt. I still suspect however that the number of men on death row
exceeds the number of women, given that men are more likely to be
condemned to death. Of course, maybe the women just end up there and
never get executed.
I'm going to look this stat up and get back on this.
Paul R
"Watch out for POSSLQs when you drive."
Jack Garbuz
>>>Arguable. That he "needed" to do this is questionable. Reagan also
>>>signed into law the biggest tax increase in history, and yet even with
>>>that the deficit ballooned.<
>>
>>It is obvious you do not know your history.
>
>And yet you don't address my comment at all, much less provide any
>evidence to the contrary.<
Ask an old, knowledgeable tax accountant about what were the tax rates
before Reagan was elected compared to two years later. Indeed, lowering
the marginal tax rate was the second most important objective next to
taking down the USSR. "Supply side" economics posits that lowering the
marginal tax rates increases the incentives for more work and production
and thereby actually increases tax revenues. This is in accordance to the
famous (or infamous) Laffer curve. While tax revenues did increase, as
did the economy, the higher social spending and military spending negated
much of its benificent effects. Unfortunately, the rising debt and the
stock market crash of 1987 set off the effects that caused the slowdown
afterwards.
>[...]
>>>It's likely that the deficit was _intentional_, and the USSR was
>>>merely the ploy used to justify it. The right-wing hates social
>>>services with such an all-consuming passion, that they were and are
>>>quite willing to force the country into debt in order to make such
>>>programs unaffordable.<
>>
>>That is the most convoluted logic I ever heard.
>
>What's convoluted about it? It's quite simple.>
What you said above is a total creation of your imagination and has NO
factual basis whatsoever. It was the Democrats who LOVE deficit spending
and only changed because Ross Perot as well as the Republicans drew
national attention to the growth in the national debt and what it would
mean to the nation's future. As a result, Clinton drew sharply to the
right and took on the Republican program and made it his own. He's been
very good at doing that since 1994.
>> I guess it is what they
>>teach in college these days. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans,
>>who increased social service spending.
>
>And it's the Republicans who pushed through a massive military
>increase and pushed through spending on B1 bombers and Star wars
>and military pork across the country.>
Yes, it is true that SDI and the massive buildup of the mid-'80's was
driven by Reagan. But the Republicans have not really thwarted the
significant downsizing since then.
>And it was Reagan who signed all those budgets that pushed spending
>ever higher.
>
>> Most of those programs have turned
>>too many people into wards of the state.
>
>People like, say, Lockheed-Martin?>
There has been a massive downsizing of the defense industries, which is
good now that there is no longer a probable threat from Russia. I think
it has been more significant than the actual decrease in welfare clients.
>What "folly"? If a big compnay decides to give away for free a
>product in order to drive their competitor out of business, is it
>folly to spend money you don't have to spend? Or is it folly to
>surrender all your power to the company?>
What are you talking about?
>> I am not saying that there is no place for some
>>regulation and oversight, but in the final analysis the smaller the
>>government, and the more intelligent the consumer, the less opportunity
>>for fraud and waste.
>
>Evidence?>
Well the fewer the number of bureaucrats, the less government waste. As
for corporate folly, we have had significant anti-trust legislation on
the books for many decades that takes care of monopolies that restrain
trade.
>> But people are stupid, and there is little the
>>government can do about it.
>
>Wrong. There's a LOT the government can do about it.>
Not really. The more government intervenes in education, the few people
who come out of school being able to read. Schools have been full of
propaganda over the last twenty five years, but very poor in giving
students the analytic skills to really understand the issues in depth.
Mostly liberal froth.
>> For example there is a free operating system
>>out there called Linux, better than Windows95, NT, etc., and if everyone
>>who uses computers was to learn about it and install it, it would put
>>Bill Gates out of business.
>
>And yet people don't use Linux. Why? Because setting up and using
>Unix is far more difficult that setting up and using Windows, and
>because nobody can afford to provide support for Linux. Why? Because
>Linux is free.<
Well, I don't want discuss computers here, but I agree there is no
financial incentive for a freeware program to advertise itself, or
attract the kind of resources that would make it competitive with a
commercial product like Windows. My only point is, that people allow
some to get rich because they do not have, or incapable of evaluating
information to make wiser choices. Some people spend a lot on an item
simply because of the label or the brand name. If they want to make
someone wealthy, it is their decision when the pay more than they have
to. It is not the fault of the evil capitalist if people choose to throw
their money at them.
>
>> However, people are sheep and will do what
>>everyone does, so Bill Gates is now worth $40 billion dollars. You cannot
>>force most people to refrain from their stupidity thereby making a few
>>others very, very rich.
>
>No? The latest tax "cut" raises taxes for the poor and reduces taxes
>for the rich. It's not impossible to raise taxes for the rich and
>reduce them for the poor.>
Actually my tax accountant friend assures me that the most recent tax
cuts are the first he's seen in his career (he's aged 50, like me) that
really give a bit of a break to middle class, and is a genuine tax break
and not a fraud.
>>>> Just how much "roof" and how much education is REALLY necessary,
>>>>and how much of it is contrived? The liberal establishment expanded the
>>>>college network in the '60's to create jobs for itself.>>>
>>>Yo! Shit for brains! Do you think that it's a coincidence that
>>>Silicon Valley, one of the biggest and most important economies in the
>>>world, happens to have several world-class universities? Do you think
>>>that it's of no consequence that Stanford and UC Berkeley and UC Santa
>>>Cruz and several other universities happen to be located here? Do you
>>>have ANY idea how many major companies in this area got their start
>>>from this "liberal" moneywasting? Hewlett-Packard, Varian, Sun Micro,
>>>Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Apple.>
>>
>>Actually, Steven Wozniak, the designer of the Apple II, one of the best
>>pieces of consumer product engineering ever done was a college dropout,
>>though I think he did go back and finish.
>
>And yet it was an environment of computer engineers and hackers which
>provided him the opportunity to learn about computers.>
True, but you don't need much if any college to learn about computers. If
you want to learn the abstract stuff, like so-called "Computer science"
and "software engineering" then I suppose taking some courses headed by a
a honcho might be worthwhile. Otherwise, computers is no more complicated
than auto mechanics and I don't know that many of them who got their B.S.
in Auto Mechanic Science .} If a guy wants to design microprocessors, or
write an operating system, that might be different.
>And there are still five other well-known companies on that list.
>
>> I have worked overseas with
>>crackerjack assembler programmers who had little more than a few years of
>>hands on army training and a little bit of technical school behind them.>
>So have I. They usually program like shit.>
Some do, and some don't. I doubt college will make a person a good
programmer if they have little talent for it.
>>And many of the best engineers in Silicon Valley are foreign engineers
>>trained abroad who came to take their advanced degrees at Stanford, but
>>mainly to get work and a green card to stay in the opulent US. Most of
>>the truly great designers have their talent in place before they get to
>>college. Most of the Ivy League guys and gals go into sales, marketing,
>>finance, and such "high visibility" positions. The real technology is
>>done by talented grunts, about half of who are from abroad. >
>You must live in a different Silicon Valley than do I.>
I dont live there at all. It's what I was told. What do you see?
>>>College dropouts don't go on to become engineers.>
>>
>>Not officially, but there are some good technicians who could be better
>>engineers but the snobs above won't give their break due to the lack of
>>that sheepskin.
>
>Guess again. I've been in both positions, and a university degree
>_is_ worth something.<
Sure, they give you much more money. But how much more it's really worth
is a different story.
>
>> As a society we have become very overcredential
ized and I
>>am not sure the bloated university system is really producing net value
>>these days compared to all that is being invested into it. You do know
>>that about 30% to half of Microsoft and Intel's technologies are now
>>being developed abroad?
>
>Produced abroad is not the same as developed abroad. <
I meant developed abroad, or parts of it anyway.
> Besides, I
>though that Microsoft's techology was developed by Apple in Cupertino?>
Or Xerox in Palo Alto.
GJP
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>Jack Garbuz <JGA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> .
>
> No? The latest tax "cut" raises taxes for the poor and reduces taxes
> for the rich. It's not impossible to raise taxes for the rich and
> reduce them for the poor.
Ray,
I would like to know how. A smaller percentage today of the population pays
most of the taxes??? 50% is paid by only 5% of the population. The tax cuts
in this years bills will cut taxes for families.As to who pays.....
From the Daily Oklahoman today.
"NEW data from the Internal Revenue Service show middle- and upper-income
Americans bearing increasing tax burdens. Analysis by the nonpartisan Tax
Foundation finds the top 25 percent of income earners (more than $44,147 a
year) paid more than 80 percent of the total federal income tax in 1995. Ten
years ago their share was only 74 percent. Top income groups have seen their
share rise as the tax load shifts dramatically. In 1985 about half of all
income tax collections came from the top 10 percent of income earners. In 1995
nearly half of all income tax collections came from the top 5 percent (above
$96,104). "
So I would like to know how the working poor have been burdened????
Greg Palumbo
> --
> Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com
Jack Garbuz
>> >But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
>> >Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
>> >philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and sexuality
>> >exist inthe world.>
>>
>
> Can't deal with it...Hugh Yack.
>
> Well, The lady spoke her mind..
> And did quite well I might add..
>
> Your reply is most expected of you, that it has
> any validity, Eh.. I think not...
>
>john.
>***************************************************
Excuse me, admittedly I am a few decades "out of it." So tell me,
when y'all got to college can you remember them sticking a needle into
your brains to make them work this way, or was it the "crack" or what?
Jack Garbuz
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>ez07...@catbert.ucdavis.edu (Laura Akers) wrote:
>
>
>>But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
>>Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
>>philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and sexuality
>>exist inthe world.
>
>Catholic Zen Buddhist from Des Moines who's into quilt making but it's
>pushing it.>
Thank you sir. Now I know that if my mind is going that I'm not alone :}
>
>Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
>URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
>Think of me as Santa Claus bearing little mind stuffers
>for people with stuffy minds.
>
_*The Navigator*_
Jack Garbuz wrote:
>
> >> >But philosophically, I am a post-modern, post-structuralist,
> >> >Enlightenment, cultural, liberal feminist because each of those
> >> >philosophies ring true to me about the way that gender, sex, and sexuality
> >> >exist inthe world.>
> >>
> >****************************************************
> >
> > Can't deal with it...Hugh Yack.
> >
> > Well, The lady spoke her mind..
> > And did quite well I might add..
> >
> > Your reply is most expected of you, that it has
> > any validity, Eh.. I think not...
> >
> >john.
> >***************************************************
>
> Excuse me, admittedly I am a few decades "out of it." So tell me,
> when y'all got to college can you remember them sticking a needle into
> your brains to make them work this way, or was it the "crack" or what?
I'm reeling you in Yack.
Get ready..
john.
****************************************************
Paul Robbins
Jeremy Sammons wrote:
>
> > > Well, there are more women on death row than men, which would tend
> > to
> > > skew the statistics in the direction opposite to the statement
> > "there's
> > > 20 men in prison for every woman". Men commit more crimes, but
> > women
> > > commit more capital punishment crimes than men. I guess it all
> > balances
> > > out.
> >
> > Don't know your source on this, assuming you have one, but
> > historically
> > the number of men put to death far exceeds the number of women put to
> > death, which leads me to doubt very much the truth of your statement.
> > If
> > you've got some stats and a source, then I'll reconsider. Otherwise, I
> >
> > think you're making this up.
> >
>
> executions. I think only one has been put to death in the past few
> years. Men far outweigh the amount of women on death row.
Some stats from the following link:
http://members.magnet.at/k.sand/amnesty/usa/dp96/index.html
As of December, 1995, 312 men had been executed since 1977
1 woman had been executed
There are 3100 people on death row, 48 are women.
Number of executions is now over 400, with only the one woman, as far as
I can tell.
Guess Leo was wrong on this.
Paul R