Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
John Doe
women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
of women). Sad but apparently true.
Dustbin
Meanwhile - back on the feminazi ranch - they have been clang that women
are being hit harder than men.
Anything else new?
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
A simple search turns up the fact that men are being unemployed
much more than women.
men unemployed rate women recession -wiki
And here is another interesting claim.
"The picture, however, isn't entirely rosy for women. Although
women seem to be taking less of an overall job loss hit, their
numbers in business leadership and executive level positions have
gone virtually nowhere over the past decade, according to the
non-profit research group Catalyst."
Assuming that statistic is correct, that is more evidence that the
ruling class use feminism to weaken society and help keep
themselves on top without practicing what they preach. A byproduct
of being lazy. That is why the rich and powerful need to be
challenged. Instead of lazily looking sideways to conquer or
control everybody else, we should be exploring outer space. Space
exploration is what distinguishes the great presidents, like John
Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately that won't solve our
societal problems caused by increasingly aggressive feminist law,
but it points out that our current leadership sucks. Twenty-five
years after the space shuttle and we are going backwards with our
space program.
The ruling class making women more and more "equal" among the
common people reminds me of Animal Farm, except that the rich and
powerful benefit indirectly. It coincides with their New World
Order garbage, they could not care less about their own country.
--
>
> Anything else new?
>
Giant Attitude
Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
activist.
So don't even try.
----------------------------
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
Logical positivism, dominant in American and British universities, is suicidally bent upon
establishing the impossibility of knowing anything. As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an insect, not a man.
- Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things
John Doe
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
>>women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that
>>women would rather not give a hand to men who have been
>>unemployed in this current recession (men have been unemployed
>>at three times the rate of women). Sad but apparently true.
>
>
>
> Look, dumbfuck,
As in, fucking your mother?
> you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights activist.
The idea that I am a liberal or a men's rights activist is just an
ignorant conclusion of a clueless blind partisan hatemonger-puppet
who cannot think outside of his tiny social/political envelope.
Not that it matters, but... My concern is what is happening to my
country, what might be the cause, and how the problem might be
solved. In fact, I couldn't join any group that would have me.
--
>
>
> So don't even try.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
> "Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people hiss at me, but
> I am well satisfied with myself).
>
> - Horace, the Roman poet
>
>
> Logical positivism, dominant in American and British
> universities, is suicidally bent upon establishing the
> impossibility of knowing anything. As Wyndham Lewis suggested in
> "Self Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces himself to a
> mosquito, able to wound, nearly invulnerable to counter-assault
> - but only an insect, not a man.
>
> - Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent Things
>
>
> Path:
> news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest
> .net!mpls-nntp-04.inet.qwest.net!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!n
> ews-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynew
> s.com!en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From:
> "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanford yahoo.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative
> women" <-- coincidence? Message-ID:
> <294vh693if1rppgkt1pou06tnkfg841ql1 4ax.com> References:
> <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 29
> X-Complaints-To: abuse easynews.com
> Organization: Forte Inc. http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
> X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL
> headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
> properly. Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:40:35 -0800
>
Giant Attitude
>"Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanford yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
>>>women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that
>>>women would rather not give a hand to men who have been
>>>unemployed in this current recession (men have been unemployed
>>>at three times the rate of women). Sad but apparently true.
>>
>>
>>
>> Look, dumbfuck,
>
>As in, fucking your mother?
>
>> you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights activist.
>
>The idea that I am a liberal or a men's rights activist is just an
>ignorant conclusion of a clueless blind partisan hatemonger-puppet
>who cannot think outside of his tiny social/political envelope.
>
>Not that it matters, but... My concern is what is happening to my
>country, what might be the cause, and how the problem might be
>solved. In fact, I couldn't join any group that would have me.
You said, asswipe, that men being unemployed was associated with "the
rise of conservative women".
Why CONSERVATIVE women?
Do you imagine that liberal women such as Nancy Pelosi give a flying
fuck about men being unemployed?
If you'd dissed women politicians as a group without regard to
political philosophy, I would have had no argument with you.
Stephen Morgan
On 2011-01-01, Giant Attitude <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
>>women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
>>would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
>>current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
>>of women). Sad but apparently true.
>
>
>
> Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> activist.
>
> So don't even try.
Quite right. One must be a socialist or a feminist, no other options exist.
John Doe
> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>"Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanford yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of
>>>>conservative women" actually means something... If so, maybe
>>>>it means that women would rather not give a hand to men who
>>>>have been unemployed in this current recession (men have been
>>>>unemployed at three times the rate of women). Sad but
>>>>apparently true.
>>> you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights activist.
>>The idea that I am a liberal or a men's rights activist is just
>>an ignorant conclusion of a clueless blind partisan
>>hatemonger-puppet who cannot think outside of his tiny
>>social/political envelope.
> You said, asswipe,
... that is what your mother did after you were born.
> that men being unemployed was associated with "the rise of
> conservative women".
>
> Why CONSERVATIVE women?
The term "conservative women" sounds like an oxymoron. Enforcing
so-called women's rights is probably the biggest growth part of
big government. And now when men are being unemployed at three
times the rate of women, here comes the conservative women
movement.
Feminists have overpowered our political system, with the help of
our ruling class (of all political affiliations).
The silly sounding "conservative woman" is another sign of
Republicans being peeled away from their values. Just look at the
gay-parades-in-the-military vote. Three of eight Republicans who
voted for the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" were women... Lisa
Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins.
> Do you imagine that liberal women such as Nancy Pelosi give a
> flying fuck about men being unemployed?
Even black male politicians act like they could not care less
about job opportunities for unemployed black males. Of course not.
But for some strange reason you think that just because someone
brands himself (or herself) as a Republican, he holds Republican
values. It is called "blind partisanship".
> If you'd dissed women politicians as a group without regard to
> political philosophy, I would have had no argument with you.
Bullshit, you're just a blind partisan Republican. Republicans
have been doing just fine in the last decades, but the big
government trend continues. And you have no explanation except
"It's not Republicans fault!"
--
Giant Attitude
I'm still waiting for you to diss liberal and Democratic women so that
you can prove that YOU'RE not a blind partisan.
John Doe
> I'm still waiting for you to diss liberal and Democratic women
> so that you can prove that YOU'RE not a blind partisan.
That would be a different subject. When a glass is overflowing,
you do not deal with the liquid in the bottom.
PolishKnight
"Giant Attitude" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Democrats clearly have identified men as a scapegoat group to gather up
votes from their voting constituency (women.) So yes, while many
republicans, including the top elite, tend to be in cahoots with the
left and/or try to join in on bashing their own constituencies, that
doesn't change the fact that the Democrats/Socialists are now wedded to
feminism.
I'm personally openminded to a third party forming and moving away from
the Republican party on this, and other key issues, soon if the next 2
years turn out to be more GW Bush style moderates.
Interestingly, the left also has their own third party (the greens) but
their agenda is so close to the overall Democrat party that it's
meaningless. I love it when a leftist says that the Greens are "new"
and I should check them out and I do and they have the exact same
talking points as the left. Kind of like buying strawberry instead of
cherry cool-aid. :-)
Giant Attitude
That's true, but then so are people who call themselves conservatives
these days.
But since liberalism/socialism are explicitly designed to empower the
weak and the stupid at the expense of others, it stands to reason that
liberalism/socialism is a more natural fit for feminism.
>I'm personally openminded to a third party forming and moving away from
>the Republican party on this, and other key issues, soon if the next 2
>years turn out to be more GW Bush style moderates.
I simply will not join the political process in any system in which
voting is universal.
>Interestingly, the left also has their own third party (the greens) but
>their agenda is so close to the overall Democrat party that it's
>meaningless. I love it when a leftist says that the Greens are "new"
>and I should check them out and I do and they have the exact same
>talking points as the left. Kind of like buying strawberry instead of
>cherry cool-aid. :-)
Your average liberal is never going to consider voting for the Greens.
They still talk in hushed tones -- or in whiny ones -- about how Ralph
Nader secured the White House for GWB.
Andre Lieven
> Space
> exploration is what distinguishes the great presidents, like John
> Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did Reagan
launch ? The Shuttle came from Nixon, and the ISS comes from
Clinton.
> Twenty-five
> years after the space shuttle and we are going backwards with our
> space program.
Indeed. Shrub, with a majority in both houses, failed to fund
Constellation, or manage it, and so, it died, when it was clear that
Ares 1 would not be able to launch a full CEV.
Space has not had any significant constituancy since the mid
60s. Wishing otherwise only gets one a failed delusion.
And, I say that as a pro space advocate. I wish that the topic
could move a significant part of the US people and Congress.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
> >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
> >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
> >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
> >of women). Sad but apparently true.
>
> Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> activist.
Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
> So don't even try.
-Either do or do not. There is no try.- Yoda.
Andre
Giant Attitude
What's to try?
You can't be both a liberal and a men's rights activist.
John Doe
> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> Space exploration is what distinguishes the great presidents,
>> like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
>
> OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did Reagan
> launch ?
The space shuttle.
> The Shuttle came from Nixon,
Bullshit.
> and the ISS comes from Clinton.
The space station was hardly exciting.
> Space has not had any significant constituancy since the mid
> 60s. Wishing otherwise only gets one a failed delusion.
A random foreigner having delusions about something like our space
shuttle not being a major accomplishment is no surprise. Actually,
the Hubble telescope was also very good, just not another space
shuttle.
Without looking... I bet that the creep says Ronald Reagan was a
bad president of our United States. Strange, since an asshole
should at least have hindsight.
--
> And, I say that as a pro space advocate.
> I wish that the topic
> could move a significant part of the US people and Congress.
> Andre
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 19:57:08 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <9655eaa3-8e66-4586-952a-450b4ad0dde3 v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <BdlTo.401$NG3.114 newsfe22.ams2> <4d1e2735$0$23884$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.224.9.45
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1293940628 6281 127.0.0.1 (2 Jan 2011 03:57:08 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 03:57:08 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.224.9.45; posting-account=r6Eq2woAAADLatUkbpNb1vZaavTTns3Y
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe)
>
PolishKnight
"Giant Attitude" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Happy new year, GA!
Let's try it from this angle: MOST PEOPLE are wedded to feminism or at
least portions of the feminist agenda including and especially the
women's vote and workplace equality. However, it's largely only
conservatives (or a subset of such) that have a "family values" agenda
that even CONSIDERS opposing those two basic core tenets either directly
or indirectly (by not expanding or even contracting the welfare state.)
> But since liberalism/socialism are explicitly designed to empower the
> weak and the stupid at the expense of others,
I would like to ask you support that claim.
Liberalism/socialism doesn't care about the "weak" in general if those
weak are not going to vote for their agenda. On the contrary, they view
the politically and economically weak as perfect candidates to be
scapegoated whether it's the peasants in East Ukraine or southern white
trailer park residents.
The bread-and-circuses welfare state is viewed by the left as a means to
an end and not an end of itself. Once they have sufficiently taken
power, they can then eliminate these groups just as they did the working
class white males supporters of a century ago...
> it stands to reason that
> liberalism/socialism is a more natural fit for feminism.
Agreed. Feminism cannot survive in a free-market economy since squeezing
out starving babies has no economic value. Damsels in disdress need a
dragon and the knight in shining armor.
> >I'm personally openminded to a third party forming and moving away from
> >the Republican party on this, and other key issues, soon if the next 2
> >years turn out to be more GW Bush style moderates.
>
> I simply will not join the political process in any system in which
> voting is universal.
Voting isn't universal as illegal aliens, felons, imprisoned Al Quaeda
members, and other potential democrat voters like to gripe. :-)
As I love to question the simplistic agenda of "voting rights are HUMAN
rights", children are not allowed to vote. Now think about it. Did you
ever see the show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" Most kids are
basically democrat voters (have a naive, simplistic view of politics)
but aren't that much worse off than many adult voters. If someone can
pass a basic civics test, using the "human rights" logic, why not let
most kids vote?
Heck, let's base voting rights upon those in PRIVATE employment (with
exception for members of the military subject to combat), passing a
universal civics examination including full knowledge of the
constitution, and financially supporting a family (with one vote per
family going to the primary breadwinner!)
As a bachelor, you may disagree with the last part but the fact remains
you have a lot in common with the feminist left: They are made up of
people who either cannot handle, or who have rejected, traditional
family values that perpetuate the patriarchy. Also, putting it this way
is not only gender neutral but also explains our reasoning for male-only
vote: It's men who are the providers, and protectors, for society.
Those who live off of the providers and protectors shouldn't be allowed
to vote.
> >Interestingly, the left also has their own third party (the greens) but
> >their agenda is so close to the overall Democrat party that it's
> >meaningless. I love it when a leftist says that the Greens are "new"
> >and I should check them out and I do and they have the exact same
> >talking points as the left. Kind of like buying strawberry instead of
> >cherry cool-aid. :-)
>
> Your average liberal is never going to consider voting for the Greens.
> They still talk in hushed tones -- or in whiny ones -- about how Ralph
> Nader secured the White House for GWB.
The average liberal knows that their commie agenda won't get past the
voters so they prefer to vote for someone such as Obama rather than
Nader who really share the same philosophy overall.
This suggests that they are honest in that they recognize the political,
and practical limitations of their philosophy. Kind of like someone who
goes to church but doesn't want to tell his friends he goes there.
retardsman
> In article <6kqvh6tskqkic9m3fomu54rb3qr37ps...@4ax.com>,
> "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:12:29 -0500, PolishKnight
>
> > >In article <r8bvh6tpuh9grem7oeatlo5dagcfjki...@4ax.com>,
> > > "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On 01 Jan 2011 22:35:47 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> >"Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanford yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i concur 100 percent with Polish Knight, down with the liberals and up
with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
vote Republican!
ray
John Doe
> up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
--
>
> vote Republican!
>
> ray
retardsman
> retardsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> --
>
>
>
Roadtrip Issue
btw, how are Re and Mi?
>
>
> > vote Republican!
>
> > ray- Hide quoted text -
Masculist
> On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> retardsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > --
>
> dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> Roadtrip Issue
Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
Tom
retardsman
> On Jan 5, 12:20 am, retardsman <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> retardsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > > --
>
> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> > Roadtrip Issue
>
> Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> Tom
>
>
i envisioned us roaring off into the morning sun on a couple of
dressed-out BMW hogs, full fairing, cases and shields ... then
realized that at stoplights i wouldnt be able to hold the fucker up
then, miraculously, i heard on new years day from a longlost friend in
the south bay area -- he's got a couple of old kawasaki 500s from the
eighties, in classic condition (just like us)
he said capn amerika 'n billy could borrow the kawas for the roadtrip,
but must be returned w/o shotgun-blast damage to the paint (so, no
mardi gras and no visit to luce y anna)
the kawasakis are uncomfortable as hell on a long run, so at the end
of each day our arms will be numb and our legs numb up to mid-thigh,
small price to pay
...but theyre absolute scorchers in the quarter mile! so we got quick
getaways covered....
i just need to figure how to get the bikes from the south bay down to
fresno and grizzly's place, where we can rendevouz and provision for
the ride
from there we phake pharaoh, skip the Via Maris, and dip down south,
just like the israel lights, taking the bottom route across this
diseased nation .... then swing north and approach The Beest from the
south, in her fat, foul, vulnerable underbelly
then a straight shot to Polish Knight's house for some much-needed R
and R and further strategy
three words, three little words:
Row
Duh
Trip!
$ Turin ♂
> On Jan 5, 12:20 am, Retard <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> retardsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > > --
>
> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> > Roadtrip Issue
>
> Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
Shorty's tab...!
> Thomasina
- - -
This has been another enlightening moment, with:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ⚕
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
$ Turin ♂
> On Jan 5, 10:30 am, Ballerina Tom <masca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 12:20 am, retardsman <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> retardsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > > > --
>
> > > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> > > Roadtrip Issue
>
> > Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> > invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> > Tom
>
> i envisioned us roaring off into the morning sun on a couple of
> dressed-out BMW hogs, full fairing, cases and shields ... then
> realized that at stoplights i wouldnt be able to hold the fucker up
That's sad.
> then, miraculously, i heard on new years day from a longlost friend in
> the south bay area -- he's got a couple of old kawasaki 500s from the
> eighties, in classic condition (just like us)
I didn't know that "classic" mean "broken down and
homeless" ...hahaha.
> he said capn amerika 'n billy could borrow the kawas for the roadtrip,
> but must be returned w/o shotgun-blast damage to the paint (so, no
> mardi gras and no visit to luce y anna)
Sad.
> the kawasakis are uncomfortable as hell on a long run, so at the end
> of each day our arms will be numb and our legs numb up to mid-thigh,
> small price to pay
>
> ...but theyre absolute scorchers in the quarter mile! so we got quick
> getaways covered....
>
> i just need to figure how to get the bikes from the south bay down to
> fresno and grizzly's place, where we can rendevouz and provision for
> the ride
Can't you bums just, like, ditch the bikes, and hook up Garbagey as a
rickshaw cooley? Don't tell us that fat, fried chicken-inhaling, tub
of shit couldn't use the exercise ...And, post pictures, Dudes....
> from there we phake pharaoh, skip the Via Maris, and dip down south,
> just like the israel lights, taking the bottom route across this
> diseased nation .... then swing north and approach The Beest from the
> south, in her fat, foul, vulnerable underbelly
(Lmao ...such idiots.)
> then a straight shot to Polish Knight's house for some much-needed R
> and R and further strategy
Heads up: Most people wouldn't recommend PolishNut's input for any
further strategy on job hunting.
- - -
This shall be another enlightening moment, with:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ⚕
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Andrew Usher
> I'm personally openminded to a third party forming and moving away from
> the Republican party on this, and other key issues, soon if the next 2
> years turn out to be more GW Bush style moderates.
A new party I could only see being more favorable to us if it
were explicityly for men's rights, which can't happen as long as
women have the vote.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> activist.
>
> So don't even try.
Part of being a men's rights activist is confronting the truth.
It's the Republicunts' running from the truth that's got us into
this mess!
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
errored:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 19:58:02 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
> >On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
> >> >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
> >> >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
> >> >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
> >> >of women). Sad but apparently true.
>
> >> Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> >> activist.
>
> >Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
>
> >> So don't even try.
>
> >-Either do or do not. There is no try.- Yoda.
>
> >Andre
>
> What's to try?
>
> You can't be both a liberal and a men's rights activist.
My being both disproves your factless claim. QED.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> Space exploration is what distinguishes the great presidents,
> >> like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
>
> > OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did Reagan
> > launch ?
>
> The space shuttle.
ROTFLMAO !
-The shuttle program was formally launched on January 5, 1972,
when President Nixon announced that NASA would proceed with
the development of a reusable space shuttle system.[2]-
-The first fully functional orbiter was the Columbia (designated
OV-102),
built in Palmdale, California. It was delivered to Kennedy Space
Center
on March 25, 1979, and was first launched on April 12, 1981—the
20th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's space flight—with a crew of two.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program
Oh, and one of the guys who wrote an item that is in the bibliography
there is an old pal of mine. We went to see, with press credentials,
the landing of the Shuttle Enterprise, on the SCA, in Ottawa in 1983.
Next to that, you are so off that you're not even just wrong...
> > The Shuttle came from Nixon,
>
> Bullshit.
0-2.
> > and the ISS comes from Clinton.
>
> The space station was hardly exciting.
Maybe not, but it is a major manned spaceflight program,
and it came from an Administration that was neither Reagan's
nor Republican...
0-3.
> > Space has not had any significant constituancy since the mid
> > 60s. Wishing otherwise only gets one a failed delusion.
>
> A random foreigner having delusions about something like our space
> shuttle not being a major accomplishment is no surprise.
LOL. This 'random foreigner' is on frequent discussion panels at
conferences about the US and other nations' space programs,
with professionals in the field.
> Actually,
> the Hubble telescope was also very good, just not another space
> shuttle.
Yes, all truck and no payload would be a Bad Thing(tm).
> Without looking... I bet that the creep says Ronald Reagan was a
> bad president of our United States. Strange, since an asshole
> should at least have hindsight.
<Laughs> Well, ol Rompin' Ronnie was a Bad President(tm),
though the standard for that measure has been significantly
moved downwards by the grossly incompetant and stoopid
Shrub Non-Administration...
John Doe
> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> stupided:
>> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Space exploration is what distinguishes the great
>> >> presidents, like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
>> > ÿ ÿ OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did
>> > Reagan launch ?
>>
>> The space shuttle.
> -The shuttle program was formally launched on January 5, 1972,
> when President Nixon announced that NASA would proceed with the
> development of a reusable space shuttle system.[2]-
If Andre the Asshole knew anything about making things, he would
know how easy having an idea is compared to actually launching a
functional version.
> -The first fully functional orbiter was the Columbia (designated
> OV-102), built in Palmdale, California. It was delivered to
> Kennedy Space Center on March 25, 1979, and was first launched
> on April 12, 1981
The prosecution of AT&T was begun before Ronald Reagan entered
office too, but Ronald Reagan is attributed for continuing the
prosecution, breaking up AT&T, and helping to usher in a worldwide
era of telecommunications.
>>> The Shuttle came from Nixon,
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>> Space has not had any significant constituancy since the mid
>>> 60s. Wishing otherwise only gets one a failed delusion.
>>
>> A random foreigner having delusions about something like our
>> space shuttle not being a major accomplishment is no surprise.
>
> LOL.
You won't be laughing when we annex your ass.
> This 'random foreigner' is on frequent discussion panels at
> conferences about the US and other nations' space programs
That is Andre the Asshole doing a French language number on
English in an effort to self-inflate his ego.
Anyone who has a clue about anything should in hindsight at
least know that Ronald Reagan was a great president, very well
liked here in the United States and respected throughout the
world, except by zealous partisans of course.
>> Actually, the Hubble telescope was also very good, just not
>> another space shuttle.
>> Without looking... I bet that the creep says Ronald Reagan was
>> a bad president
After a brief look, BINGO... Zealous partisanship is what
attracted Andre the Asshole to this thread.
> of our United States. Strange, since an asshole
>> should at least have hindsight.
>
> <Laughs> Well, ol Rompin' Ronnie was a Bad President(tm),
Says an asshole without even hindsight.
> though the standard for that measure has been significantly
> moved downwards by the grossly incompetant and stoopid Shrub
> Non-Administration...
Power tends to corrupt. Andre the Asshole's own leaders will never
have that problem.
--
>
> Andre
>
>
see also googled groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:15:04 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 79
> Message-ID: <79113e56-0ab3-488b-b747-a2aaf7746f39 f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <BdlTo.401$NG3.114 newsfe22.ams2> <4d1e2735$0$23884$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com> <9655eaa3-8e66-4586-952a-450b4ad0dde3 v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <4d200047$0$30506$c3e8da3$76a7c58f news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.224.9.45
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1294323305 2357 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2011 14:15:05 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.224.9.45; posting-account=r6Eq2woAAADLatUkbpNb1vZaavTTns3Y
John Doe
...
> My being both disproves your factless claim.
Says a 90 pound gutless pussy.
--
> QED.
>
> Andre
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:06:22 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 32
> Message-ID: <4fe4cf39-63f3-4fb4-875c-52eeb64d004b l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <294vh693if1rppgkt1pou06tnkfg841ql1 4ax.com> <9c610075-e295-42b2-9f75-29b7fabec1a1 l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <75uvh617hg7bqhii1tjcops8ddldh1j836 4ax.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.224.9.45
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1294322782 30076 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2011 14:06:22 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 14:06:22 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.224.9.45; posting-account=r6Eq2woAAADLatUkbpNb1vZaavTTns3Y
Masculist
That's the spirit ray! Very romantic and I love the trip tic but
riding hogs? I mean the Japs make them easier to ride but still
aren't we a bit too old for that? I was thinking more in the line of
you being in a wheel chair with me next to you with my thumb stuck out
hitchhiking. Your wheel chair would get us rides! As for the trip
tic, while I love that route and it does say something romantically
about what we are doing, I was thinking more pragmatically. I mean I
have a friend I want to visit in Iowa and then some friends out on
Long Island before we make the lame trip to lame Washington DC. It'd
be nice taking that side trip to DC to see Mark, he's a very nice guy,
plus we could probably get him to take us around the City. I haven't
seen the science museum since it opened in '79. Who knows, maybe Mark
has political connections and we could get together with them so they
could have a good laugh.
I know that's a road trip unlike that of our youth but we aren't young
anymore. Darn!
Tom
Andre Lieven
ignorance:
> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> stupided:
> >> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Space exploration is what distinguishes the great
> >> >> presidents, like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
> >> > Reagan launch ?
>
> >> The space shuttle.
> > -The shuttle program was formally launched on January 5, 1972,
> > when President Nixon announced that NASA would proceed with the
> > development of a reusable space shuttle system.[2]-
>
> If Andre the Asshole knew anything about making things, he would
> know how easy having an idea is compared to actually launching a
> functional version.
<Laughs>
-NASA previously (March 31, 1972) had selected Rockwell's Rocketdyne
Division to design and develop the Space Shuttle main engines.
Contracts followed to Martin Marietta for the external tank (Aug. 16,
1973) and Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Division for the solid rocket
boosters (June 27, 1974).-
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html#sts_program
Cointracts were let, metal was cut, and vehicles were built
BEFORE Rompin' Ronnie the Moron became President.
I understand that, as you are a rightard, you are unhappy that the
FACTS belie your fatous claims. But, that is solely your problem.
> > -The first fully functional orbiter was the Columbia (designated
> > OV-102), built in Palmdale, California. It was delivered to
> > Kennedy Space Center on March 25, 1979, and was first launched
> > on April 12, 1981
>
> The prosecution of AT&T was begun before Ronald Reagan entered
> office too, but Ronald Reagan is attributed for continuing the
> prosecution, breaking up AT&T, and helping to usher in a worldwide
> era of telecommunications.
Non sequitur. The facts remain that whole space shuttles were
built BEFORE Ronnie the Cluck became doddering President,
which disproves your grossly ignorant and stoopid claim.
> >>> The Shuttle came from Nixon,
>
> >> Bullshit.
>
> >>> Space has not had any significant constituancy since the mid
> >>> 60s. Wishing otherwise only gets one a failed delusion.
>
> >> A random foreigner having delusions about something like our
> >> space shuttle not being a major accomplishment is no surprise.
>
> > LOL.
>
> You won't be laughing when we annex your ass.
Ah, willfully ignorant empty bluster. At the rate that our
economy is doing, relative to the US', it is more likely that
Canada will add 50 new provinces.
That's OK, our health care is far superior to yours, and it's
even cheaper.
> > This 'random foreigner' is on frequent discussion panels at
> > conferences about the US and other nations' space programs
>
> That is Andre the Asshole doing a French language number on
> English in an effort to self-inflate his ego.
<Laughs> Since I am in no way French, this is just more
empty and ignorant Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of
the WHIPPED scoundrel.
> Anyone who has a clue about anything should in hindsight at
> least know that Ronald Reagan was a great president,
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> very well
> liked here in the United States and respected throughout the
> world,
ROTFLMAO ! Respected as being a doofus, only.
> except by zealous partisans of course.
>
> >> Actually, the Hubble telescope was also very good, just not
> >> another space shuttle.
> >> Without looking... I bet that the creep says Ronald Reagan was
> >> a bad president
>
> After a brief look, BINGO... Zealous partisanship is what
> attracted Andre the Asshole to this thread.
No, just your IGNORANT and WRONG factual claims.
Bottom Line: The Space Transportation System was
a Nixon Administration iniative.
> > of our United States. Strange, since an asshole
> >> should at least have hindsight.
>
> > <Laughs> Well, ol Rompin' Ronnie was a Bad President(tm),
>
> Says an asshole without even hindsight.
<Massive Ignorant Loony Projection>
> > though the standard for that measure has been significantly
> > moved downwards by the grossly incompetant and stoopid Shrub
> > Non-Administration...
>
> Power tends to corrupt. Andre the Asshole's own leaders will never
> have that problem.
Yes, Canada is well able to hold our leaders accountable.
Perhaps the day might come when the US can become as
equally functioning democracy... <cough> Florida 2000 <cough>
Andre
$ Turin ♂
> On Jan 5, 1:22 pm, The Retard Who Loved Me <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 10:30 am, Malefeminist <malefe...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's time for your medication, Tom.
> As for the trip
> tic, while I love that route and it does say something romantically
> about what we are doing, I was thinking more pragmatically. I mean I
> have a friend I want to visit in Iowa and then some friends out on
> Long Island before we make the lame trip to lame Washington DC.
Whenever Tom mentions some "friend" that he, supposedly, has - know
ye, all, that - he's really talking about someone who can barely stand
him.
> It'd
> be nice taking that side trip to DC to see Mark, he's a very nice guy,
> plus we could probably get him to take us around the City.
Hahaha ...you, probably, believe that radio personalities are,
likewise, very nice people that would willingly allow you to mooch
from them, if you could just get close enough.
> I haven't
> seen the science museum since it opened in '79. Who knows, maybe Mark
> has political connections and we could get together with them so they
> could have a good laugh.
Yeah, Mark's political connections, pretty much, could give everyone a
good laugh. The only way he could get you through those doors would
be through his influence over a president, or two, printed on a green
piece of paper ...And, I wouldn't wager that he could do very much of
that, even for himself.
> I know that's a road trip unlike that of our youth but we aren't young
> anymore. Darn!
No shit?
> Tom Thumb
- - -
He raised his hand, and over the earth he traced in space:
John Doe
> OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did Reagan
> launch ? The Shuttle came from Nixon, and the ISS comes from
> Clinton.
But in fact...
The most popular and greatest president in modern times, Ronald
Reagan, christened the space shuttle launch and started the
international space Station. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected
in the biggest landslide in our country's history. Ronald Reagan
also brought the Cold War to an end without firing a shot.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/history.pdf
"The Space Shuttle flew for the first time in April 1981,
and once again a space station was heralded as the next
logical step for the U.S. in space. NASA founded the
Space Station Task Force in May 1982, which proposed
international participation in the station's development,
construction, and operations. In 1983, NASA held the first
workshop for potential space station users.
NASA Gets the Go-Ahead (1984-92)
These efforts culminated in January 1984, when
President Ronald Reagan called for a space station in his
State of the Union address. He said that the space station
program was to include participation by U.S. allies."
--
> Andre
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!postnews.google.com!v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 19:57:08 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <9655eaa3-8e66-4586-952a-450b4ad0dde3 v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <BdlTo.401$NG3.114 newsfe22.ams2> <4d1e2735$0$23884$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.224.9.45
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1293940628 6281 127.0.0.1 (2 Jan 2011 03:57:08 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 03:57:08 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.224.9.45; posting-account=r6Eq2woAAADLatUkbpNb1vZaavTTns3Y
John Doe
> On Jan 5, 1:30��pm, Malefeminist <malefe... gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 12:20��am, Retard <remarks... yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 5:40��pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> reta
> rdsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>>
>> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
>> > > --
>>
>> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
>> > Roadtrip Issue
>>
>> Roadtrip! ��Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
>> invited. ��That means almost all of you suckers!
>
>
> Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
> Shorty's tab...!
Apparently your main purpose here on UseNet as to spew garbage and
spam your websites.
--
>
>
>> Thomasina
>
>
>
> - - -
>
> This has been another enlightening moment, with:
>
> Turin
>
>
> I have such sites to show you...
> ------------------------
>
> http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar �^z
> http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ �T'
> http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ �s
>
> ------------------------
>
> "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
> maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
> burn in hell forever and ever...."
>
> -----
>
>
>> > btw, how are Re and Mi?
>>
>> > > > vote Republican!
>>
>> > > > ray- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: =?UTF-8?B?JCBUdXJpbiDimYI=?= <turinturambar.1 gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:18:50 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 56
> Message-ID: <fe269cc3-704a-40cf-94f2-24d133a576d0 l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <294vh693if1rppgkt1pou06tnkfg841ql1 4ax.com> <4d1f98dc$0$30411$c3e8da3$76a7c58f news.astraweb.com> <ea8vh6pb0to45o7oojjdcp57kuejq90tkr 4ax.com> <4d1fac43$0$2506$c3e8da3$a8a65a91 news.astraweb.com> <r8bvh6tpuh9grem7oeatlo5dagcfjki6vd 4ax.com> <marek1965-47A2EE.21122901012011 news.giganews.com> <6kqvh6tskqkic9m3fomu54rb3qr37psui0 4ax.com> <marek1965-562837.15532102012011 news.giganews.com> <01330434-79d6-435a-a949-d5acc81adf70 e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <4d23cc00$0$23820$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com> <5019384e-5f7a-446b-a477-f7fc9953f6c9 n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <3bba424f-b0d2-4d44-867b-a64a0bb304c7 r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.246.181.103
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1294265932 26238 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2011 22:18:52 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 22:18:52 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.246.181.103; posting-account=xJAPpwoAAACSudJYKDJF4a4iDX7un5QP
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe)
>
John Doe
> John Doe <j... usenethate.invalid> wrote
>> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> Space exploration is what distinguishes the great
>> >> >> presidents, like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
>> >> > OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did
>> >> > Reagan launch ?
>>
>> >> The space shuttle.
> <Laughs>
Says Andre the antifeminist Liberal. Got yourself set up for a
world full of trolling on the Internet, don't you boy.
> -NASA previously (March 31, 1972) had selected Rockwell's
> Rocketdyne Division to design and develop the Space Shuttle main
> engines. Contracts followed to Martin Marietta for the external
> tank (Aug. 16, 1973) and Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Division for
> the solid rocket boosters (June 27, 1974).-
>
> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_ov
> erview.html#sts_program
>
> Cointracts were let, metal was cut, and vehicles were built
And what have you ever designed and built, little boy Andre?
If you had, you would know that planning and building something is
far from being able to use it.
> BEFORE Rompin' Ronnie the Moron became President.
Ronald Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, by every state
except his opponent's home state.
> I understand that, as you are a rightard,
In 1984, twenty-five percent of registered Democrats voted for
Ronald Reagan.
Anyone who hangs out in controversial groups and calls himself an
"antifeminist liberal" is most likely just a troll. A liberal who
is being majorly shafted by a woman? Little boy Andre will get
over it someday, unless she doesn't stop.
>> The prosecution of AT&T was begun before Ronald Reagan entered
>> office too, but Ronald Reagan is attributed for continuing the
>> prosecution, breaking up AT&T, and helping to usher in a
>> worldwide era of telecommunications.
>> >> A random foreigner having delusions about something like our
>> >> space shuttle not being a major accomplishment is no
>> >> surprise.
>>
>> > LOL.
There is a comedian in little boy Andre's head.
>> > This 'random foreigner' is on frequent discussion panels at
>> > conferences about the US and other nations' space programs
>>
>> That is Andre the Asshole doing a French language number on
>> English in an effort to self-inflate his ego.
>
> <Laughs> Since I am in no way French, this is just more empty
> and ignorant Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the WHIPPED
> scoundrel.
Little boy Andre spends all day on the Internet spewing deranged
egotistical rhetoric and cut-and-paste insults.
>> Anyone who has a clue about anything should in hindsight at
>> least know that Ronald Reagan was a great president, very well
>> liked here in the United States and respected throughout the
>> world, except by zealous partisans of course.
...and some freak troll who says he is an "antifeminist liberal".
>> >> Actually, the Hubble telescope was also very good, just not
>> >> another space shuttle. Without looking... I bet that the
>> >> creep says Ronald Reagan was a bad president of our United
>> >> States. Strange, since an asshole should at least have
>> >> hindsight.
>> After a brief look, BINGO... Zealous partisanship is what
>> attracted Andre the Asshole to this thread.
>> Power tends to corrupt. Andre the Asshole's own leaders will
>> never have that problem.
>
> Yes, Canada is well able to hold our leaders accountable.
Our Girl Scouts could conquer your country, little boy Andre, and
you act like they already did. I was talking about power
corrupting the leaders of our United States, the most powerful
country on our planet.
--
>
> Andre
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:29:23 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 132
> Message-ID: <d5fb0c4f-ea09-4dae-9520-5666d87b1b6e v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <BdlTo.401$NG3.114 newsfe22.ams2> <4d1e2735$0$23884$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com> <9655eaa3-8e66-4586-952a-450b4ad0dde3 v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <4d200047$0$30506$c3e8da3$76a7c58f news.astraweb.com> <79113e56-0ab3-488b-b747-a2aaf7746f39 f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <4d25f099$0$1567$c3e8da3$40d4fd75 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.224.9.45
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1294349364 25873 127.0.0.1 (6 Jan 2011 21:29:24 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:29:24 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.224.9.45; posting-account=r6Eq2woAAADLatUkbpNb1vZaavTTns3Y
retardsman
of all the lames thru all the lame millennia, undoubtedly goddess
columbia is lamest
> It'd
> be nice taking that side trip to DC to see Mark, he's a very nice guy,
> plus we could probably get him to take us around the City.
side trip?
tom, we are constructing the whole Eastern Peeboard leg of the
pilgrimage around Polish Knight, his fellowship, his forbearance, his
generosity
you familiarly call him "Mark" but notice i take no such leeway -- the
man acts like a knight, hey, he's a knight
btw during this Roadtrip Process i've developed significant respect
for his political views .... could someone remind me again what those
are uh... much obliged
> I haven't
> seen the science museum since it opened in '79. Who knows, maybe Mark
> has political connections and we could get together with them so they
> could have a good laugh.
i'll wear my 'Go With Goldwater' button!
>
> I know that's a road trip unlike that of our youth but we aren't young
> anymore. Darn!
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
grovelling before baalic lackeys sounds pretty tempting to me, man...
count me in
Roooooooooooooaaaadtrip!!
PolishKnight
<01330434-79d6-435a...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
retardsman <remar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As others have pointed out, many Republicans are not necessarily
conservative but rather RINOs or outright liberals. That said, the left
is now openly anti-male having identified men as a group to be
scapegoated and exploited in order to buy votes from women.
regards,
PolishKnight
Andre Lieven
> Andre accurately stated:
>
> > OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did Reagan
> > launch ? The Shuttle came from Nixon, and the ISS comes from
> > Clinton.
>
> But in fact...
Comes the Faux Noise Spin...
> The most popular and greatest president in modern times, Ronald
> Reagan,
0-2.
> christened the space shuttle launch and started the
> international space Station.
0-3. That was Clinton. Reagan's 'Space Station Freedom'
never got off the drawing boards.
> In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected
> in the biggest landslide in our country's history.
That only proves that Americans are, as a group, very stupid.
They also re-elected the Chimpenfuhrer, Shrub.
> Ronald Reagan
> also brought the Cold War to an end without firing a shot.
Naw, that was Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and so on, with a generous
helping of Gorbachev. Not to mention NATO, thus, the UK, et al.
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/history.pdf
>
> "The Space Shuttle flew for the first time in April 1981,
> and once again a space station was heralded as the next
> logical step for the U.S. in space. NASA founded the
> Space Station Task Force in May 1982, which proposed
> international participation in the station's development,
> construction, and operations. In 1983, NASA held the first
> workshop for potential space station users.
> NASA Gets the Go-Ahead (1984-92)
> These efforts culminated in January 1984, when
> President Ronald Reagan called for a space station in his
> State of the Union address. He said that the space station
> program was to include participation by U.S. allies."
Yet, all that was 100% talk.
The FUNDING came in the 90s. Duh !
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre accurately and factually wrote:
>
> > John Doe <j... usenethate.invalid> wrote
> >> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> >> > John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> Space exploration is what distinguishes the great
> >> >> >> presidents, like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
> >> >> > OK, so what space iniatives, including funding them, did
> >> >> > Reagan launch ?
>
> >> >> The space shuttle.
> > <Laughs>
>
> Says Andre the antifeminist Liberal. Got yourself set up for a
> world full of trolling on the Internet, don't you boy.
1) <Massive Loony Projection>
2) -Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel.-
> > -NASA previously (March 31, 1972) had selected Rockwell's
> > Rocketdyne Division to design and develop the Space Shuttle main
> > engines. Contracts followed to Martin Marietta for the external
> > tank (Aug. 16, 1973) and Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Division for
> > the solid rocket boosters (June 27, 1974).-
>
> >http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_ov
> > erview.html#sts_program
>
> > Cointracts were let, metal was cut, and vehicles were built
>
> And what have you ever designed and built, little boy Andre?
Ibid 2. I've built as much as Rompin' Ronnie. <Laughs>
In any case, the FACTS fully support my statements, which
is why you FLEE from them, and wish to make ME, the messenger
of your errors, the topic.
I accept your total concession on the topic. Thank you.
> If you had, you would know that planning and building something is
> far from being able to use it.
Indeed. That's why the FACT that the Shuttle was BUILT BEFORE
Rompin' Ronnie Retard became President utterly demolishes your
failed and factless claim.
> > BEFORE Rompin' Ronnie the Moron became President.
>
> Ronald Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, by every state
> except his opponent's home state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Thus, Epic Fail and non sequitur.
> > I understand that, as you are a rightard,
>
> In 1984, twenty-five percent of registered Democrats voted for
> Ronald Reagan.
Ibid.
> Anyone who hangs out in controversial groups and calls himself an
> "antifeminist liberal" is most likely just a troll.
-That which is ASSerted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> A liberal who
> is being majorly shafted by a woman? Little boy Andre will get
> over it someday, unless she doesn't stop.
Given that I made a criminal legal precedent in Canada that is
pro men, match my credentials oh useless and mouthy ace.
<bitch slap>
> >> The prosecution of AT&T was begun before Ronald Reagan entered
> >> office too, but Ronald Reagan is attributed for continuing the
> >> prosecution, breaking up AT&T, and helping to usher in a
> >> worldwide era of telecommunications.
> >> >> A random foreigner having delusions about something like our
> >> >> space shuttle not being a major accomplishment is no
> >> >> surprise.
>
> >> > LOL.
>
> There is a comedian in little boy Andre's head.
Ibid 1) & 2).
> >> > This 'random foreigner' is on frequent discussion panels at
> >> > conferences about the US and other nations' space programs
>
> >> That is Andre the Asshole doing a French language number on
> >> English in an effort to self-inflate his ego.
>
> > <Laughs> Since I am in no way French, this is just more empty
> > and ignorant Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the WHIPPED
> > scoundrel.
>
> Little boy Andre spends all day on the Internet spewing deranged
> egotistical rhetoric and cut-and-paste insults.
Ibid 1) & 2).
> >> Anyone who has a clue about anything should in hindsight at
> >> least know that Ronald Reagan was a great president, very well
> >> liked here in the United States and respected throughout the
> >> world, except by zealous partisans of course.
>
> ...and some freak troll who says he is an "antifeminist liberal".
Ibid 1) & 2).
> >> >> Actually, the Hubble telescope was also very good, just not
> >> >> another space shuttle. Without looking... I bet that the
> >> >> creep says Ronald Reagan was a bad president of our United
> >> >> States. Strange, since an asshole should at least have
> >> >> hindsight.
> >> After a brief look, BINGO... Zealous partisanship is what
> >> attracted Andre the Asshole to this thread.
> >> Power tends to corrupt. Andre the Asshole's own leaders will
> >> never have that problem.
>
> > Yes, Canada is well able to hold our leaders accountable.
>
> Our Girl Scouts could conquer your country,
<Laughs> In wars with the US, our record is 3-0. Try again.
> little boy Andre, and
> you act like they already did. I was talking about power
> corrupting the leaders of our United States, the most powerful
> country on our planet.
Well, it's lovely for you that the US is so 'powerful'. Tell us, how
'powerful' is it in Afghanistan and Iraq ? 0-2 for 'powerful'...
In any case, as the US is also the most STUPID 1st world nation
on Earth, you have yet another Number One trophy to place on all
of your mantles... <Laughs>
Oh, what's my evidence for that statement ? Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
-According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, around 40% of
Americans believe in YEC, rising to over 50% among Republicans
but reducing strongly with level of education (only 22% of
respondents with postgraduate degrees compared with 47% of
those with high school only or less).[13]-
-Among thirty-two countries surveyed, the United States was
next-to-last for its public acceptance of evolution.-
http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/polls-surveys-on-creationismevolution/
-"Only Turkish adults were less likely to accept the concept
of evolution than American adults,"-
http://ncse.com/news/2006/08/public-acceptance-evolution-science-00991
OK, you're only the second stupidest peoples. But, when *Turkey*
is Number One, well, you might as well be Number One as far as
non Muslim nations go... They haven't had a Reformation yet...
Andre
Masculist
Well, I forgot to tell you but did hint at it with the Iowa stop. You
see this roadtrip has been in the works for some time...long before
Mark's invite. I wanted to spend some of the summer at two friends
places on Long Island but also wanted to hit Iowa to see a friend. I
was planning on flying and would therefore miss the Iowa stop. But
when you said you were somehow disabled I thought maybe we could hitch
across country making the stop in Iowa, then on to Long Island and
then the last leg to Mark's. I'm always trying to do too many things
at one time.
> tom, we are constructing the whole Eastern Peeboard leg of the
> pilgrimage around Polish Knight, his fellowship, his forbearance, his
> generosity
Oh hell no. I don't ever do that kind of thing. He'd be lucky to see
us at his doorstep and we surely wouldn't put him out. Maybe stay a
nite or two.
> you familiarly call him "Mark" but notice i take no such leeway -- the
> man acts like a knight, hey, he's a knight
I spent an afternoon with him and got to know him a bit also through
email. He's just a regular nice guy.
> btw during this Roadtrip Process i've developed significant respect
> for his political views .... could someone remind me again what those
> are uh... much obliged
Republican Hack? I don't know.
> > I haven't
>
> > seen the science museum since it opened in '79. Who knows, maybe Mark
> > has political connections and we could get together with them so they
> > could have a good laugh.
>
> i'll wear my 'Go With Goldwater' button!
Very thoughtful ray. Mark would like that <smile>
>
>
> > I know that's a road trip unlike that of our youth but we aren't young
> > anymore. Darn!
>
> > Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> grovelling before baalic lackeys sounds pretty tempting to me, man...
> count me in
ray, it's the seat of power! Anyway it's just a small part of the
trip.
> Roooooooooooooaaaadtrip!!
Load em up and move em out RAWHIDE!
Tom
Stormy
> On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, Malefeminist <malefe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 12:20 am, Retard <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> retardsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > > > --
>
> > > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> > > Roadtrip Issue
>
> > Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> > invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
> Shorty's tab...!
>
> > Thomasina
>
lol
> - - -
>
> This has been another enlightening moment, with:
>
> Turin
>
> I have such sites to show you...
> ------------------------
>
> http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ⚕
>
I love going to all of these sites! They're all so masculine an' sexy
compared to those whiny reactionary rant sites sponsored by wimpy men
who can't get pretty girls LOL :)
Stormy
Stormy
On Jan 5, 5:40 pm, $ Turin ♂ <turinturamba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 4:22 pm, Retard <remarks...@idroolalot.com> wrote:
>
LOL has Mr. Mechelen closed his taxi service? :)
> > from there we phake pharaoh, skip the Via Maris, and dip down south,
> > just like the israel lights, taking the bottom route across this
> > diseased nation .... then swing north and approach The Beest from the
> > south, in her fat, foul, vulnerable underbelly
>
> (Lmao ...such idiots.)
>
Now you be nice Turin :) You know Tom doesn't know what he's saying.
> > then a straight shot to Polish Knight's house for some much-needed R
> > and R and further strategy
>
> Heads up: Most people wouldn't recommend PolishNut's input for any
> further strategy on job hunting.
>
LOL I'm glad you remembered the apostrophe Turin. I just had the most
frightening vision of a shaved adult male in an um incorrectly
fastened diaper wandering the street asking everyone for his mommy. :)
Stormy
Stormy
LOL
> > It'd
> > be nice taking that side trip to DC to see Mark, he's a very nice guy,
> > plus we could probably get him to take us around the City.
>
> Hahaha ...you, probably, believe that radio personalities are,
> likewise, very nice people that would willingly allow you to mooch
> from them, if you could just get close enough.
>
> > I haven't
> > seen the science museum since it opened in '79. Who knows, maybe Mark
> > has political connections and we could get together with them so they
> > could have a good laugh.
>
> Yeah, Mark's political connections, pretty much, could give everyone a
> good laugh. The only way he could get you through those doors would
> be through his influence over a president, or two, printed on a green
> piece of paper ...And, I wouldn't wager that he could do very much of
> that, even for himself.
>
LOL
Stormy
On Jan 6, 8:07 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?JCBUdXJpbiDimYI=?= <turinturambar.1 gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, Malefeminist <malefe... gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 5, 12:20 am, Retard <remarks... yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> reta
> > rdsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> >> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> >> > > --
>
> >> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> >> > Roadtrip Issue
>
> >> Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> >> invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> > Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
> > Shorty's tab...!
>
> Apparently your main purpose here on UseNet as to spew garbage and
> spam your websites.
> --
LOL Turin I think you have another jealous imitator :)
Stormy
John Doe
> John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> Got yourself set up for a world full of trolling on the
>> Internet, don't you boy.
> Sorry. My mom beat me until I started liking it. That is why I
> run around the Internet as an "antifeminist liberal".
Too much information, little boy Andre.
>> And what have you ever designed and built, little boy Andre?
> I couldn't design or build myself out of a wet paper bag.
Oh well, Andre the Asshole, at least you can cut and paste stuff
from wikishit.
>> If you had, you would know that planning and building something
>> is far from being able to use it.
> My apologies for being an ignorant clueless little troll.
Now, Andre, all you need is a better tinfoil cap.
>> Ronald Reagan was reelected by a landslide in 1984, by every
>> state except his opponent's home state. Twenty-five percent of
>> registered Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan.
> As a wikishit dropout, naturally I didn't know that.
>> Anyone who hangs out in controversial groups and calls himself
>> an "antifeminist liberal" is most likely just a troll.
> My sadomasochism is hereditary, and from being beaten by my
> mother until it felt good. You should catch one of our family
> reunions...
No, thanks...
>> A liberal who is being majorly shafted by a woman? Little boy
>> Andre will get over it someday, unless she doesn't stop.
> She never well, neither will my ex.
Shame on your mother, Andre, and your sister too.
>> There is a comedian in little boy Andre's head.
> It's this cheap Chinese-made tinfoil cap, and a few too many
> shock therapies.
Okey-dokey...
>> Little boy Andre spends all day on the Internet spewing
>> deranged egotistical rhetoric and cut-and-paste insults.
> Hey, it's what I'm good at. I am a freak troll who runs around
> the Internet calling myself an "antifeminist liberal". I troll
> everything.
As a wikishit dropout, Andre, you are qualified to do that.
>> >> Anyone who has a clue about anything should in hindsight at
>> >> least know that Ronald Reagan was a great president, very
>> >> well liked here in the United States and respected
>> >> throughout the world, except by zealous partisans and some
>> >> freak "antifeminist liberal" troll.
>> >> Actually, the Hubble telescope was also very good, just
>> >> not another space shuttle. Without looking... I bet that
>> >> the creep says Ronald Reagan was a bad president of our
>> >> United States. Strange, since an asshole should at least
>> >> have hindsight.
>> >> After a brief look, BINGO... Zealous partisanship is what
>> >> attracted Andre the Asshole to this thread. Power tends to
>> >> corrupt. Andre the Asshole's own leaders will never have
>> >> that problem.
> In wars with the US, our record is 3-0.
Little boy Andre is obviously a deranged troll.
>> I was talking about power corrupting the leaders of our United
>> States, the most powerful country on our planet.
>
> Well, it's lovely for you that the US is so 'powerful'.
There is nothing difficult to understand about that expression,
Andre the Asshole, we have enough nuke capability to destroy the
world several times over. Do you think you can change reality with
rhetoric, Andre, in the empty space between your ears?
> I am a wikishit dropout, but I keep going back hoping they will
> give me an honorary degree.
Aim high, little boy Andre!
--
>
> Andre
retardsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
hi PK!
eh, i may have employed just a bit of irony there, touting the
republicants 'n all
truth is, both the u.s. left AND the right have sold american boys,
men, and masculinity down the river for over a century, largely for
money and the approval of women
god hates them both
the Demoncraps have been more organized and feral about their
destruction of maleness, while the Republicants have accomplished most
of their evil subversively, or through "law" and the creation of their
police state
certainly, however, we can agree that the left -- not only in amerika
but internationally -- operates almost exclusively now on a platform
of male-hatred/female-supremacism ... recently, as with Maria
Shriver's announcement that amerika is "A Woman's Nation," the true
politics of the nation stands forth naked .... they're not trying to
hide their hatred or their gender supremacism anymore, enough of the
population has now been conditioned to scapegoat boys and men that
they feel comfortable expressing their pathology in public
cheers
ray
retardsman
based on prior visits, i am apparently allergic to the East Coast;
every time i've been back there i've almost croaked
it's a true Wasteland -- i've never been any place on the planet that
was so depressed and enervated psychospiritually
those naive hippie goofs tried to levitate the pentagon, a notion
doomed from the get-go
god doesnt want the gynogulag any closer to him than it already is
no .... they should have instead "gone with the flow" of the
structure's inherent NRG which -- and here's a hint -- ain't 'up'
>
> > Roooooooooooooaaaadtrip!!
>
> Load em up and move em out RAWHIDE!
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
a-Movin Movin Movin
tho theyre disapprovin
keep them doggies movin
$ Turin ♂
> =?UTF-8?B?JCBUdXJpbiDimYI=?= <turinturambar.1 gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, Malefeminist <malefe... gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 5, 12:20 am, Retard <remarks... yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> reta
> > rdsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> >> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> >> > > --
>
> >> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> >> > Roadtrip Issue
>
> >> Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> >> invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> > Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
> > Shorty's tab...!
>
> Apparently your main purpose here on UseNet as to spew garbage and
> spam your websites.
Awww.... poor baby Zed can't direct enough morons to his own waste of
domain space.... awww.
Let's all cry on the count of 3, for wounded Zed......
1...2......... .... ... . . .
Awww... looks like Paula is, again trying, to post innocent headers as
some sort of scare tactic ...I guess we all know who really is
scared. ;D
Meanwhile ...down in Bumfuq:
Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
news2.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-
for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women"
<-- coincidence?
From: John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid>
References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com>
<294vh693if1rppgkt...@4ax.com> <4d1f98dc
$0$30411$c3e8da3$76a7...@news.astraweb.com>
<ea8vh6pb0to45o7oo...@4ax.com>
<4d1fac43$0$2506$c3e8da3$a8a6...@news.astraweb.com>
<r8bvh6tpuh9grem7o...@4ax.com> <marek1965-47A2EE.
2112290...@news.giganews.com>
<6kqvh6tskqkic9m3f...@4ax.com>
<marek1965-56283...@news.giganews.com>
<01330434-79d6-435a...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
<4d23cc00$0$23820$c3e8da3$9b4f...@news.astraweb.com>
<5019384e-5f7a-446b...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
<3bba424f-b0d2-4d44...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
<fe269cc3-704a-40cf...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
Date: 07 Jan 2011 01:07:12 GMT
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <4d266740$0$9522$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8d873e6d.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=8^RHKK[hY]=l=bkA3Hk5C1L?0kYOcDh@:1Q0@^kI2Bm;>3<:Wm\C]Q?mA
\SGi1lhA8CLLVSX7Olm:Ihb53G7bj14iYnnl97<O47H6V]BBaQ8j=
- - -
He walks with angels:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ⚕
$ Turin ♂
On Jan 7, 9:40 am, PolshKneelingworm <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <01330434-79d6-435a-a949-d5acc81ad...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
Another "Master of the Obvious!", 20 years too late with the
news......
- - -
One of millions of Angry Men:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ⚕
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
> regards,
> PolishedGnat
$ Turin ♂
Yeah, like thinking clearly.
> > tom, we are constructing the whole Eastern Peeboard leg of the
> > pilgrimage around Polish Knight, his fellowship, his forbearance, his
> > generosity
>
> Oh hell no. I don't ever do that kind of thing. He'd be lucky to see
> us at his doorstep and we surely wouldn't put him out. Maybe stay a
> nite or two.
>
> > you familiarly call him "Mark" but notice i take no such leeway -- the
> > man acts like a knight, hey, he's a knight
>
> I spent an afternoon with him and got to know him a bit also through
> email. He's just a regular nice guy.
Wow. You would think that someone who constantly rehashes the same
old conventional "wisdom", in the blandest possible media persona,
would be the most spectacular, larger than life, dynamic, vibrant
human - just pulsing with the very intensity of experience - that you
could never think of ...What a non-sequitur.
- - -
This has been another enlightening moment, with:
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/turin_turambar ∞
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First/ ♂
http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ⚕
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
> > btw during this Roadtrip Process i've developed significant respect
> > for his political views .... could someone remind me again what those
> > are uh... much obliged
>
> Republican Hack? I don't know.
>
> > > I haven't
>
> > > seen the science museum since it opened in '79. Who knows, maybe Mark
> > > has political connections and we could get together with them so they
> > > could have a good laugh.
>
> > i'll wear my 'Go With Goldwater' button!
>
> Very thoughtful ray. Mark would like that <smile>
>
>
>
> > > I know that's a road trip unlike that of our youth but we aren't young
> > > anymore. Darn!
>
> > > Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > grovelling before baalic lackeys sounds pretty tempting to me, man...
> > count me in
>
> ray, it's the seat of power! Anyway it's just a small part of the
> trip.
>
> > Roooooooooooooaaaadtrip!!
>
> Load em up and move em out RAWHIDE!
>
> Toma Thumbelina
$ Turin ♂
Thank you, lovely, Stormy. Due to your own massively feminine charms,
I consider your opinion on this subject worth something, as well. :-*
$ Turin ♂
Hehehe, probably not.
> > > from there we phake pharaoh, skip the Via Maris, and dip down south,
> > > just like the israel lights, taking the bottom route across this
> > > diseased nation .... then swing north and approach The Beest from the
> > > south, in her fat, foul, vulnerable underbelly
>
> > (Lmao ...such idiots.)
>
> Now you be nice Turin :) You know Tom doesn't know what he's saying.
*Laughs* ...By the same token, he never knows when he's been
insulted.
> > > then a straight shot to Polish Knight's house for some much-needed R
> > > and R and further strategy
>
> > Heads up: Most people wouldn't recommend PolishNut's input for any
> > further strategy on job hunting.
>
> LOL I'm glad you remembered the apostrophe Turin. I just had the most
> frightening vision of a shaved adult male in an um incorrectly
> fastened diaper wandering the street asking everyone for his mommy. :)
Lmfao, Storm. If that idiot ever contracts Alzheimer's, then, I think
that you will have had a prophecy......
$ Turin ♂
> On Jan 6, 8:07 pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> > =?UTF-8?B?JCBUdXJpbiDimYI=?= <turinturambar.1 gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, Malefeminist <malefe... gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 5, 12:20 am, Retard <remarks... yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> reta
> > > rdsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > >> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > >> > > --
>
> > >> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> > >> > Roadtrip Issue
>
> > >> Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> > >> invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> > > Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
> > > Shorty's tab...!
>
> > Apparently your main purpose here on UseNet as to spew garbage and
> > spam your websites.
> > --
>
> LOL Turin I think you have another jealous imitator :)
Aren't they all? ;D
Paula just gets sick of seeding both sides, all of the time, only to
have me come along and tear down his weird worlds with a few words of
incisive reasoning. He tries *so* hard to create the venue for his
little "moderate" antichrist to step into ....Lmao. Then, the real
Messiah just *has* to stop by.
...It throws him into therapy, every time.
Andre Lieven
truckstop.insane> forged:
> Andre Lieven <andrelieven@antifeminist-liberal-R-me> wrote:
> > John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> Got yourself set up for a world full of trolling on the
> >> Internet, don't you boy.
> > Sorry. My mom beat me until I started liking it. That is why I
> > run around the Internet as an "antifeminist liberal".
>
> Too much information, little boy Andre.
Ah, forging, the final futile refuge of the Liar Loser.
I accept your total concession, not only on the topic, but on
you being anything other than a waste of skin.
IOW, you ARE a typical ReThuglican Cretard.
Please die last week. Painfully.
Andre
John Doe
> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Got yourself set up for a world full of trolling on the
>> >> Internet, don't you boy.
>> > Sorry. My mom beat me until I liked it. That is why I run
>> > around the Internet as a sadomasochist "antifeminist
>> > liberal".
>>
>> Too much information, little boy Andre.
>
> What I say means nothing, so what difference does it make?
> Please just tell my mother and my ex-wife sister to stop beating
> me.
No problem, little boy Andre.
--
>
> Andre
>
Stormy
> On Jan 6, 8:07 pm, Joan Dope <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> > =?UTF-8?B?JCBUdXJpbiDimYI=?= <turinturambar.1 gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 1:30 pm, Malefeminist <malefe... gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 5, 12:20 am, Retard <remarks... yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jan 4, 5:40 pm, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:> reta
> > > rdsman <remarksman yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > up with the conservatives, theyre our only hope
>
> > >> > > In other words... We are in deep Doo Doo.
> > >> > > --
>
> > >> > dont think of it as a Political Issue, Mr. Doe.... think of it as a
> > >> > Roadtrip Issue
>
> > >> Roadtrip! Remember, only the politically disenfranchised are
> > >> invited. That means almost all of you suckers!
>
> > > Though, it especially means that all of you suckers will be paying
> > > Shorty's tab...!
>
> > Apparently your main purpose here on UseNet as to spew garbage and
> > spam your websites.
>
> Awww.... poor baby Zed can't direct enough morons to his own waste of
> domain space.... awww.
>
> Let's all cry on the count of 3, for wounded Zed......
> 1...2......... .... ... . . .
>
waaah! lol
Who did that before Turin? Mr. MCP?
> Meanwhile ...down in Bumfuq:
>
> Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
> news2.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-
> for-mail
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women"
> <-- coincidence?
> From: John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e...@news.astraweb.com>
> <294vh693if1rppgkt1pou06tnkfg841...@4ax.com> <4d1f98dc
> $0$30411$c3e8da3$76a7c...@news.astraweb.com>
> <ea8vh6pb0to45o7oojjdcp57kuejq90...@4ax.com>
> <4d1fac43$0$2506$c3e8da3$a8a65...@news.astraweb.com>
> <r8bvh6tpuh9grem7oeatlo5dagcfjki...@4ax.com> <marek1965-47A2EE.
> 21122901012...@news.giganews.com>
> <6kqvh6tskqkic9m3fomu54rb3qr37ps...@4ax.com>
> <marek1965-562837.15532102012...@news.giganews.com>
> <01330434-79d6-435a-a949-d5acc81ad...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
> <4d23cc00$0$23820$c3e8da3$9b4ff...@news.astraweb.com>
> <5019384e-5f7a-446b-a477-f7fc9953f...@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
> <3bba424f-b0d2-4d44-867b-a64a0bb30...@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> <fe269cc3-704a-40cf-94f2-24d133a57...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Date: 07 Jan 2011 01:07:12 GMT
> Lines: 104
> Message-ID: <4d266740$0$9522$c3e8da3$92d0a...@news.astraweb.com>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 8d873e6d.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace: DXC=8^RHKK[hY]=l=bkA3Hk5C1L?0kYOcDh@:1Q0@^kI2Bm;>3<:Wm\C]Q?mA
> \SGi1lhA8CLLVSX7Olm:Ihb53G7bj14iYnnl97<O47H6V]BBaQ8j=
>
Hey there's no ip address?? How does he do that??
> - - -
>
> He walks with angels:
>
aw thank you turin lol
Stormy
:) Aw thank you dark handsome Turin. I will print this one out for my
mirror too LOL
Stormy
Stormy
LOL
Stormy
LOL I thought he was a regular patient.
Masculist
I had the same take on the place when I was there last 6 or 7 years
ago. Actually the whole country is in a kind of funk but it's more
noticeable on the East Coast.
Yeah, but funnier than hell! That was the first shot of the political
revolt and naivete was in order.
> god doesnt want the gynogulag any closer to him than it already is
>
> no .... they should have instead "gone with the flow" of the
> structure's inherent NRG which -- and here's a hint -- ain't 'up'
>
>
>
> > > Roooooooooooooaaaadtrip!!
>
> > Load em up and move em out RAWHIDE!
>
> > Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> a-Movin Movin Movin
> tho theyre disapprovin
> keep them doggies movin
Rawhide! Well, at least it will be nice to see my old friends on "The
Island".
Tom
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher <0339...@rambler.ru> wrote:
> PolishKnight wrote:
>
> > I'm personally openminded to a third party forming and moving away from
> > the Republican party on this, and other key issues, soon if the next 2
> > years turn out to be more GW Bush style moderates.
>
> A new party I could only see being more favorable to us if it
> were explicityly for men's rights, which can't happen as long as
> women have the vote.
>
> Andrew Usher
As feminists are quick to recognize, and I agree with them, men's rights
often coincide with other political agendas. A welfare state mainly
benefits women. Affirmative action is also required in order for women
to appear to compete as "equals" with men.
Kill those two heads off the hydra and a lot of wind gets knocked out of
feminism's and anti-male sails. Even with the huge state on their side,
economic realities are starting to hit them hard just as the former
Soviet paradise discovered.
If the only way leftists offer us to get rid of an anti-male welfare
state and gender discrimination is by having socialism collapse
altogether. So be it.
Regarding the women's vote: That can be controlled just as there are men
who bought into leftism during the sexual revolution to impress women
they desired.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher <0339...@rambler.ru> wrote:
> > Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> > activist.
> >
> > So don't even try.
>
> Part of being a men's rights activist is confronting the truth.
> It's the Republicunts' running from the truth that's got us into
> this mess!
>
> Andrew Usher
Bravo Andrew! I would like to congratulate you on your willingness to
confront the truth by pointing out that it's OTHER people who refuse to
confront the truth and are responsible for the mess, not you. It's
amazing that the world isn't a more peaceful place because of people
like you!
regards,
PolishKnight
(Do you even get it?)
John Doe
> Andrew Usher <0339...@rambler.ru> wrote:
>> PolishKnight wrote:
>> > I'm personally openminded to a third party forming and moving
>> > away from the Republican party on this, and other key issues,
>> > soon if the next 2 years turn out to be more GW Bush style
>> > moderates.
>>
>> A new party I could only see being more favorable to us if it
>> were explicityly for men's rights, which can't happen as long
>> as women have the vote.
> As feminists are quick to recognize, and I agree with them,
> men's rights often coincide with other political agendas. A
> welfare state mainly benefits women. Affirmative action is also
> required in order for women to appear to compete as "equals"
> with men.
>
> Kill those two heads off the hydra and a lot of wind gets
> knocked out of feminism's and anti-male sails. Even with the
> huge state on their side, economic realities are starting to hit
> them hard just as the former Soviet paradise discovered.
The problem is that feminism is already deeply embedded in our
society, there are too many women who already depend on it.
Something like a (radical and unprecedented) change of heart
sounds good though, anything besides another world war or
self-annihilation.
> If the only way leftists offer us to get rid of an anti-male
> welfare state and gender discrimination is by having socialism
> collapse altogether. So be it.
Not sure what that means.
> Regarding the women's vote: That can be controlled
Or it could get worse, like if the Senate filibuster falls.
> just as there are men who bought into leftism during the sexual
> revolution to impress women they desired.
They can import more illegal aliens.
--
>
> regards, PolishKnight
>
John Doe
> Andrew Usher <0339...@rambler.ru> wrote:
>> It's the Republicunts' running from the truth that's got us
>> into this mess!
> Bravo Andrew! I would like to congratulate you on your
> willingness to confront the truth by pointing out that it's
> OTHER people who refuse to confront the truth and are
> responsible for the mess, not you. It's amazing that the world
> isn't a more peaceful place because of people like you!
How about confronting the facts? How many politicians of either
party or anyone from the one-way media talk about the problems
caused by somehow making common men and women "equal"? The last
effort towards that end was Dan Quayle's "family values", and that
got him and Bush Senior unelected. How much alarm have you heard
from Republicans about the fact that men have been unemployed in
this recent economic downturn at a much higher rate than women?
Even a peep from Republicans about that? The only senator I have
heard mention that fact so far is Bernie Sanders. If that were
reversed, there would be outrage from Democrats and Republicans
would go along with it. They would be enacting all sorts of bills
to correct that problem.
PolishKnight
John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> PolishKnight <marek1965 comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Usher <0339...@rambler.ru> wrote:
>
> >> It's the Republicunts' running from the truth that's got us
> >> into this mess!
>
> > Bravo Andrew! I would like to congratulate you on your
> > willingness to confront the truth by pointing out that it's
> > OTHER people who refuse to confront the truth and are
> > responsible for the mess, not you. It's amazing that the world
> > isn't a more peaceful place because of people like you!
>
> How about confronting the facts? How many politicians of either
> party or anyone from the one-way media talk about the problems
> caused by somehow making common men and women "equal"? The last
> effort towards that end was Dan Quayle's "family values", and that
> got him and Bush Senior unelected.
Hello John,
I think GH Bush was unelected because of his breaking his no new taxes
pledge along with economic problems of the time combined with his
moderate leftist values that didn't win him votes from the left and
caused many of his supporters to stay home.
On the contrary, as much as the left pilloried Quayle for his family
values remarks, it remains one of the few good things he's remembered
for.
> How much alarm have you heard
> from Republicans about the fact that men have been unemployed in
> this recent economic downturn at a much higher rate than women?
> Even a peep from Republicans about that? The only senator I have
> heard mention that fact so far is Bernie Sanders. If that were
> reversed, there would be outrage from Democrats and Republicans
> would go along with it. They would be enacting all sorts of bills
> to correct that problem.
You're absolutely right John Doe. The fundamental problem is that
Republicans don't want to service their male electorate and try instead
to grab crumbs from the left's table by appealing to women. Granted,
the women's vote is larger than men BUT many women are married to men
and would benefit indirectly from such an agenda.
You're also right that Republicans are terrified of being unPC and try
to keep their heads low. It takes a lot of bravery and guts to go the
other direction and the political process itself probably weeds out such
candidates (they can't get into lower positions such as state senator if
they shoot off their mouth.)
In any case, the absolute enemies of men are the left. Men simply don't
need government as much as women and certainly a certain class of women
(man hating lesbians or career women, unwed mothers, etc.)
It's the ol' stupid party versus evil party paradigm.
regards,
PolishKnight
John Doe
...
> I think GH Bush was unelected because of his breaking his no new
> taxes pledge along with economic problems of the time combined
> with his moderate leftist values that didn't win him votes from
> the left and caused many of his supporters to stay home.
>
> On the contrary, as much as the left pilloried Quayle for his
> family values remarks, it remains one of the few good things
> he's remembered for.
I recall (but cannot locate) Dan Quayle in an interview talking
about something like the "Murphy Brown scandal". Whatever exactly
his controversial public statement was, in retrospect he said
something like "from that point on it was us versus them".
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews6/danquayle.htm
Assuming the info on that page is accurate... Apparently it
includes a quote that the one-way media, feminists, and other
cannibal leftists used to bash Dan Quayle and George Bush Senior.
One of the subtitles is "Dan Quayle on Family Values and the
Cultural Elite". Interesting title, but there's not really much on
that page about it.
"It doesn't help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown -- a
character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly
paid, professional woman -- mocking the importance of fathers, by
bearing a child alone, and calling it just another `lifestyle
choice'. I know it is not fashionable to talk about moral values,
but we need to do it. Even though our cultural leaders in
Hollywood, network TV, the national newspapers routinely jeer at
them, I think that most of us in this room know that some things
are good, and other things are wrong. Now it's time to make the
discussion public."
PolishKnight
John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
Looking back, the end of the cold war stunned historians including
embittered leftists who secretly wished for an opposite conclusion.
Imagine going back in time to 1951 and asking Truman to consider bombing
North Korea as Douglas MacArthur suggested. (Granted, it was unlikely
for Truman to do so considering that he and his boss had implimented
socialism in the USA and was infiltrated by communist spies as revealed
later by the KGB).
At the time, for anti-communists, the situation appeared equally bleak.
Communists had, and still have, infiltrated most major institutions
including the media, and their goal was to have a large state in total
control of everything.
When the USSR's war effort petered out, it's economic instability
revealed itself and that was that. Communism failed not due to
political will and power. It had plenty of that including in the USA!
It failed due to the logical and economic problems inherent in it's
philosophy!
Back to feminism: Women are NOT dependent upon feminism. Most women
probably don't identify themselves as feminists even in the loosest
terms. Their concerns typically are:
1) Getting money from the welfare state (that's socialism, not feminism!)
2) Marrying up (traditionalism)
3) Going to divorce court or family courts to get money in the form of
alimony or child-support (this is chivalrous legislation passed long
before feminism)
Note that few women gush with appreciation for feminism for "equal pay
for equal work". Most are either tired from 'balancing home and career'
or angry that their husbands either don't earn enough money or don't
help out around the house enough.
In other words, few women are getting much from "feminism" nowadays.
Whatever they've gotten, they've paid for whether they know it or not.
They also are unlikely to enjoy benefits such as free daycare since the
socialist agenda needs to survive via spending that money on wealthy
wall street donors (Goldman Sacks) or immigrant groups.
> > If the only way leftists offer us to get rid of an anti-male
> > welfare state and gender discrimination is by having socialism
> > collapse altogether. So be it.
>
> Not sure what that means.
Really? Are you sincere that you don't understand what I mean by those
references?
Are you unaware that the welfare state largely benefits unwed mothers
where the men are kicked out of the home and then ordered to work to
repay the system in order for such women to continue enjoying benefits?
That doesn't seem anti-male to you?
And you aren't aware of affirmative action which openly proclaims that
equal workplace and educational opportunity is defined as giving
preferential treatment to women?
> > Regarding the women's vote: That can be controlled
>
> Or it could get worse, like if the Senate filibuster falls.
Ironically, it was the left defending the filibuster the last time GW
Bush had a congressional majority.
> > just as there are men who bought into leftism during the sexual
> > revolution to impress women they desired.
>
> They can import more illegal aliens.
Agreed.
But note that illegal aliens probably don't share feminist ideals in the
long run.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
<df2a7bab-cfef-42fd...@v17g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
$ Turin �� <turintu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Turin,
Ironically, it was about 25 years ago that I figured this out. When I
first started to explore political ideals for myself in my late teens
and early 20's, I thought that the leftist agenda sounded great. I even
found it repugnant that anyone could be against "affirmative action".
Since the Internet didn't exist back then, all I had to go on was the
explanation that the left was for "equality" and "ending racism".
Then when I found out that the left actually perpetuated racism and
sexism in the form of bashing whites and men, I asked what the deal was.
I was then immediately bashed by them as "stupid" for not getting on
board which didn't have the expected effect (I didn't go "Wow! I don't
want to be stupid! I better say and think what you tell me so I can be
one of the smart ones and call other people stupid!") Silly me, I
actually cared about the issue.
What amazes me is that there are white males who come of age and then
decide to KEEP believing in leftism even after it becomes obvious to
them that it's morally bankrupt and will push them under the bus. I
think it's kind of like joining a cult because it sounds so great and
then even after it pushes them into a barn and makes them eat hay while
the leader eats off of gold plates, they don't care since it's about
feeling a part of something bigger than themselves. It's not that
they're in love with THE religion, but rather being part of A religion.
Even if it's a religion that preaches that it's not one. (Although
leftists are now learning that they need to become practicing Muslims.
:-)
So in answer to your claim, Turin, I'm way ahead of you. I not only
have figured this out but also explored my own and others motivations
for why our society is at the crossroads it's at right now. That's a
good first step towards figuring out what needs to be done to move
forward. I can't say I know exactly what needs to be done, but I think
I know better than I did just a few years ago.
regards,
PolishKnight
> - - -
>
> One of millions of Angry Men:
>
> Turin
>
>
> I have such sites to show you...
> ------------------------
>
> http://www.myspace.com/turin turambar �
> http://groups.google.com/group/Men First/ ��
> http://turinturambar.fortunecity.com/blog/ ?
retardsman
about my timeline too -- it was during my experiences in the eighties
w/ various work environments, and in higher education, that the proofs
of feminist/p.c. ideology were exposed as being very, very far from
their ideology -- people, mostly females, were using it as a weapon of
hate and unfair advantage
that was the end of my association with the "new" left
When I
> first started to explore political ideals for myself in my late teens
> and early 20's, I thought that the leftist agenda sounded great. I even
> found it repugnant that anyone could be against "affirmative action".
> Since the Internet didn't exist back then, all I had to go on was the
> explanation that the left was for "equality" and "ending racism".
>
> Then when I found out that the left actually perpetuated racism and
> sexism in the form of bashing whites and men, I asked what the deal was.
> I was then immediately bashed by them as "stupid" for not getting on
> board which didn't have the expected effect (I didn't go "Wow! I don't
> want to be stupid! I better say and think what you tell me so I can be
> one of the smart ones and call other people stupid!") Silly me, I
> actually cared about the issue.
>
> What amazes me is that there are white males who come of age and then
> decide to KEEP believing in leftism even after it becomes obvious to
> them that it's morally bankrupt and will push them under the bus. I
> think it's kind of like joining a cult because it sounds so great and
> then even after it pushes them into a barn and makes them eat hay while
> the leader eats off of gold plates, they don't care since it's about
> feeling a part of something bigger than themselves.
it's far safer, and far more profitable, to go along with The Herd
most of the lefties i knew in the sixties and seventies couldnt make
the transition away from the left when it became obvious that the fem/
identity movement was hypocritical, morally bankrupt, and not sane,
basically -- it was just too painful socially and economically for
them to face that, and most of these Boomers also shared a distinct
lack of relationship with god
so it was easy for them to adopt their ideopolitics in the place of
god, and the fervor with which these people sustain, propagate, and
enforce their beliefs is clearly religious ... this is why facts and
rationality have no effect on them: anything that challenges their
adopted religion is heretical and is discarded automatically
additionally, the leftie guys i knew in the sixties and seventies --
the ones who remained on board the fem-train -- were all guys with
very strong psychosexual attachments to females (whether wife, mom,
etc)
none of these spent more than a week in their entire lives on their
own ... a few days without the presence of a female and they'd start
to crack psychologically .... it was pitiful to witness this in my
friends, actually
their psychological subjugation to females sealed their virulent
embrace of an ideology which has proven to be an absolute failure and
horror -- to break their dependance upon leftist politics and beliefs
is to threaten their complete dependance on females, and on the moral/
ethical superiority of females
they cant even face their dependance, much less overcome it
these guys remain stuck at the infantile/mommy stage of human
development, though most of them went on to become "successful" in the
matriarchy, no surprise there ... they never became actual men, and
never will, and the hidden shame they feel at that causes them to rage
at men who, well, actually DID become men
this rage and sense of (quite real) inferiority is very profitably
used by women (via feminism) and also by the one percent of "elite"
males who rule over the rest of us -- these are the white-knighters
who create, pass, enforce, and profit from the gynogulag's "laws" and
the gynogulag's vile kulture
PolishKnight
<efc0203d-010f-4891...@o9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
retardsman <remar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I hate arguments of equivalency. I break the speed limit and Ted Bundy
killed people. So who am I to judge?
As adult men, we learn that life is about, sadly, compromise and knowing
the difference between compromise and selling out. I have refused to
vote for RINOs even if that means requesting a write-in ballot for a
candidate I prefer that won't win (I want them to see that I showed up.)
> the Demoncraps have been more organized and feral about their
> destruction of maleness, while the Republicants have accomplished most
> of their evil subversively, or through "law" and the creation of their
> police state
While the Republicans were the law-and-order party traditionally, the
left also has their own use for the police state including confiscating
the arms of law abiding citizens, sexual harassment legislation, and DV
hysteria.
The days of the cool hipster left and their sexual liberation are long,
long over.
> certainly, however, we can agree that the left -- not only in amerika
> but internationally -- operates almost exclusively now on a platform
> of male-hatred/female-supremacism ... recently, as with Maria
> Shriver's announcement that amerika is "A Woman's Nation," the true
> politics of the nation stands forth naked .... they're not trying to
> hide their hatred or their gender supremacism anymore, enough of the
> population has now been conditioned to scapegoat boys and men that
> they feel comfortable expressing their pathology in public
>
> cheers
>
> ray
We should keep in mind that it's nothing really personal, Ray. At one
time, the left was started by working class white males! Eventually,
when the left no longer views women as a key demographic voting group
(or they can stuff the ballot boxes), they'll push them off the back of
the sled to the wolves too.
The left is comprised of elites including the ultra wealthy that benefit
from government favoritism and even direct subsidy or via kickbacks with
the mass of the population as serfs to be bought for the cheapest amount
possible just as corporations prefer to "outsource." That's really what
illegal immigrants' children are: "outsourced" votes.
White middle and upper-middle class white women heterosexual feminists
of my youth are now far worse off than they would have been if they
hadn't followed the siren song of feminism and leftism. They get to
work long hours to pay massive taxes and a mortgage for someone else's
children to live off of welfare and attack them if their SUV breaks down
on their 1 hour commute from and to work.
Welcome to the salt mines, ladies!
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
<4511c57f-83b3-4d81...@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
retardsman <remar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah! Like buying a house! Don't you know that real estate always goes
up? :-)
The lesson of going along with The Herd may be learned by many people in
the playground and it creates a deep psychological impression upon them.
They see the kids who aren't popular being beaten up so they decide to
join in with whatever cool group there is.
What's strange, though, is that when they become teenagers and go
through rebellion, they continue with the pattern perhaps as their first
experience with an Orwellian paradox. For example: Smoke because it's
cool and rebellious and all the cool kids who don't care what anyone
thinks are doing it!
Perhaps they ought to put warning labels on leftist ballots? :-)
Ironically, I've gone against the Herd most of my life and it's largely
been profitable both financially and spiritually.
> most of the lefties i knew in the sixties and seventies couldnt make
> the transition away from the left when it became obvious that the fem/
> identity movement was hypocritical, morally bankrupt, and not sane,
I think what drew many men around to the so-called feminist movement of
the time was it's association with sexual liberation. Feminists and the
leftist leadership allowed men to think that women would be more slutty
and would even start being more financially responsible.
It's a great lie that many MRA's haven't even gotten yet. They gripe
over and over about how women need to be more equal and how we need to
get rid of anti-male legislation but that isn't going to make women
equal or society work. We now see in a post feminist world that women
cannot handle equality with men. They require the state step in as
substitute husband and a special safety net at the expense of the
genuinely impoverished.
> basically -- it was just too painful socially and economically for
> them to face that, and most of these Boomers also shared a distinct
> lack of relationship with god
I don't think the tea party movement is about conservative religion so
much as limited government and allowing people who are religious and
socially conscious to accept responsibility for their decisions.
Marxist religion is about getting someone else to confess their sins and
do penance. That's one of the reasons why it's so alluring. :-)
"Father, I robbed and stole from someone to get special benefits for my
agenda!" "Son, you have done good. Punish the person you robbed from
for their selfishness and make them say 10 Hail Obamas!"
> so it was easy for them to adopt their ideopolitics in the place of
> god, and the fervor with which these people sustain, propagate, and
> enforce their beliefs is clearly religious ... this is why facts and
> rationality have no effect on them: anything that challenges their
> adopted religion is heretical and is discarded automatically
Which is why I'm exploring different avenues to get them to question
their faith. For example: If you have someone whose a member of a
cultish like Church, you don't argue theology with them (that probably
only makes it worse as they come up with clever new ways to change the
subject) Instead, you identify that their buddy has a nicer seat in the
church than they do because they're brothers with the minister. Then
they get angry that they aren't appreciated and stomp off.
People enter, and leave religions (and politics) for reasons that appear
petty to us but are deeply personal and important to them. Their crowd
in high school was into it. They liked the church music. And perhaps
strongest of all: All the people they like to think are "stupid"
disagree with them.
In that regard, my life and personal convictions probably do a great
deal to help them reconsider their beliefs. They call me stupid and I
say ok, great. I'm still here. So where does that leave you?
Perhaps the best case made for discarding a bad religion is when it
becomes more trouble than it's worth. What made being a hippy "cool",
seemingly, was that freedom from dogma. That you could be a rebel
against society. Now with political correctness, it's the republicans
who watch benny hill who are more relaxed about sexuality. :-)
> additionally, the leftie guys i knew in the sixties and seventies --
> the ones who remained on board the fem-train -- were all guys with
> very strong psychosexual attachments to females (whether wife, mom,
> etc)
Some of them were actually insecure men who didn't have good sexual
attachments but were worried that bucking the trend would mean their
girlfriend wouldn't have sex with them anymore or their mommy would
disapprove. So I think it stems from insecurity.
Let's consider a primary masculine principle: Men need to be the leader
in a heterosexual relationship because women need it that way. That
sounds paradoxical, but it's true. Men who are leaders are not only
growing themselves, but have respect from women in their lives too.
Women who get the men they claim to want (a wuss feminist Alan Alda
type) wind up griping all the time about how oppressed they are.
> none of these spent more than a week in their entire lives on their
> own ... a few days without the presence of a female and they'd start
> to crack psychologically .... it was pitiful to witness this in my
> friends, actually
Perhaps one of the reasons why I'm a strong Masculinist is perhaps
because I can enjoy being alone for a few days at a time and view it as
a way to help grow.
> their psychological subjugation to females sealed their virulent
> embrace of an ideology which has proven to be an absolute failure and
> horror -- to break their dependance upon leftist politics and beliefs
> is to threaten their complete dependance on females, and on the moral/
> ethical superiority of females
I like that paragraph. I couldn't have written it better myself.
Religion is about surrender. It's about giving up responsibility for
one's decisions and having a God take over. It's also why it's popular
for some people to go to fortune tellers. Ever since Adam ate that
proverbial apple, he's struggled with free will. It's not fun making
decisions and knowing you'll mess up. And being a leader and accepting
moral responsibility, even if only privately, is a huge burden. People
love spreading around blame, being an armchair quarterback (call the
plays out, but have someone else be seen doing it and then if it blows,
they can just pretend like they didn't say it). You get the idea.
Men who believe in feminism and socialism fundamentally are boys wanting
a Madonna mommy to take care of them. It's also why I often have fights
with Andre over his supposed great Canadian healthcare. Even if his
healthcare was so great, it wouldn't be worth me demeaning myself into a
socialist cheerleading yapper dog. Being a man means accepting that if
you F up, you may have to sleep under a bridge. That SUCKS but there's
something very noble about it too. At a personal level, we should have
a basic responsibility for our lives. It's what makes us human and
different from a household pet.
> they cant even face their dependance, much less overcome it
Psychological traps are like that.
> these guys remain stuck at the infantile/mommy stage of human
> development, though most of them went on to become "successful" in the
> matriarchy, no surprise there ... they never became actual men, and
> never will, and the hidden shame they feel at that causes them to rage
> at men who, well, actually DID become men
I love a scene in fight club where the homework assignment was to get
into a fight, and lose, and the fight club members couldn't pick a fight
with most average men because the men didn't want to fight someone who
was gutsy enough to pick a fight with them.
On the other hand, the average yapper dog socialist recipient/feminist
male will pick a fight with a man they think is in a subservient
position. Like a sales clerk. Or some teenage boy shoveling their
driveway. That disgusts me but the fact is that most men like to pick
on someone whose NOT their size. :-)
> this rage and sense of (quite real) inferiority is very profitably
> used by women (via feminism) and also by the one percent of "elite"
> males who rule over the rest of us -- these are the white-knighters
> who create, pass, enforce, and profit from the gynogulag's "laws" and
> the gynogulag's vile kulture
Actually, I think that many of these elite also don't benefit. Unless
they're in divorce law or something like that, most of them probably
would be better off individually and collectively as we are. Let's put
it this way: I have friends who were elitists in Russia who came to the
USA and even gave up everything they had to make a new start. Why?
They wanted a place where they could walk the streets safely.
Many of them who get here say that overall it's a tradeoff. You don't
get kidnapped on the street here but in Russia they wouldn't lose their
jobs by telling a woman she looks pretty either. My point is that the
who notion of feminism is an illusion not only for women who like to
think they're getting something out of it or that they really control
anything but also for the elites. They surely don't like waiting in
traffic for 2 hours either because so many career women are commuting to
work and going to daycare.
> >�It's not that
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
Republican President Eisenhower also decided not to use nuclear weapons
at the end of the Korean War. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander
in Europe when Dresden was bombed, so I think the lack of nuclear
bombing was more likely a result of a cost/benefit analysis rather
than a reluctance to use nuclear weapons, per se.
>
> At the time, for anti-communists, the situation appeared equally bleak.
> Communists had, and still have, infiltrated most major institutions
> including the media, and their goal was to have a large state in total
> control of everything.
>
> When the USSR's war effort petered out, it's economic instability
> revealed itself and that was that. Communism failed not due to
> political will and power. It had plenty of that including in the USA!
> It failed due to the logical and economic problems inherent in it's
> philosophy!
>
> Back to feminism: Women are NOT dependent upon feminism. Most women
> probably don't identify themselves as feminists even in the loosest
> terms. Their concerns typically are:
>
> 1) Getting money from the welfare state (that's socialism, not feminism!)
> 2) Marrying up (traditionalism)
> 3) Going to divorce court or family courts to get money in the form of
> alimony or child-support (this is chivalrous legislation passed long
> before feminism)
>
> Note that few women gush with appreciation for feminism for "equal pay
> for equal work". Most are either tired from 'balancing home and career'
> or angry that their husbands either don't earn enough money or don't
> help out around the house enough.
I think that's true even for unmarried women---who don't have a guy
around to mow the lawn and fix the plumbing.
A woman may need a man like a fish needs a bicycle---but we all
need plumbers! ;-)
>
> In other words, few women are getting much from "feminism" nowadays.
> Whatever they've gotten, they've paid for whether they know it or not.
> They also are unlikely to enjoy benefits such as free daycare since the
> socialist agenda needs to survive via spending that money on wealthy
> wall street donors (Goldman Sacks) or immigrant groups.
>
Those women should go to work for Goldman Sachs. The company has
on-site day care in some locations! ;-)
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/careers/your-career/reward/index.html
> > > If the only way leftists offer us to get rid of an anti-male
> > > welfare state and gender discrimination is by having socialism
> > > collapse altogether. So be it.
> >
> > Not sure what that means.
>
> Really? Are you sincere that you don't understand what I mean by those
> references?
>
Perhaps that is because you statement starts with 'if'. That allows
the possibility that there are other ways that the leftists can get rid
of an an anti-male welfare state.
> Are you unaware that the welfare state largely benefits unwed mothers
> where the men are kicked out of the home and then ordered to work to
> repay the system in order for such women to continue enjoying benefits?
> That doesn't seem anti-male to you?
>
> And you aren't aware of affirmative action which openly proclaims that
> equal workplace and educational opportunity is defined as giving
> preferential treatment to women?
>
> > > Regarding the women's vote: That can be controlled
> >
> > Or it could get worse, like if the Senate filibuster falls.
>
> Ironically, it was the left defending the filibuster the last time GW
> Bush had a congressional majority.
That will be one of the more interesting topics for the current Senate.
Right up there with the willingness of the Republicans to ignore their
deficit reduction promises if it means that they can repeal Obamacare.
I guess that's an easy argument to make since they are very unlikely to
have to put our money where their mouth is, as repeal is unlikely to
pass the Senate or Presidential veto.
>
> > > just as there are men who bought into leftism during the sexual
> > > revolution to impress women they desired.
> >
> > They can import more illegal aliens.
>
> Agreed.
>
> But note that illegal aliens probably don't share feminist ideals in the
> long run.
Or even in in the short run, as they are too busy working at jobs that
earn a lot less than 77% of the average man's wage! ;-)
>
Mark Borgerson
Masculist
> On Jan 10, 1:31 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <df2a7bab-cfef-42fd-b182-35e1d07f5...@v17g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> > $ Turin <turinturamba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Hello Turin,
>
> > Ironically, it was about 25 years ago that I figured this out.
>
> about my timeline too -- it was during my experiences in the eighties
> w/ various work environments, and in higher education, that the proofs
> of feminist/p.c. ideology were exposed as being very, very far from
> their ideology -- people, mostly females, were using it as a weapon of
> hate and unfair advantage
>
> that was the end of my association with the "new" left
I broke in 1980.
My problem was that I didn't understand or see the enormous power that
women on both the Left and Right had. I mean we just weren't taught
that. It wasn't until I went to the library, mostly out of
frustration at nothing being able to come out of my mouth when I
argued feminism with feminists, which BTW is a separate problem having
to do with our natures, that I saw more in perspective the political
and cultural history of feminism and how enormously powerful it was.
Before that I could dismiss feminism as a paper tiger that could be
used to your advantage. Hell no, it was a damn monster that was going
to kill all of us men or at least enslave us. I made a point then and
there to go on the record publically denouncing feminism. I sure as
hell wasn't going to be a part of something so horrendous and I had to
warn others.
> so it was easy for them to adopt their ideopolitics in the place of
> god, and the fervor with which these people sustain, propagate, and
> enforce their beliefs is clearly religious ... this is why facts and
> rationality have no effect on them: anything that challenges their
> adopted religion is heretical and is discarded automatically
As far as most Americans knew or know, feminism is the Church. The
suckers took it over in the early 1800's and it IS the Republican
Party.
> additionally, the leftie guys i knew in the sixties and seventies --
> the ones who remained on board the fem-train -- were all guys with
> very strong psychosexual attachments to females (whether wife, mom,
> etc)
Black men especially. The Left used their slave matriarchy against
them intentionally.
> none of these spent more than a week in their entire lives on their
> own ... a few days without the presence of a female and they'd start
> to crack psychologically .... it was pitiful to witness this in my
> friends, actually
>
> their psychological subjugation to females sealed their virulent
> embrace of an ideology which has proven to be an absolute failure and
> horror -- to break their dependance upon leftist politics and beliefs
> is to threaten their complete dependance on females, and on the moral/
> ethical superiority of females
>
> they cant even face their dependance, much less overcome it
>
> these guys remain stuck at the infantile/mommy stage of human
> development, though most of them went on to become "successful" in the
> matriarchy, no surprise there ... they never became actual men, and
> never will, and the hidden shame they feel at that causes them to rage
> at men who, well, actually DID become men
True but it wasn't only loss of God but his buddy Daddy that was a
problem. "Rebel Without a Cause" highlighted that problem and later
divorce and mom custody sealed the deal.
> this rage and sense of (quite real) inferiority is very profitably
> used by women (via feminism) and also by the one percent of "elite"
> males who rule over the rest of us -- these are the white-knighters
> who create, pass, enforce, and profit from the gynogulag's "laws" and
> the gynogulag's vile kulture>
Ultimately it was the elite males in the Fifties and Sixties who took
us on this route. I suspect they had to do it, or thought they had
to, because of the Cold War and this huge boomer generation coming
up. They needed the control.
Tom
retardsman
we were taught the exact opposite: that western females not only had
NO power, but were oppressed victims of males who acted in collusion
against the interests of females ... which turned out to be just
another lie
> It wasn't until I went to the library, mostly out of
> frustration at nothing being able to come out of my mouth when I
> argued feminism with feminists, which BTW is a separate problem having
> to do with our natures, that I saw more in perspective the political
> and cultural history of feminism and how enormously powerful it was.
> Before that I could dismiss feminism as a paper tiger that could be
> used to your advantage. Hell no, it was a damn monster that was going
> to kill all of us men or at least enslave us. I made a point then and
> there to go on the record publically denouncing feminism. I sure as
> hell wasn't going to be a part of something so horrendous and I had to
> warn others.
the process for me was about 15 years, from the mid eighties to the
end of the millennium -- over this time i largely had to self-
deprogram from the MAtricks ... like you, a lot of reading and study,
and comparison of what amerika was telling me vs what i actually saw
happening
in the mid nineties i rediscovered the bible, and how it set out the
problem and results of feminism from the beginning ... then the
constant backsliding "troubles" of the israelites began to take on a
whole new light, and i started to see god truly in masculine terms,
and understand his mind a little
>
> > so it was easy for them to adopt their ideopolitics in the place of
> > god, and the fervor with which these people sustain, propagate, and
> > enforce their beliefs is clearly religious ... this is why facts and
> > rationality have no effect on them: anything that challenges their
> > adopted religion is heretical and is discarded automatically
>
> As far as most Americans knew or know, feminism is the Church. The
> suckers took it over in the early 1800's and it IS the Republican
> Party.
>
feminism IS the combined political AND (pseudo) religious Church of
our global village -- it's our guiding philosophy and ethical/legal
structure, and its tenets are believed by the great majority of
sheeple
feminism is the "scarlet woman" or Great Whore who the bible says
"sits over" the empires of the earth -- meaning that she not only
covertly rules our current gyno-empire, but that she was the driving
force and actual ruler of all previous great empires
the fronting of those empires by men was no different than the
fronting of our current matriarchy by weak and subservient males
the bible predicts that a final empire ruled by this Great Whore will
dominate the planet, and trigger (finally) a revolt against her and
her adherents and lackeys
after which will come the Kingdom of the Father
there has never been any "patriarchy" though at various points in the
human timeline (e.g., Greece under Solon) men have collectively had
varying degrees of agency
all human experience, to date, has been under the Queendom of the
Mother -- it is merely being consolidated and globalized now
> > additionally, the leftie guys i knew in the sixties and seventies --
> > the ones who remained on board the fem-train -- were all guys with
> > very strong psychosexual attachments to females (whether wife, mom,
> > etc)
>
> Black men especially. The Left used their slave matriarchy against
> them intentionally.
>
>
no question about it
the left successfully co-opted black men into their feminist/identity
cabal, by offering black men the scraps left from the Identity Table
after white women got done filling their fat guts
a perk was to legally and culturally force white men into last-class
(untouchable) status, thereby giving black men the illusion that they
were no longer on the bottom
no indeed, they were very late nails in the coffin ... feminism goes
back to humanity's beginning, and the collective feminine and her
facilitators have always been in rebellion against god and against
god's ways of truth, righteousness, beauty, and justice, and love
but the fifties/early sixties Big Men played a major role in
welcoming, profiting from, and enforcing the gynogulag, making
themselves look like alphas in the process
this is still the dominant pardigm: men who facilitate and enforce the
gynogulag get a lot of money, status, and props from females
by crushing other men, usually men better than themselves, they become
the Big Stud, the Big Provider to the females around them, paying for
expensive weddings and endless useless material crap and our
international security state
see ya in hell, guys
if i have to drag you there myself
> I suspect they had to do it, or thought they had
> to, because of the Cold War and this huge boomer generation coming
> up. They needed the control.
>
> Tom
>
>
they betrayed god, their country, and their brothers, largely for
money, power, and pussy
three strikes, three strikes, go directly to sheol, she awaits them
with open arms
Masculist
Just this fact that such a huge lie could be taught continuously over
generations with almost no opposition shows the incredible primal
power of feminism. No formal conspiracy was necessary, just a
tweaking of our natures.
> > It wasn't until I went to the library, mostly out of
> > frustration at nothing being able to come out of my mouth when I
> > argued feminism with feminists, which BTW is a separate problem having
> > to do with our natures, that I saw more in perspective the political
> > and cultural history of feminism and how enormously powerful it was.
> > Before that I could dismiss feminism as a paper tiger that could be
> > used to your advantage. Hell no, it was a damn monster that was going
> > to kill all of us men or at least enslave us. I made a point then and
> > there to go on the record publically denouncing feminism. I sure as
> > hell wasn't going to be a part of something so horrendous and I had to
> > warn others.
>
> the process for me was about 15 years, from the mid eighties to the
> end of the millennium -- over this time i largely had to self-
> deprogram from the MAtricks ... like you, a lot of reading and study,
> and comparison of what amerika was telling me vs what i actually saw
> happening
The first five years, '80-'85, I was consolidating my knowledge and in
'86 I started to realize this was as much or more a religious issue.
I then came up with the idea of AUM (Phoenix '86) and copyrighted it
with an ad in the "Phoenix Independent". The AUM idea was an attempt
to combine various political, cultural and religious functions. I
envisioned a YMCA kind of org but with the solidarity of a union
movement and "Women's Associations".
Then came the boys. I really didn't know how they fit but they were
making Tunes that did fit. I realized after awhile that they were THE
game.
I didn't fully "get" the political and historical stuff until, with
the help of the guys here and elsewhere, I started putting the pieces
of the puzzle together. You represent a huge piece of that puzzle and
that is all of history before 1800. I don't have time to ferret out
all the details of that but I have seen enough of them in the past 200
year history to know it goes all the way back.
> in the mid nineties i rediscovered the bible, and how it set out the
> problem and results of feminism from the beginning ... then the
> constant backsliding "troubles" of the israelites began to take on a
> whole new light, and i started to see god truly in masculine terms,
> and understand his mind a little
Oh yeah, I have been thinking plenty about the Israelites. As you
know one of my partners is one. Yes, I now see this "backsliding"
almost exclusively being feminism and I think they know that as well.
>
>
> > > so it was easy for them to adopt their ideopolitics in the place of
> > > god, and the fervor with which these people sustain, propagate, and
> > > enforce their beliefs is clearly religious ... this is why facts and
> > > rationality have no effect on them: anything that challenges their
> > > adopted religion is heretical and is discarded automatically
>
> > As far as most Americans knew or know, feminism is the Church. The
> > suckers took it over in the early 1800's and it IS the Republican
> > Party.
>
> feminism IS the combined political AND (pseudo) religious Church of
> our global village -- it's our guiding philosophy and ethical/legal
> structure, and its tenets are believed by the great majority of
> sheeple
>
> feminism is the "scarlet woman" or Great Whore who the bible says
> "sits over" the empires of the earth -- meaning that she not only
> covertly rules our current gyno-empire, but that she was the driving
> force and actual ruler of all previous great empires
Yes, I see that now. Man it has taken me a long time to get there and
it was under my nose the whole time. I think it seemed to simple and
too dramatic so I took it slow.
> the fronting of those empires by men was no different than the
> fronting of our current matriarchy by weak and subservient males
This is important in an ideological sense vis a vis "Patriarchy".
What you are saying is that there has never been a pure patriarchy yet
the academics make a good argument that there is. It's in the
definition and functions of course but you are more correct.
> the bible predicts that a final empire ruled by this Great Whore will
> dominate the planet, and trigger (finally) a revolt against her and
> her adherents and lackeys
>
> after which will come the Kingdom of the Father
Yes and the time is at hand.
> there has never been any "patriarchy" though at various points in the
> human timeline (e.g., Greece under Solon) men have collectively had
> varying degrees of agency
>
> all human experience, to date, has been under the Queendom of the
> Mother -- it is merely being consolidated and globalized now
Exactly.
> > > additionally, the leftie guys i knew in the sixties and seventies --
> > > the ones who remained on board the fem-train -- were all guys with
> > > very strong psychosexual attachments to females (whether wife, mom,
> > > etc)
>
> > Black men especially. The Left used their slave matriarchy against
> > them intentionally.
>
> no question about it
>
> the left successfully co-opted black men into their feminist/identity
> cabal, by offering black men the scraps left from the Identity Table
> after white women got done filling their fat guts
>
> a perk was to legally and culturally force white men into last-class
> (untouchable) status, thereby giving black men the illusion that they
> were no longer on the bottom
All of us men in our generation, and others of course, have enormous
shame for what we did to eachother because of that damn "Whore"!
I'm with ya ray! OK Tricky Dick, I have you buy the dick and am
dragging you along with all of ray's "Rat Pack" into Hell but ray and
I aren't staying!
> > I suspect they had to do it, or thought they had
> > to, because of the Cold War and this huge boomer generation coming
> > up. They needed the control.
>
> > Tom
>
> they betrayed god, their country, and their brothers, largely for
> money, power, and pussy
>
> three strikes, three strikes, go directly to sheol, she awaits them
> with open arms
I hope they get the crabs and herpes.
Tom
retardsman
both are in play -- conspiracy and tweaking human nature
there is a formal conspiracy that's transtemporal via "powers and
principalities" that people, living 70 or 80 years, cant see or
understand -- they must take it on faith that such forces in fact do
exist and do manipulate world events
some interests understand human nature far better than humans
themselves, who've been duped into humanistic assumptions and beliefs
the past 150 years of feminism, culminating in our global gynogulag,
perfectly illustrate how human nature, esp female nature, has been
manipulated -- the nesting, selfish, judgmental, fearful, and
acquisitive inherencies of human females have been played upon
constantly, and not merely normalized, but elevated into culture,
morality and "law"
similarly, the male inherency to protect females has been co-opted and
put to evil purpose ... as has the male inherency to compete with one
another, which has been co-opted to rationalize, for example, our mass
criminalization of maleness
as you say, nothing new was created in either gender -- instead,
inherent tendencies were encouraged, championed, exagerrated, funded
-- and as communication became more and more mass, utilization via
conditioning (media, education, etc) became ever easier
>
> > > It wasn't until I went to the library, mostly out of
> > > frustration at nothing being able to come out of my mouth when I
> > > argued feminism with feminists, which BTW is a separate problem having
> > > to do with our natures, that I saw more in perspective the political
> > > and cultural history of feminism and how enormously powerful it was.
> > > Before that I could dismiss feminism as a paper tiger that could be
> > > used to your advantage. Hell no, it was a damn monster that was going
> > > to kill all of us men or at least enslave us. I made a point then and
> > > there to go on the record publically denouncing feminism. I sure as
> > > hell wasn't going to be a part of something so horrendous and I had to
> > > warn others.
>
> > the process for me was about 15 years, from the mid eighties to the
> > end of the millennium -- over this time i largely had to self-
> > deprogram from the MAtricks ... like you, a lot of reading and study,
> > and comparison of what amerika was telling me vs what i actually saw
> > happening
>
> The first five years, '80-'85, I was consolidating my knowledge and in
> '86 I started to realize this was as much or more a religious issue.
> I then came up with the idea of AUM (Phoenix '86) and copyrighted it
> with an ad in the "Phoenix Independent". The AUM idea was an attempt
> to combine various political, cultural and religious functions. I
> envisioned a YMCA kind of org but with the solidarity of a union
> movement and "Women's Associations".
the AUM was pioneering, b/c almost nothing was happening w/men in the
mid-eighties, at the height of feminist monologue and dominance
an extremely rare tornado hit Aumsville, Oregon last month
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101215/ap_on_re_us/us_oregon_tornado
"We saw a trampoline fly over a church. It was like the Wizard of Oz,"
said Gara Adams, who works at Neufeldt's Restaurant on Main Street in
Aumsville.
"I thought it was the end," [Steven] Worden said.
AUM, Aumsville: same tornado, same source -->
Then came the boys. I really didn't know how they fit but they were
> making Tunes that did fit. I realized after awhile that they were THE
> game.
the wise are hidden amongst the simple, and used to confound the
cunning; the weak are used to crush the strong; the meek will inherit,
it aint just a saying
the prophet Daniel describes how one little "stone" brings down the
consecutive great gyno-empires of the planet -- so very typical of
god's ways
>
> I didn't fully "get" the political and historical stuff until, with
> the help of the guys here and elsewhere, I started putting the pieces
> of the puzzle together. You represent a huge piece of that puzzle and
> that is all of history before 1800. I don't have time to ferret out
> all the details of that but I have seen enough of them in the past 200
> year history to know it goes all the way back.
i'm the Trash Compactor, taking those many details and smushing them
into a digestible sup
we're here to educate and support each other, though most men are full
of pride in their opinions, and will not learn
why did jesus recruit 20-something, illiterate fishermen, when the
greatest scholars and rabbis were readily at hand? a mind already
full of itself cant grow
>
> > in the mid nineties i rediscovered the bible, and how it set out the
> > problem and results of feminism from the beginning ... then the
> > constant backsliding "troubles" of the israelites began to take on a
> > whole new light, and i started to see god truly in masculine terms,
> > and understand his mind a little
>
> Oh yeah, I have been thinking plenty about the Israelites. As you
> know one of my partners is one. Yes, I now see this "backsliding"
> almost exclusively being feminism and I think they know that as well.
>
>
it was called "goddess-worship" back then, but the urge of the human
male to regress to the infantilism of mother-right, and of mother-
comfort, is timeless, as is the urge of the human female to deify
herself, and to entitle herself
right, depends partly on how "patriarchy" is defined
from the human standpoint, postdiluvial power has been wielded almost
exclusively by a combination of the female collective and the male
tyrant (the Big Man and his gang) ... very like the natural model,
chimps for example
other forces exist and operate (pauline powers and principalities) but
we'll leave that aside for the moment, seeing's how we're walking
'mongst the alt repubs and alt demos
the feminist trope that "men" have dominated the world, and
"oppressed" women, since time began is ludicrous, and is unsupported
by the facts of history, and by the realities of the very world we
observe around us
only constant brainwashing via media, education, and government can
maintain that illusion
the global gynogulag now finishing its formation rationalizes its evil
under assumption that men have oppressed women for millions of years,
and now (finally!) it is "women's turn"
in fact, the truth is just the opposite: the truly oppressed on this
planet are overwhelmingly male, and always have been, and the real
revolution that's now building is a male overthrowing of the combined
power of the collective feminine and the big-men that have always
supported them
concurrent with this, there will be war in heaven
>
> > the bible predicts that a final empire ruled by this Great Whore will
> > dominate the planet, and trigger (finally) a revolt against her and
> > her adherents and lackeys
>
> > after which will come the Kingdom of the Father
>
> Yes and the time is at hand.
>
it is
tet is come, as your boys would say
> > there has never been any "patriarchy" though at various points in the
> > human timeline (e.g., Greece under Solon) men have collectively had
> > varying degrees of agency
>
> > all human experience, to date, has been under the Queendom of the
> > Mother -- it is merely being consolidated and globalized now
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > > additionally, the leftie guys i knew in the sixties and seventies --
> > > > the ones who remained on board the fem-train -- were all guys with
> > > > very strong psychosexual attachments to females (whether wife, mom,
> > > > etc)
>
> > > Black men especially. The Left used their slave matriarchy against
> > > them intentionally.
>
> > no question about it
>
> > the left successfully co-opted black men into their feminist/identity
> > cabal, by offering black men the scraps left from the Identity Table
> > after white women got done filling their fat guts
>
> > a perk was to legally and culturally force white men into last-class
> > (untouchable) status, thereby giving black men the illusion that they
> > were no longer on the bottom
>
> All of us men in our generation, and others of course, have enormous
> shame for what we did to eachother because of that damn "Whore"!
she's at the center, the object of worship, and men and women build
"beast systems" around her and her MAterialist values
thats one reason why politics cant solve this problem -- any
ideopolitical thrust will be assimilated back into the overarching
beast systems
human beings are not smarter than the creator and ruler of the beast
systems, who has many billions of years of wisdom upon which to draw
our generation of Boomers were especially deceived into thinking that
everything (or anything!) had a political solution, because that's
what people (esp men) like to imagine and chew on
while your enemy laughs .... how's that "the personal is political"
working out for ya?
this is eternity's launchpad: what we are here, we are forever
Masculist
While it seems easier to see in the past 200 years, it's more
difficult to see in the times before that. Maybe if I actually lived
in those times I'd see it better. It sure would help if academics
addressed this female power through time. I think it's ironic that
I'm getting much of my insight from feminist academics who celebrate
this female power.
Man was I lonely back then. I called all the Father's Rights guys
nationally, about five of them, and confronted them on how they were
approaching feminism. Pangborne was one of them. That was about
1982. Doyle was another...and Feit another. None of them wanted to
take on feminism though Pangborne did seem more amendable to. I told
each one of them unless they took on feminism they would get nowhere.
When I met them here in the late Nineties they not only didn't get
anywhere but lost huge chunks of ground. They got onboard the anti-
feminism express after that and we have made some progress since but
of course not hardly enough.
>
> an extremely rare tornado hit Aumsville, Oregon last month
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101215/ap_on_re_us/us_oregon_tornado
>
> "We saw a trampoline fly over a church. It was like the Wizard of Oz,"
> said Gara Adams, who works at Neufeldt's Restaurant on Main Street in
> Aumsville.
>
> "I thought it was the end," [Steven] Worden said.
>
> AUM, Aumsville: same tornado, same source -->
Good one ray. Did you catch the ahem connection in the latest big
news event? I've been reluctant to advertise it because it was kind
of indirect but one knew what he was talking about.
> Then came the boys. I really didn't know how they fit but they were
>
> > making Tunes that did fit. I realized after awhile that they were THE
> > game.
>
> the wise are hidden amongst the simple, and used to confound the
> cunning; the weak are used to crush the strong; the meek will inherit,
> it aint just a saying
>
> the prophet Daniel describes how one little "stone" brings down the
> consecutive great gyno-empires of the planet -- so very typical of
> god's ways
Yes, that's how He operates.
>
>
> > I didn't fully "get" the political and historical stuff until, with
> > the help of the guys here and elsewhere, I started putting the pieces
> > of the puzzle together. You represent a huge piece of that puzzle and
> > that is all of history before 1800. I don't have time to ferret out
> > all the details of that but I have seen enough of them in the past 200
> > year history to know it goes all the way back.
>
> i'm the Trash Compactor, taking those many details and smushing them
> into a digestible sup
You do great and I for one appreciate it.
> we're here to educate and support each other, though most men are full
> of pride in their opinions, and will not learn
>
> why did jesus recruit 20-something, illiterate fishermen, when the
> greatest scholars and rabbis were readily at hand? a mind already
> full of itself cant grow
My homeless buddies who I talk to about this stuff alot are picking up
on it remarkably fast, faster in fact than anyone else I've talked to
about this stuff the past 30 years. I've caused quite a stir in our
little homeless community.
>
>
> > > in the mid nineties i rediscovered the bible, and how it set out the
> > > problem and results of feminism from the beginning ... then the
> > > constant backsliding "troubles" of the israelites began to take on a
> > > whole new light, and i started to see god truly in masculine terms,
> > > and understand his mind a little
>
> > Oh yeah, I have been thinking plenty about the Israelites. As you
> > know one of my partners is one. Yes, I now see this "backsliding"
> > almost exclusively being feminism and I think they know that as well.
>
> it was called "goddess-worship" back then, but the urge of the human
> male to regress to the infantilism of mother-right, and of mother-
> comfort, is timeless, as is the urge of the human female to deify
> herself, and to entitle herself
It's this evolutionary psychological part that fascinates me but has
little value without hard proof which will not be forthcoming in time.
This is where I need more clarification. I've been reading more
ancient history lately, a history of Christianity from Rome to present
and now I'm reading about Augustus. I could see somewhat what was
happening in the Reformation but am lost before that in terms of how
this matriarchy worked. I'm looking and seeing glimpses but it's not
coming together. Again, where are those pussy academics on this?
> other forces exist and operate (pauline powers and principalities) but
> we'll leave that aside for the moment, seeing's how we're walking
> 'mongst the alt repubs and alt demos
I've seen some of that in my reading.
> the feminist trope that "men" have dominated the world, and
> "oppressed" women, since time began is ludicrous, and is unsupported
> by the facts of history, and by the realities of the very world we
> observe around us
>
> only constant brainwashing via media, education, and government can
> maintain that illusion
How intentional is this brainwashing? I mean are there elites who
know exactly what they are doing in this respect? I can see where the
elite feminists and marxist know.
> the global gynogulag now finishing its formation rationalizes its evil
> under assumption that men have oppressed women for millions of years,
> and now (finally!) it is "women's turn"
>
> in fact, the truth is just the opposite: the truly oppressed on this
> planet are overwhelmingly male, and always have been, and the real
> revolution that's now building is a male overthrowing of the combined
> power of the collective feminine and the big-men that have always
> supported them
The truly impossible...David and Goliath. I'm in <smile>
> concurrent with this, there will be war in heaven
I sensed that when I was FCing.
Yes, we have seen that over and over again in history. The
Awakenings, Muscular Christianity, Hippies etc.
> human beings are not smarter than the creator and ruler of the beast
> systems, who has many billions of years of wisdom upon which to draw
>
> our generation of Boomers were especially deceived into thinking that
> everything (or anything!) had a political solution, because that's
> what people (esp men) like to imagine and chew on
>
> while your enemy laughs .... how's that "the personal is political"
> working out for ya?
Ha! They have laughed at me consistently for 30 years while acting
offended. I/we haven't put any real dent in their power.
Beautiful and true.
Tom
PolishKnight
<9c610075-e295-42b2...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
> > >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
> > >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
> > >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
> > >of women). Sad but apparently true.
> >
> > Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> > activist.
>
> Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
Happy New Year, Andre.
Indeed, your particular situation is a good example of the
contradictions between "liberalism" (or leftism) and being an MRA.
You often seem shrill in complaining against feminists for being
hypocrites and relishing their status quo in government power while at
the same time worshipping government power and the welfare state as your
protector.
Many leftists often accuse traditionalists as "neanderthals" and in a
way, they have a point. Even if Neanderthal sociey probably helped out
it's weakest members from time to time, they clearly understood at a
"caveman level" at who the providers were and therefore who should be in
charge. It's this disconnect, the notion that those who have the
abilities should be SUBSERVIENT to those with NEEDS, that is the base
paradigm of both feminism and socialism.
It disgusts you that feminists are such open hypocrites and power
mongers but that is how socialism works. Political systems exist to
protect themselves and seemingly those in the 'elite' status first with
honor, justice, etc. all coming second no matter what they say (and
perhaps especially if they proclaim it.) It's a cynical viewpoint which
is also why the US Constitution was written precisely to undermine and
control the government's power. It was a prescient decision on their
part that history is revealing to be wise.
Even so, feminism is just one part of the puzzle. Feminism is just a
tool of the socialist state to retain and gain power for it's own sake.
When I look at the dysfunctional American Health Care system, that
includes both national healthcare elements (medicaid/medicare), the
courts that allow lawyers to initiate frivolous lawsuits and take in
most of the money, and the educational system that limits the ability
for new doctors to get educated affordably and practice, I am still
thankful that we don't have a Canadian style healthcare system even if
it was as great as you (or probably some government study you refer to)
claim it to be.
Why?
Because paying a little bit for healthcare (and I really haven't paid
that much after my insurance take care of it) isn't as bad as what
socialist states have done in the past century: murdered 100 million
people. If that's the price I have to pay to keep that utopia from
coming true, I'm ok with that.
By the way, you don't need to thank me for basically being one of the
few people left on the planet keeping you from an Orwellian 1984
nightmare. That's just what the greatest superpower on Earth and it's
citizens accept as part of their role.
regards,
PolishKnight
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
> > > >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
> > > >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
> > > >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
> > > >of women). Sad but apparently true.
>
> > > Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> > > activist.
>
> > Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
>
> Happy New Year, Andre.
>
> Indeed, your particular situation is a good example of the
> contradictions between "liberalism" (or leftism) and being an MRA.
<Laughs> In a word, nope.
> You often seem shrill
Ooh, a feminist 'argument'.
Of course, people who are 'shrill' are those with whom one is in
disagreement with. The use of the term is a passive aggressive
Ad Hominem Alone... Parg.
> in complaining against feminists for being
> hypocrites and relishing their status quo in government power while at
> the same time worshipping government power and the welfare state as
> your protector.
<Laughs> This is no less silly and anti factual as a claim that my
atheism leads me to 'worship' the devil...
The difference is that government does exist. And, it is accountable
in ways that businesses aren't. An election takes far less time than
a class action lawsuit...
OTOH, I do appreciate the fact that varous governmental bodies
do look out for my, and all the rest of the citizenry's interests,
like untainted food and water. Prior to the government going into
that line of work, bad food and bad water, sold by businesses,
harmed quite a few people.
I don't need to 'worship' those who had the local roads that I
drive on to do what I need to do, in order to appreciate their
works.
Silly people are too daft to differentiate 'appreciate' from
'worship'. I tend to find that most such folks watch Faux
Noise... <g>
> Many leftists often accuse traditionalists as "neanderthals" and in a
> way, they have a point. Even if Neanderthal sociey probably helped out
> it's weakest members from time to time, they clearly understood at a
> "caveman level" at who the providers were and therefore who should be in
> charge. It's this disconnect, the notion that those who have the
> abilities should be SUBSERVIENT to those with NEEDS, that is the base
> paradigm of both feminism and socialism.
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
I also note that few Yanks are able to give a cogent definition
of 'socialist', other than it's use as a swear word, to replace the
Cold War cry (Shrill?) of 'commie!'.
> It disgusts you that feminists are such open hypocrites and power
> mongers but that is how socialism works.
<Laughs> I repeat my point about dismissing without evidence.
No, that's how uber capitalism works. Unaccountably.
> Political systems exist to
> protect themselves and seemingly those in the 'elite' status first with
> honor, justice, etc. all coming second no matter what they say (and
> perhaps especially if they proclaim it.) It's a cynical viewpoint which
> is also why the US Constitution was written precisely to undermine and
> control the government's power. It was a prescient decision on their
> part that history is revealing to be wise.
Yet, our constitution up here has spared us much of US wingnuttery,
while now giving us a stronger dollar, a lower unemployment rate (This
is not a small thing, as the size of Canada, coupled with the much
smaller population, used to mean that our unemployment rate was
commonly a couple of points higher than that of the US. But, now it
is the Other Way Around. Just more proof that the American Way(tm)
Just Doesn't... Work...) and a more efficient health care system that
also gives us longer lifespans, even for men.
> Even so, feminism is just one part of the puzzle. Feminism is just a
> tool of the socialist state to retain and gain power for it's own sake.
> When I look at the dysfunctional American Health Care system, that
> includes both national healthcare elements (medicaid/medicare), the
> courts that allow lawyers to initiate frivolous lawsuits and take in
> most of the money, and the educational system that limits the ability
> for new doctors to get educated affordably and practice, I am still
> thankful that we don't have a Canadian style healthcare system even if
> it was as great as you (or probably some government study you refer to)
> claim it to be.
>
> Why?
Because you're an uneducated, ideologue right wing loonie. HTH.
> Because paying a little bit for healthcare (and I really haven't paid
> that much after my insurance take care of it) isn't as bad as what
> socialist states have done in the past century: murdered 100 million
> people. If that's the price I have to pay to keep that utopia from
> coming true, I'm ok with that.
<Laughs> At present, it is the US that is killing many people
all over the world. On that basis, socialism is far more humane
than capitalism...
Do let us know about all the times that Canada and Sweden
launched Wars of Aggression...
> By the way, you don't need to thank me for basically being one of the
> few people left on the planet keeping you from an Orwellian 1984
> nightmare. That's just what the greatest superpower on Earth and it's
> citizens accept as part of their role.
ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, like you guys saved us from Nazis and Huns...
Oh wait, UNLIKE Canada, you DIDN'T choose to fight for democracy
in either world war, you *waited* until you had no choice, in the case
of Great Mistake #2, you waited until Germany declared war ON the
US.
Such 'heroism' is beneath contempt. Trying to take credit from that
position is further beneath it.
Mark, you ARE The Ugly (Ignorant) American. By your own choice.
Fortunately, that is your own problem. A million bucks, even
the weak sissy Yank bucks, wouldn't get me to consider moving
to the Third World nation that sits between us and Mexico...
Andre
John Doe
> On Jan 14, 3:29ÿpm, PolishKnight <marek1... comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <9c610075-e295-42b2-9f75-29b7fabec... l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> ÿAndre Lieven <andrelie... yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf... yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote
>:
>>
>> > > >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
>> > > >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
>> > > >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
>> > > >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
>> > > >of women). Sad but apparently true.
>>
>> > > Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
>> > > activist.
>>
>> > Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
>>
>> Happy New Year, Andre.
>>
>> Indeed, your particular situation is a good example of the
>> contradictions between "liberalism" (or leftism) and being an MRA.
>
> <Laughs>
There is a comedian in Andrea's head.
>> You often seem shrill
>
> Ooh, a feminist 'argument'.
>
> Of course, people who are 'shrill' are those with whom one is in
> disagreement with. The use of the term is a passive aggressive
> Ad Hominem Alone... Parg.
In case anyone else misunderstands Andrea's eccentric rhetoric...
His term "Ad Hominem Alone" is some strangeness that he pretends
to have "coined". Apparently he is clueless about language. The
other term "Parg" is something similarly strange with meaning only
in his fantasyland.
In other words... Andrea is a not-quite-grown-up wordy degenerate.
--
>
>> in complaining against feminists for being
>> hypocrites and relishing their status quo in government power while at
>> the same time worshipping government power and the welfare state as
>> your protector. ÿ
>
> <Laughs> This is no less silly and anti factual as a claim that my
> atheism leads me to 'worship' the devil...
>
> The difference is that government does exist. And, it is accountable
> in ways that businesses aren't. An election takes far less time than
> a class action lawsuit...
>
> OTOH, I do appreciate the fact that varous governmental bodies
> do look out for my, and all the rest of the citizenry's interests,
> like untainted food and water. Prior to the government going into
> that line of work, bad food and bad water, sold by businesses,
> harmed quite a few people.
>
> I don't need to 'worship' those who had the local roads that I
> drive on to do what I need to do, in order to appreciate their
> works.
>
> Silly people are too daft to differentiate 'appreciate' from
> 'worship'. I tend to find that most such folks watch Faux
> Noise... <g>
>
>> Many leftists often accuse traditionalists as "neanderthals" and in a
>> way, they have a point. ÿEven if Neanderthal sociey probably helped out
>> it's weakest members from time to time, they clearly understood at a
>> "caveman level" at who the providers were and therefore who should be in
>> charge. ÿIt's this disconnect, the notion that those who have the
>> abilities should be SUBSERVIENT to those with NEEDS, that is the base
>> paradigm of both feminism and socialism. ÿ
>
> -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
> without evidence.-
>
> I also note that few Yanks are able to give a cogent definition
> of 'socialist', other than it's use as a swear word, to replace the
> Cold War cry (Shrill?) of 'commie!'.
>
>> It disgusts you that feminists are such open hypocrites and power
>> mongers but that is how socialism works.
>
> <Laughs> I repeat my point about dismissing without evidence.
>
> No, that's how uber capitalism works. Unaccountably.
>
>>ÿPolitical systems exist to
>> protect themselves and seemingly those in the 'elite' status first with
>> honor, justice, etc. all coming second no matter what they say (and
>> perhaps especially if they proclaim it.) ÿIt's a cynical viewpoint whic
> h
>> is also why the US Constitution was written precisely to undermine and
>> control the government's power. ÿIt was a prescient decision on their
>> part that history is revealing to be wise.
>
> Yet, our constitution up here has spared us much of US wingnuttery,
> while now giving us a stronger dollar, a lower unemployment rate (This
> is not a small thing, as the size of Canada, coupled with the much
> smaller population, used to mean that our unemployment rate was
> commonly a couple of points higher than that of the US. But, now it
> is the Other Way Around. Just more proof that the American Way(tm)
> Just Doesn't... Work...) and a more efficient health care system that
> also gives us longer lifespans, even for men.
>
>> Even so, feminism is just one part of the puzzle. ÿFeminism is just a
>> tool of the socialist state to retain and gain power for it's own sake.
> ÿ
>> When I look at the dysfunctional American Health Care system, that
>> includes both national healthcare elements (medicaid/medicare), the
>> courts that allow lawyers to initiate frivolous lawsuits and take in
>> most of the money, and the educational system that limits the ability
>> for new doctors to get educated affordably and practice, I am still
>> thankful that we don't have a Canadian style healthcare system even if
>> it was as great as you (or probably some government study you refer to)
>> claim it to be.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because you're an uneducated, ideologue right wing loonie. HTH.
>
>> Because paying a little bit for healthcare (and I really haven't paid
>> that much after my insurance take care of it) isn't as bad as what
>> socialist states have done in the past century: murdered 100 million
>> people. ÿIf that's the price I have to pay to keep that utopia from
>> coming true, I'm ok with that.
>
> <Laughs> At present, it is the US that is killing many people
> all over the world. On that basis, socialism is far more humane
> than capitalism...
>
> Do let us know about all the times that Canada and Sweden
> launched Wars of Aggression...
>
>> By the way, you don't need to thank me for basically being one of the
>> few people left on the planet keeping you from an Orwellian 1984
>> nightmare. ÿThat's just what the greatest superpower on Earth and it's
>> citizens accept as part of their role.
>
> ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, like you guys saved us from Nazis and Huns...
>
> Oh wait, UNLIKE Canada, you DIDN'T choose to fight for democracy
> in either world war, you *waited* until you had no choice, in the case
> of Great Mistake #2, you waited until Germany declared war ON the
> US.
>
> Such 'heroism' is beneath contempt. Trying to take credit from that
> position is further beneath it.
>
> Mark, you ARE The Ugly (Ignorant) American. By your own choice.
>
> Fortunately, that is your own problem. A million bucks, even
> the weak sissy Yank bucks, wouldn't get me to consider moving
> to the Third World nation that sits between us and Mexico...
>
> Andre
>
>
see also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats,soc.men
> Subject: Re: Men being unemployed and "the rise of conservative women" <-- coincidence?
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:24:35 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 152
> Message-ID: <c3d58dc0-8673-42ce-8b4d-750852fb92cf k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4d1d6b4c$0$25248$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com> <294vh693if1rppgkt1pou06tnkfg841ql1 4ax.com> <9c610075-e295-42b2-9f75-29b7fabec1a1 l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <marek1965-CED434.15291514012011 news.giganews.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.224.9.45
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1295072675 20507 127.0.0.1 (15 Jan 2011 06:24:35 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:24:35 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com; posting-host=99.224.9.45; posting-account=r6Eq2woAAADLatUkbpNb1vZaavTTns3Y
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe)
>
PolishKnight
<c3d58dc0-8673-42ce...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:29�pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9c610075-e295-42b2-9f75-29b7fabec...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > > >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
> > > > >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
> > > > >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
> > > > >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
> > > > >of women). Sad but apparently true.
> >
> > > > Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> > > > activist.
> >
> > > Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
> >
> > Happy New Year, Andre.
> >
> > Indeed, your particular situation is a good example of the
> > contradictions between "liberalism" (or leftism) and being an MRA.
>
> <Laughs> In a word, nope.
Ah, mock laughter. This is more of an indication of insecurity than
arrogance.
> > You often seem shrill
>
> Ooh, a feminist 'argument'.
>
> Of course, people who are 'shrill' are those with whom one is in
> disagreement with. The use of the term is a passive aggressive
> Ad Hominem Alone... Parg.
Note that I didn't say you were "shrill" but that you often appeared as
such and I then provided an explanation for that perception.
In the meantime, you laugh at your opponents and later call them
uneducated (which is a fancy way of calling them stupid.) Then you
project that same behavior.
This may explain why you (appear) so shrill: You hurl out as many
accusations as you can while simultaneously angry that the other person
isn't being reasonable. You play the game like a street fighter (which
is NOT the way "educated" people should behave.) That's ok, but I don't
think you fully realize at a conscious level the kind of game you're
playing.
> > in complaining against feminists for being
> > hypocrites and relishing their status quo in government power while at
> > the same time worshipping government power and the welfare state as
> > your protector. �
>
> <Laughs> This is no less silly and anti factual as a claim that my
> atheism leads me to 'worship' the devil...
Non-sequitur. I didn't make such a claim.
> The difference is that government does exist. And, it is accountable
> in ways that businesses aren't. An election takes far less time than
> a class action lawsuit...
Elections don't necessarily provide accountability. For example: People
who wanted true socialist medicine in the USA didn't get it. They got
instead a mandatory requirement to buy insurance from a private
provider. Since a large centralized government handles several issues
at once, an election by definition cannot address more than a few issues
at a time or, at best, an aggregate of them via a political party.
This leads back to my original point that you laughed off and then tried
to lay a strawman on: Has your precious vote made your government
"accountable" for feminism? Does praising the great government of
Canada get you any favors for your MRA agenda?
It's about as effective as cheering for your favorite football or hockey
team. You get to hang out with fellow fans and feel important when your
team "wins" a game, but it doesn't really get YOU anything.
> OTOH, I do appreciate the fact that varous governmental bodies
> do look out for my, and all the rest of the citizenry's interests,
> like untainted food and water. Prior to the government going into
> that line of work, bad food and bad water, sold by businesses,
> harmed quite a few people.
Great example!
Indeed, in the case of food, private businesses still do most of the
actual work in producing and distributing the product with the
government mainly having an interest in setting standards for
cleanliness and safety. This is the difference between a limited
government model where the government provides minimal regulation for
private commerce versus socialism where the government itself provides
the product.
FYI, even after the government went into the business of providing food
and even water, plenty of people were harmed. In the case of DC, the
cities water is so full of lead that they have advised people to drink
bottled water.
When you have a socialist mayor on crack and democratic senators putting
bribe money in their fridge, you know you're getting the highest quality
of regulatory control! :-)
In addition, thanks to government subsidies on ethanol, food prices are
up and the environment is being harmed. But big corporations are making
a killing at taxpayer expense. I guess socialism DOES work better than
capitalism after all (at least when it comes to making the rich richer!
:-)
> I don't need to 'worship' those who had the local roads that I
> drive on to do what I need to do, in order to appreciate their
> works.
Express that sentiment to a traffic cop next time you see one. :-)
> Silly people are too daft to differentiate 'appreciate' from
> 'worship'. I tend to find that most such folks watch Faux
> Noise... <g>
Wow! You're firing on all cylinders in this post, aren't you? :-)
Going after foxnews. How DARE a news network express an opinion you
disagree with!
This proves the bigger point I made all along: Being an MRA is
incompatable with the leftist religion or philosophy just as it's rather
difficult to be a Catholic and hate pancakes and bread wafers. :-)
Just as you make fun of heretics such as me, the left regards someone
such as you as a knuckle dragging rape-advocating neanderthal. You're
just so "uneducated" Andre.
Speaking of education, I was going to save this for the end but I might
as well address it now: Calling people stupid or ignorant or laughing at
them is a sign of educated behavior, but not at the university level.
It's basically learned at the 4th grade playground. Even so, many if
not most people become emotionally attached to this paradigm for most of
their lives even going into high school "I'm cool because I'm a rebel.
That's why I smoke. Because all the other cool rebels who think that
way do. Because we don't care what other people think."
Perhaps we should go back to the 'cool rebels' smoking to fit in. It
surely can't be as expensive as leftism! :-)
> > Many leftists often accuse traditionalists as "neanderthals" and in a
> > way, they have a point. �Even if Neanderthal sociey probably helped out
> > it's weakest members from time to time, they clearly understood at a
> > "caveman level" at who the providers were and therefore who should be in
> > charge. �It's this disconnect, the notion that those who have the
> > abilities should be SUBSERVIENT to those with NEEDS, that is the base
> > paradigm of both feminism and socialism. �
>
> -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
> without evidence.-
You asserted without evidence that businesses sold food and water that
"harmed" people. We both could play this paper chase game. Show me an
example of an unregulated business in the USA or Canada that sold water
to people that harmed them. Public utilities and bottled water
companies by definition do not apply. In addition, businesses that
poisoned water do not relieve the public utilities of their obligation
to supply clean water.
Good luck. (As in, good luck you're gonna need it)
It's pretty self-evident that caveman society was very egalitarian out
of it's very nature (literally). People who felt that the society was
being unfair could simply pick up and move easily to another clan or
even just wait for their unfair clan to move off. If women felt that it
was unfair for patriarchal males to demand respect, they could easily
become single mothers in the wilderness and trade their staving babies
for the wealth of the time.
Granted, such a system didn't provide the infrastructure for the society
we enjoy today but it sure did respect men!
> I also note that few Yanks are able to give a cogent definition
> of 'socialist', other than it's use as a swear word, to replace the
> Cold War cry (Shrill?) of 'commie!'.
Really? Andre, you've verified this claim via talking to a significant
portion of the United States populace?
All your "cogent definition" standard demonstrates is that you hold
cherished beliefs and are prejudiced against those who challenge them.
Keep the faith, bro!
> > It disgusts you that feminists are such open hypocrites and power
> > mongers but that is how socialism works.
>
> <Laughs> I repeat my point about dismissing without evidence.
I didn't make an empty claim. I went into detail in the paragraph to
explain that point of view.
> No, that's how uber capitalism works. Unaccountably.
Once again, you make my point for me: If socialism worked for you, then
we wouldn't be having this discussion. The feminists wouldn't be
allowed to act without accountability.
Don't blame me for your tin god disappointing you.
> >�Political systems exist to
> > protect themselves and seemingly those in the 'elite' status first with
> > honor, justice, etc. all coming second no matter what they say (and
> > perhaps especially if they proclaim it.) �It's a cynical viewpoint which
> > is also why the US Constitution was written precisely to undermine and
> > control the government's power. �It was a prescient decision on their
> > part that history is revealing to be wise.
>
> Yet, our constitution up here has spared us much of US wingnuttery,
> while now giving us a stronger dollar, a lower unemployment rate (This
> is not a small thing, as the size of Canada, coupled with the much
> smaller population, used to mean that our unemployment rate was
> commonly a couple of points higher than that of the US.
Indeed, Andre, you like brag that Canada is supposedly this great
economic superpower DISPITE it's low relative population while ignoring
that it resembles the economy of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in that
Canada's a net oil exporting state.
Regarding the dollar: I agree with you about the effect but not the
cause. It's not fiscal conservatism to blow billions on bad home loans
and socialist stimulus packages or wall street bailouts. In that
regard, GW Bush was a political moderate including his position on
massive immigration of semi-literate third worlder latinos.
If you had OUR leftists, you'd be singing a totally different tune.
Well, you do actually but they just don't have to put their money where
their mouth is because illegals here aren't going to Canada. Which
really says something doesn't it? If people don't want to come to
Canada as much as the USA, isn't that an endorsement of a kind?
> But, now it
> is the Other Way Around. Just more proof that the American Way(tm)
> Just Doesn't... Work...) and a more efficient health care system that
> also gives us longer lifespans, even for men.
I guess when you have to wait so long for health care, it makes sense
you should live longer. :-)
Seriously though, where is your "evidence" for that claim? You may
provide a few URL's in response to my request (probably from agencies
that have a vested interest in the results without a breakdown of the
socialist and private elements of the USA's healthcare system) but this
is a great example of how you dismiss everyone's viewpoint who disagrees
with you as "unsupported" while casually spouting off claims of your
own.
> > Even so, feminism is just one part of the puzzle. �Feminism is just a
> > tool of the socialist state to retain and gain power for it's own sake. �
> > When I look at the dysfunctional American Health Care system, that
> > includes both national healthcare elements (medicaid/medicare), the
> > courts that allow lawyers to initiate frivolous lawsuits and take in
> > most of the money, and the educational system that limits the ability
> > for new doctors to get educated affordably and practice, I am still
> > thankful that we don't have a Canadian style healthcare system even if
> > it was as great as you (or probably some government study you refer to)
> > claim it to be.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because you're an uneducated, ideologue right wing loonie. HTH.
And I should be 're-educated', right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
In the Soviet Union, psychiatry was sometimes used for punitive
purposes. Psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons
in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from
the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically
and mentally; as such they are considered a form of torture.[1] This
method was also employed against religious prisoners, including
especially well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion; in such
cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental
illness that needed to be cured.[2] Psychiatry possesses a built-in
capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine.[3]:65
Andre, I don't think you're a loonie. On the contrary, your beliefs
that are similar to a religious faith are common among well educated
people. I was watching a history channel presentation about Nostrodamus
and apparently he couldn't get a doctorate of medicine without also a
doctorate of theology. So apparently little has changed with political
correctness! :-) You can't get a degree nowadays without also attending
some thought-control classes.
So what?
As I said, this isn't going to solve your fundamental problem that your
beloved socialism that provides you with a warm, fuzzy feeling of
belonging is also wrapped up in a feminist blanket that can't be
seperated. Then again, Ted Kennedy claimed to be Catholic so I guess
ANYTHING is possible!
> > Because paying a little bit for healthcare (and I really haven't paid
> > that much after my insurance take care of it) isn't as bad as what
> > socialist states have done in the past century: murdered 100 million
> > people. �If that's the price I have to pay to keep that utopia from
> > coming true, I'm ok with that.
>
> <Laughs> At present, it is the US that is killing many people
> all over the world. On that basis, socialism is far more humane
> than capitalism...
>
> Do let us know about all the times that Canada and Sweden
> launched Wars of Aggression...
>
> > By the way, you don't need to thank me for basically being one of the
> > few people left on the planet keeping you from an Orwellian 1984
> > nightmare. �That's just what the greatest superpower on Earth and it's
> > citizens accept as part of their role.
>
> ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, like you guys saved us from Nazis and Huns...
That's an interesting discussion we could take offline from this. I
wonder... what if the USA had NOT gotten involved in WWII. There was a
neat scifi book called "Fatherland" that even created a new genre of
alternate history fiction.
It wouldn't have been good for the Polish people, certainly. Most
likely, Britain would have fallen around 1942 or so without US
logistical support in addition to direct troops both on the island and
in other theaters of combat.
The USSR probably also would have gone under. They barely held on with
American support but it's questionable if they could have gone all the
way to the east so there probably would have been a permanent eastern
front.
As you know, Einstein chose to come to the USA rather than Canada. (see
my point about immigration above). The USA clearly would have still
developed the atomic bomb first. Hitler (or most likely his successor.
he probably would have still died in about 1950 or so) would not have
attacked the USA or Canada for geographical reasons.
I suppose the good news, for you, would be that with the USA and Canada
on a permanent cold war footing with the Nazi state (unlike the previous
cold war with the left cheering on the USSR, few probably would be
openly cheering on the national socialists), you'd get your "efficient"
nationalized industries in the USA. FDR's successors would have
probably nationalized social security, strictly and unapologetically
enforced immigration laws (since they wouldn't need the addition votes
to hold onto power), and not feel a need to appeal to a feminist base to
get votes being lost to white working class "uneducated" males. Women
would still work in the factories, but a notion of "equality" and unwed
mother homes would be considered massively inefficient.
Hmmm, sounds like paradise for you Andre!
Ironically, the post WWII cold war between the USSR and the USA helped
to curb the USSR's more murderous instincts until it's economic collapse
due to socialism's natural flaws (or you can say Ronald Reagan's
victory. Either one is fine with me!) Poland and Ukraine came to
survive so I prefer the future we live in now.
> Oh wait, UNLIKE Canada, you DIDN'T choose to fight for democracy
> in either world war, you *waited* until you had no choice, in the case
> of Great Mistake #2, you waited until Germany declared war ON the
> US.
Versus Canada's choice as a cultural vassal of England? You act like
all this great British socialism was YOUR idea! :-) Doesn't the queen
of England still own half of your land?
FDR picked a fight with Germany and Japan and it's even hypothesized
that he let Pearl Harbor happen. He even had the Secret Service muzzle
his political opponent from revealing FDR's possible intentional
negligence as a campaign point!
Hmmm, indeed... reminds me of the "illegal"... war in Iraq, eh?
Presidents should only get involved in wars that are easy wins. If the
anti-war left of today were around in 1941, I wonder how that would have
turned out! :-)
> Such 'heroism' is beneath contempt. Trying to take credit from that
> position is further beneath it.
Let's keep in mind that the USA didn't really fight for "democracy". Do
you think the USSR was a democracy? It was a battle of lesser evils, at
best. I had a quite a debate with MarkB about the show trials of
Nuremburg where the "allies" didn't put on trial the USSR's own war
crimes in Lithuania which they called "fascist states" and the
firebombing of Dresden civilians.
What I _am_ saying is that US of A not only was a force for freedom in
the past but also today.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/free-speech-in-canada/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/196885/i-bienvenue-au-canada-i/mark-
steyn
"Dean Steacy, lead investigator of the Canadian �Human Rights�
Commission: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don�t give it
any value."
INDEED!
Land of the free, home of the brave!
> Mark, you ARE The Ugly (Ignorant) American. By your own choice.
Such an accusation from you is both ugly and ignorant and hypocritical
to boot.
As you well know, I'm well traveled. I've been to Canada and had a
great time. I have a respect for the country just as most places in the
world. I don't think America is a perfect place by any means but it is
a country founded upon the notion of freedom and that is an amazing,
wonderful thing not to be discarded lightly.
I've been to several countries in Eastern Europe as well as south of the
border and, don't blame me for this, when they think of opportunity and
freedom they don't talk about... CANADA! OK? That isn't to say most of
these places are terrible either. I have friends in these countries who
are happy with where they live and if some Canadian or American told
them how superior they are they'd tell them to f'off. So you're just as
ugly a "Canadian" as you're accusing me of being!
> Fortunately, that is your own problem. A million bucks, even
> the weak sissy Yank bucks, wouldn't get me to consider moving
> to the Third World nation that sits between us and Mexico...
You're only saying that because you're too cheap to pay a tip! :-)
Seriously, I don't think you're sincere about that. The fact of the
matter is that if someone offered me a million bucks to move nearly
anywhere, I'd do it. It's one thing to have a political position and
another to look at my own life situation. I pride myself on that
honesty. I certainly won't retire in the states. My heart is in Poland
or Ukraine. But in terms of what I "believe" in for humanity? The
founding fathers of the USA were the greatest men that ever lived. I
disagree with each of them about individual things but overall, they
were giants, Andre. You are not in a position to call the heirs of
their wisdom ignorant or uneducated. Heck, neither you or I can really
bash someone such as Clinton or GW Bush as total losers. Have some
respect even as you demand it.
> Andre
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> Andre Lieven <andrelieven yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 3:29ĸpm, PolishKnight <marek1... comcast.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <9c610075-e295-42b2-9f75-29b7fabec... l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Parg refers to Carol Ann Hemingway. One of the most interesting posters
to this forum (soc.men) who spent decades bashing men and delighting in
injustices done against men because of her view that men had oppressed
women collectively via sexism even as she delighted in that same sexism
benefitting women.
She then ran away from the forum, literally to the desert like a wierd
prophet, when it was discovered that she was little more than a
part-time housewife.
Indeed, nearly all feminists on this forum over the years have been
young female students without a full-time income or housewives. Actual
women who work for a living simply don't have the energy to bother with
arguing their crazed philosophy here.
Regarding "Ad Hominem Alone". I rarely engage in such behavior. If I
make such an accusation, I very carefully support it with an explanation
for why I think that is so. I'm not the only person whose accused Andre
of being rather over-emotional on this forum. I don't think it
discredits his beliefs but I do think it needs to be evaluated in his
overall position.
regards,
PolishKnight
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> in complaining against feminists for being
> >> hypocrites and relishing their status quo in government power while at
> >> the same time worshipping government power and the welfare state as
> >> your protector. ĸ
> >
> > <Laughs> This is no less silly and anti factual as a claim that my
> > atheism leads me to 'worship' the devil...
> >
> > The difference is that government does exist. And, it is accountable
> > in ways that businesses aren't. An election takes far less time than
> > a class action lawsuit...
> >
> > OTOH, I do appreciate the fact that varous governmental bodies
> > do look out for my, and all the rest of the citizenry's interests,
> > like untainted food and water. Prior to the government going into
> > that line of work, bad food and bad water, sold by businesses,
> > harmed quite a few people.
> >
> > I don't need to 'worship' those who had the local roads that I
> > drive on to do what I need to do, in order to appreciate their
> > works.
> >
> > Silly people are too daft to differentiate 'appreciate' from
> > 'worship'. I tend to find that most such folks watch Faux
> > Noise... <g>
> >
> >> Many leftists often accuse traditionalists as "neanderthals" and in a
> >> way, they have a point. ĸEven if Neanderthal sociey probably helped out
> >> it's weakest members from time to time, they clearly understood at a
> >> "caveman level" at who the providers were and therefore who should be in
> >> charge. ĸIt's this disconnect, the notion that those who have the
> >> abilities should be SUBSERVIENT to those with NEEDS, that is the base
> >> paradigm of both feminism and socialism. ĸ
> >
> > -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
> > without evidence.-
> >
> > I also note that few Yanks are able to give a cogent definition
> > of 'socialist', other than it's use as a swear word, to replace the
> > Cold War cry (Shrill?) of 'commie!'.
> >
> >> It disgusts you that feminists are such open hypocrites and power
> >> mongers but that is how socialism works.
> >
> > <Laughs> I repeat my point about dismissing without evidence.
> >
> > No, that's how uber capitalism works. Unaccountably.
> >
> >>ĸPolitical systems exist to
> >> protect themselves and seemingly those in the 'elite' status first with
> >> honor, justice, etc. all coming second no matter what they say (and
> >> perhaps especially if they proclaim it.) ĸIt's a cynical viewpoint whic
> > h
> >> is also why the US Constitution was written precisely to undermine and
> >> control the government's power. ĸIt was a prescient decision on their
> >> part that history is revealing to be wise.
> >
> > Yet, our constitution up here has spared us much of US wingnuttery,
> > while now giving us a stronger dollar, a lower unemployment rate (This
> > is not a small thing, as the size of Canada, coupled with the much
> > smaller population, used to mean that our unemployment rate was
> > commonly a couple of points higher than that of the US. But, now it
> > is the Other Way Around. Just more proof that the American Way(tm)
> > Just Doesn't... Work...) and a more efficient health care system that
> > also gives us longer lifespans, even for men.
> >
> >> Even so, feminism is just one part of the puzzle. ĸFeminism is just a
> >> tool of the socialist state to retain and gain power for it's own sake.
> > ĸ
> >> When I look at the dysfunctional American Health Care system, that
> >> includes both national healthcare elements (medicaid/medicare), the
> >> courts that allow lawyers to initiate frivolous lawsuits and take in
> >> most of the money, and the educational system that limits the ability
> >> for new doctors to get educated affordably and practice, I am still
> >> thankful that we don't have a Canadian style healthcare system even if
> >> it was as great as you (or probably some government study you refer to)
> >> claim it to be.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because you're an uneducated, ideologue right wing loonie. HTH.
> >
> >> Because paying a little bit for healthcare (and I really haven't paid
> >> that much after my insurance take care of it) isn't as bad as what
> >> socialist states have done in the past century: murdered 100 million
> >> people. ĸIf that's the price I have to pay to keep that utopia from
> >> coming true, I'm ok with that.
> >
> > <Laughs> At present, it is the US that is killing many people
> > all over the world. On that basis, socialism is far more humane
> > than capitalism...
> >
> > Do let us know about all the times that Canada and Sweden
> > launched Wars of Aggression...
> >
> >> By the way, you don't need to thank me for basically being one of the
> >> few people left on the planet keeping you from an Orwellian 1984
> >> nightmare. ĸThat's just what the greatest superpower on Earth and it's
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 3:29 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <9c610075-e295-42b2-9f75-29b7fabec...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 1, 3:40 pm, "Giant Attitude" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 31 Dec 2010 05:34:04 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > >Assuming that Sarah Palen's talk about "the rise of conservative
> > > > > >women" actually means something... If so, maybe it means that women
> > > > > >would rather not give a hand to men who have been unemployed in this
> > > > > >current recession (men have been unemployed at three times the rate
> > > > > >of women). Sad but apparently true.
>
> > > > > Look, dumbfuck, you can't be both a liberal and a men's rights
> > > > > activist.
>
> > > > Yo, I'm a MRA and a liberal. Try again.
>
> > > Happy New Year, Andre.
>
> > > Indeed, your particular situation is a good example of the
> > > contradictions between "liberalism" (or leftism) and being an MRA.
>
> > <Laughs> In a word, nope.
>
> Ah, mock laughter.
So, you wish to claim that ALL expressions of laughter on Usenet
are 'mock laughter'?
Your claim, your Burden Of Proof.
No proof offered ? Factless claim fails.
> This is more of an indication of insecurity than arrogance.
<Projection>
> > > You often seem shrill
>
> > Ooh, a feminist 'argument'.
>
> > Of course, people who are 'shrill' are those with whom one is in
> > disagreement with. The use of the term is a passive aggressive
> > Ad Hominem Alone... Parg.
>
> Note that I didn't say you were "shrill" but that you often appeared as
> such and I then provided an explanation for that perception.
Perceptions which are all about those having them...
> In the meantime, you laugh at your opponents and later call them
> uneducated (which is a fancy way of calling them stupid.) Then you
> project that same behavior.
<shrugs> People who don't know actual history, yet who pontificate
as if they do, EARN such derision and criticism.
It's called a CONSEQUENCE...
> This may explain why you (appear) so shrill: You hurl out as many
> accusations as you can while simultaneously angry that the other person
> isn't being reasonable. You play the game like a street fighter (which
> is NOT the way "educated" people should behave.) That's ok, but I don't
> think you fully realize at a conscious level the kind of game you're
> playing.
<Projection>
> > > in complaining against feminists for being
> > > hypocrites and relishing their status quo in government power while at
> > > the same time worshipping government power and the welfare state as
> > > your protector.
>
> > <Laughs> This is no less silly and anti factual as a claim that my
> > atheism leads me to 'worship' the devil...
>
> Non-sequitur. I didn't make such a claim.
You made an equivalent one.
> > The difference is that government does exist. And, it is accountable
> > in ways that businesses aren't. An election takes far less time than
> > a class action lawsuit...
>
> Elections don't necessarily provide accountability.
No proof offered ? Factless claim fails.
Well, I do understand why someone in the US might feel that way,
you guys barely have actual democratic elections. The incumbent
re-election rate in the US is close to the vote percentages that
Saddam Hussein used to get...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States
> For example: People
> who wanted true socialist medicine in the USA didn't get it. They got
> instead a mandatory requirement to buy insurance from a private
> provider. Since a large centralized government handles several issues
> at once, an election by definition cannot address more than a few issues
> at a time or, at best, an aggregate of them via a political party.
>
> This leads back to my original point that you laughed off and then tried
> to lay a strawman on: Has your precious vote made your government
> "accountable" for feminism? Does praising the great government of
> Canada get you any favors for your MRA agenda?
Did kissing big corporate ass in the US do any of that for you ?
I'll take some feminism with actual public health care over some
feminism and no public health care.
> It's about as effective as cheering for your favorite football or hockey
> team. You get to hang out with fellow fans and feel important when your
> team "wins" a game, but it doesn't really get YOU anything.
Straw Whore; Fuck it on your own time.
My point was clear; The artificial distinction between MRA and
non-conservative was false. I am right. Deal with it.
> > OTOH, I do appreciate the fact that varous governmental bodies
> > do look out for my, and all the rest of the citizenry's interests,
> > like untainted food and water. Prior to the government going into
> > that line of work, bad food and bad water, sold by businesses,
> > harmed quite a few people.
>
> Great example!
>
> Indeed, in the case of food, private businesses still do most of the
> actual work in producing and distributing the product with the
> government mainly having an interest in setting standards for
> cleanliness and safety. This is the difference between a limited
> government model where the government provides minimal regulation for
> private commerce versus socialism where the government itself provides
> the product.
Can I have a pound of what you're smokin' ?
Up here, the Canadian and provincial governments produce no
such products; That remains with private business. It's just that
the businesses are properly regulated.
> FYI, even after the government went into the business of providing food
> and even water, plenty of people were harmed.
1) No proof offered ? Claim fails.
2) Feel free to show that the rates of such events went UP or DOWN
with proper govermental regulation...
Uh huh.
You ASSert much, yet support NONE of it.
> In the case of DC, the
> cities water is so full of lead that they have advised people to drink
> bottled water.
>
> http://www.epa.gov/dclead/
So ? Did anyone make the claim that regulation NEVER fails ?
No, so fuck that Straw Whore on your own time, as well.
> When you have a socialist mayor on crack and democratic senators putting
> bribe money in their fridge, you know you're getting the highest quality
> of regulatory control! :-)
-At the same time, Barry straightened the city’s chaotic finances and
attacked the deficit by introducing spending controls and laying off
ten
percent of the city’s workforce.[13]-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry
Yeah, 'socialists' always do layoffs and deficit cutting...
> In addition, thanks to government subsidies on ethanol, food prices are
> up and the environment is being harmed. But big corporations are making
> a killing at taxpayer expense. I guess socialism DOES work better than
> capitalism after all (at least when it comes to making the rich richer!
<Laughs> Mark, you clearly have NO idea what the word 'socialism'
means. It is NOT a synonym for 'everyone to the left of Rush
Limbaugh'.
> :-)
>
> > I don't need to 'worship' those who had the local roads that I
> > drive on to do what I need to do, in order to appreciate their
> > works.
>
> Express that sentiment to a traffic cop next time you see one. :-)
And, there's another word you flunked English Comprehension on.
I've even been at traffic stops manned by US Marines (South
Florida in '92, after Hurricane Andrew.), and there wasn't a lick
of 'worship' of them.
> > Silly people are too daft to differentiate 'appreciate' from
> > 'worship'. I tend to find that most such folks watch Faux
> > Noise... <g>
>
> Wow! You're firing on all cylinders in this post, aren't you? :-)
> Going after foxnews. How DARE a news network express an opinion you
> disagree with!
<Laughs> Once again, you are funny, though, no doubt, unintentionally.
Criticising Faux Noise in no way threatens their ability to stay on
the
air.
So, by your standard, if YOU DARE say anything against, say,
MSNBC, then YOU are doing what you just (wrongly) accused me
of.
> This proves the bigger point I made all along: Being an MRA is
> incompatable with the leftist religion or philosophy just as it's rather
> difficult to be a Catholic and hate pancakes and bread wafers. :-)
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.- Christopher Hitchens.
> Just as you make fun of heretics such as me, the left regards someone
> such as you as a knuckle dragging rape-advocating neanderthal.
Ibid.
> You're just so "uneducated" Andre.
Ibid.
> Speaking of education, I was going to save this for the end but I might
> as well address it now: Calling people stupid or ignorant or laughing at
> them is a sign of educated behavior, but not at the university level.
> It's basically learned at the 4th grade playground. Even so, many if
> not most people become emotionally attached to this paradigm for most of
> their lives even going into high school "I'm cool because I'm a rebel.
> That's why I smoke. Because all the other cool rebels who think that
> way do. Because we don't care what other people think."
>
> Perhaps we should go back to the 'cool rebels' smoking to fit in. It
> surely can't be as expensive as leftism! :-)
<shrug> You ASSert much, yet support... Nothing.
Mark, you are sufficiently wrong on enough matters of basic
fact that I* have no need or obligation to take your unsupported
word on it. That to, is a CONSEQUENCE.
> > > Many leftists often accuse traditionalists as "neanderthals" and in a
> > > way, they have a point. Even if Neanderthal sociey probably helped out
> > > it's weakest members from time to time, they clearly understood at a
> > > "caveman level" at who the providers were and therefore who should be in
> > > charge. It's this disconnect, the notion that those who have the
> > > abilities should be SUBSERVIENT to those with NEEDS, that is the base
> > > paradigm of both feminism and socialism.
>
> > -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
> > without evidence.-
>
> You asserted without evidence that businesses sold food and water that
> "harmed" people.
<Laughs> Need I prove that the Sun is at the centre of our solar
system ?
OK, start with this: http://drinkable-air.com/waterfacts.htm
> We both could play this paper chase game. Show me an
> example of an unregulated business in the USA or Canada that sold water
> to people that harmed them. Public utilities and bottled water
> companies by definition do not apply. In addition, businesses that
> poisoned water do not relieve the public utilities of their obligation
> to supply clean water.
>
> Good luck. (As in, good luck you're gonna need it)
<Laughs> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_Tragedy
-Aftermath-
-The Ontario Clean Water Agency was put in charge of the cleanup
of Walkerton's water system.-
> It's pretty self-evident that caveman society was very egalitarian out
> of it's very nature (literally). People who felt that the society was
> being unfair could simply pick up and move easily to another clan or
> even just wait for their unfair clan to move off. If women felt that it
> was unfair for patriarchal males to demand respect, they could easily
> become single mothers in the wilderness and trade their staving babies
> for the wealth of the time.
>
> Granted, such a system didn't provide the infrastructure for the society
> we enjoy today but it sure did respect men!
If you want to go back to the cave, then feel free to do so.
> > I also note that few Yanks are able to give a cogent definition
> > of 'socialist', other than it's use as a swear word, to replace the
> > Cold War cry (Shrill?) of 'commie!'.
>
> Really? Andre, you've verified this claim via talking to a significant
> portion of the United States populace?
This one falls into the 'how can you say The BIg Bang caused the
Universe to appear; Were YOU there to see it?' fallacy...
> All your "cogent definition" standard demonstrates is that you hold
> cherished beliefs and are prejudiced against those who challenge them.
> Keep the faith, bro!
<Projection>
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> > > It disgusts you that feminists are such open hypocrites and power
> > > mongers but that is how socialism works.
>
> > <Laughs> I repeat my point about dismissing without evidence.
>
> I didn't make an empty claim. I went into detail in the paragraph to
> explain that point of view.
Yet, supported it with exactly zero evidence...
> > No, that's how uber capitalism works. Unaccountably.
>
> Once again, you make my point for me: If socialism worked for you, then
> we wouldn't be having this discussion. The feminists wouldn't be
> allowed to act without accountability.
Non sequitur.
> Don't blame me for your tin god disappointing you.
<Projection>
> > > Political systems exist to
> > > protect themselves and seemingly those in the 'elite' status first with
> > > honor, justice, etc. all coming second no matter what they say (and
> > > perhaps especially if they proclaim it.) It's a cynical viewpoint which
> > > is also why the US Constitution was written precisely to undermine and
> > > control the government's power. It was a prescient decision on their
> > > part that history is revealing to be wise.
>
> > Yet, our constitution up here has spared us much of US wingnuttery,
> > while now giving us a stronger dollar, a lower unemployment rate (This
> > is not a small thing, as the size of Canada, coupled with the much
> > smaller population, used to mean that our unemployment rate was
> > commonly a couple of points higher than that of the US.
>
> Indeed, Andre, you like brag that Canada is supposedly this great
> economic superpower DISPITE it's low relative population while ignoring
> that it resembles the economy of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in that
> Canada's a net oil exporting state.
Once again, you display the common Ugly American trait of 'speaking
without bothering to find out'...
Oh, and feel free to SHOW where I made any claim about Canada
being a SUPER power, on any level. Obviously, with our small
population, we're not exactly a total GDP equivalent to the US, or
Russia, or not a few other places.
Yet, on a per capita GDP level, we're doing pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
And, while Canadians have lower per capita GDP than USians
by about $7,000 per person, the savings in health care costs
makes up about half of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
See, I'm the one who CAN show evidence that supports my
statements. Try it sometime....
> Regarding the dollar: I agree with you about the effect but not the
> cause. It's not fiscal conservatism to blow billions on bad home loans
> and socialist stimulus packages or wall street bailouts. In that
> regard, GW Bush was a political moderate including his position on
> massive immigration of semi-literate third worlder latinos.
The US' economic policies have driven it's economy to that point.
Don't cry to me that your economy tanked, and ours, didn't, aside
from spillover.
> If you had OUR leftists, you'd be singing a totally different tune.
We have some such 'leftists'. We call them The Conservative Party
Of Canada...
> Well, you do actually but they just don't have to put their money where
> their mouth is because illegals here aren't going to Canada.
A couple of thousand of miles of country to cross does have a bit
of an effect there...
> Which
> really says something doesn't it? If people don't want to come to
> Canada as much as the USA, isn't that an endorsement of a kind?
Since on a per capita basis, our legal immigration rate is HIGHER
than that of the US... Once again, your ignorance leaves you in
error.
-According to Canada's Immigration Program (October 2004) Canada
has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world,[6] although
statistics in the CIA World Factbook show that a number of city
states and small island nations, as well as some larger countries in
regions with refugee movements, have higher per capita rates.[7]-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada
> > But, now it
> > is the Other Way Around. Just more proof that the American Way(tm)
> > Just Doesn't... Work...) and a more efficient health care system that
> > also gives us longer lifespans, even for men.
>
> I guess when you have to wait so long for health care, it makes sense
> you should live longer. :-)
What waiting ? I just saw my doctor, for the start of a checkup, last
week.
I just have to get to the lab where they will take the blood for the
requested
tests, and, on that, they're waiting for me, as I had a spot of car
trouble that
kept me from doing it before the end of last week.
http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
> Seriously though, where is your "evidence" for that claim? You may
> provide a few URL's in response to my request (probably from agencies
> that have a vested interest in the results without a breakdown of the
> socialist and private elements of the USA's healthcare system) but this
> is a great example of how you dismiss everyone's viewpoint who disagrees
> with you as "unsupported" while casually spouting off claims of your
> own.
<Big Time Projection>
That's rich, coming from the guy who offers NO cites AT ALL.
> > > Even so, feminism is just one part of the puzzle. Feminism is just a
> > > tool of the socialist state to retain and gain power for it's own sake.
> > > When I look at the dysfunctional American Health Care system, that
> > > includes both national healthcare elements (medicaid/medicare), the
> > > courts that allow lawyers to initiate frivolous lawsuits and take in
> > > most of the money, and the educational system that limits the ability
> > > for new doctors to get educated affordably and practice, I am still
> > > thankful that we don't have a Canadian style healthcare system even if
> > > it was as great as you (or probably some government study you refer to)
> > > claim it to be.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > Because you're an uneducated, ideologue right wing loonie. HTH.
>
> And I should be 're-educated', right?
Only morons fail to grasp that, between 0 and 100, there are 99
other states of being...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
> In the Soviet Union, psychiatry was sometimes used for punitive
> purposes. Psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons
> in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from
> the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically
> and mentally; as such they are considered a form of torture.[1] This
> method was also employed against religious prisoners, including
> especially well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion; in such
> cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental
> illness that needed to be cured.[2] Psychiatry possesses a built-in
> capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine.[3]:65
Non sequitur AND Godwin's Equivalent Law...
> Andre, I don't think you're a loonie. On the contrary, your beliefs
> that are similar to a religious faith are common among well educated
> people.
<Massive Projection>
> I was watching a history channel presentation about Nostrodamus
> and apparently he couldn't get a doctorate of medicine without also a
> doctorate of theology. So apparently little has changed with political
> correctness! :-) You can't get a degree nowadays without also attending
> some thought-control classes.
>
> So what?
>
> As I said, this isn't going to solve your fundamental problem that your
> beloved socialism that provides you with a warm, fuzzy feeling of
> belonging is also wrapped up in a feminist blanket that can't be
> seperated. Then again, Ted Kennedy claimed to be Catholic so I guess
> ANYTHING is possible!
More non sequitur.
> > > Because paying a little bit for healthcare (and I really haven't paid
> > > that much after my insurance take care of it) isn't as bad as what
> > > socialist states have done in the past century: murdered 100 million
> > > people. If that's the price I have to pay to keep that utopia from
> > > coming true, I'm ok with that.
>
> > <Laughs> At present, it is the US that is killing many people
> > all over the world. On that basis, socialism is far more humane
> > than capitalism...
>
> > Do let us know about all the times that Canada and Sweden
> > launched Wars of Aggression...
>
> > > By the way, you don't need to thank me for basically being one of the
> > > few people left on the planet keeping you from an Orwellian 1984
> > > nightmare. That's just what the greatest superpower on Earth and it's
> > > citizens accept as part of their role.
>
> > ROTFLMAO ! Yeah, like you guys saved us from Nazis and Huns...
>
> That's an interesting discussion we could take offline from this. I
> wonder... what if the USA had NOT gotten involved in WWII. There was a
> neat scifi book called "Fatherland" that even created a new genre of
> alternate history fiction.
Actually, that genre was going on for decades before them.
From Keith Roberts' Pavane (1966), to David Dowling's The
Moscow Option (1979, hardcover 2001), and Norman Spinrad's
The Iron DReam (1972), this is a long established field.
That you only found it recently and appear to view it as
being no older than that discovery, only speaks poorly of your
grasp of the topic.
> It wouldn't have been good for the Polish people, certainly. Most
> likely, Britain would have fallen around 1942 or so without US
> logistical support in addition to direct troops both on the island and
> in other theaters of combat.
>
> The USSR probably also would have gone under. They barely held on with
> American support but it's questionable if they could have gone all the
> way to the east so there probably would have been a permanent eastern
> front.
Given your just shown failure about the field of alternate history
fiction, you'll pardon me when I similarly discount your scholarship
of What Would Have Been...
> As you know, Einstein chose to come to the USA rather than Canada.
-The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT a synonym for 'citation'.-
Yet, Alexander Bell did come to Canada OVER the US... That's
one for our side.
> (see
> my point about immigration above). The USA clearly would have still
> developed the atomic bomb first. Hitler (or most likely his successor.
> he probably would have still died in about 1950 or so) would not have
> attacked the USA or Canada for geographical reasons.
>
> I suppose the good news, for you, would be that with the USA and Canada
> on a permanent cold war footing with the Nazi state (unlike the previous
> cold war with the left cheering on the USSR, few probably would be
> openly cheering on the national socialists), you'd get your "efficient"
> nationalized industries in the USA. FDR's successors would have
> probably nationalized social security, strictly and unapologetically
> enforced immigration laws (since they wouldn't need the addition votes
> to hold onto power), and not feel a need to appeal to a feminist base to
> get votes being lost to white working class "uneducated" males. Women
> would still work in the factories, but a notion of "equality" and unwed
> mother homes would be considered massively inefficient.
>
> Hmmm, sounds like paradise for you Andre!
<yawn> No, it just sounds like bad Newt Gingrich fiction:
> Ironically, the post WWII cold war between the USSR and the USA helped
> to curb the USSR's more murderous instincts until it's economic collapse
> due to socialism's natural flaws (or you can say Ronald Reagan's
> victory. Either one is fine with me!)
Since neither one is at all true, as shown by your once again total
failure to support with evidence, no.
> Poland and Ukraine came to
> survive so I prefer the future we live in now.
>
> > Oh wait, UNLIKE Canada, you DIDN'T choose to fight for democracy
> > in either world war, you *waited* until you had no choice, in the case
> > of Great Mistake #2, you waited until Germany declared war ON the
> > US.
>
> Versus Canada's choice as a cultural vassal of England?
Certainly not post 1917...
> You act like all this great British socialism was YOUR idea! :-)
Not mine, personally, no. But ours, as in Made In Canada, yep.
> Doesn't the queen of England still own half of your land?
Yet again, Mark displays such basic ignorance... That's a no, BTW.
She, and her predecessors didn't.
> FDR picked a fight with Germany and Japan and it's even hypothesized
> that he let Pearl Harbor happen.
'hypothesised' only by people utterly ignorant of the actual history.
> He even had the Secret Service muzzle
> his political opponent from revealing FDR's possible intentional
> negligence as a campaign point!
Cite ? Oh, like you can ever offer one...
> Hmmm, indeed... reminds me of the "illegal"... war in Iraq, eh?
Nope. Germany was sinking US ships in 1939. Had Iraq sunk US ships
post 1991, you might have point elsewhere than on your dittohead...
> Presidents should only get involved in wars that are easy wins. If the
> anti-war left of today were around in 1941, I wonder how that would have
> turned out! :-)
Yes, you would.
> > Such 'heroism' is beneath contempt. Trying to take credit from that
> > position is further beneath it.
>
> Let's keep in mind that the USA didn't really fight for "democracy". Do
> you think the USSR was a democracy? It was a battle of lesser evils, at
> best. I had a quite a debate with MarkB about the show trials of
> Nuremburg where the "allies" didn't put on trial the USSR's own war
> crimes in Lithuania which they called "fascist states" and the
> firebombing of Dresden civilians.
>
> What I _am_ saying is that US of A not only was a force for freedom in
> the past but also today.
<Laughs> Try polling that claim in Kabul or Mosul...
<yawn>
> "Dean Steacy, lead investigator of the Canadian ³Human Rights²
> Commission: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don¹t give it
> any value."
Ah, Quote Mining, how creationist of you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining
> INDEED!
>
> Land of the free, home of the brave!
>
> > Mark, you ARE The Ugly (Ignorant) American. By your own choice.
>
> Such an accusation from you is both ugly and ignorant and hypocritical
> to boot.
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> As you well know, I'm well traveled. I've been to Canada and had a
> great time. I have a respect for the country just as most places in the
> world. I don't think America is a perfect place by any means but it is
> a country founded upon the notion of freedom and that is an amazing,
> wonderful thing not to be discarded lightly.
Well, it's nice that you have your myths...
> I've been to several countries in Eastern Europe as well as south of the
> border and, don't blame me for this, when they think of opportunity and
> freedom they don't talk about... CANADA! OK?
<Laughs> They're also not yelling DEATH TO CANADA, either...
As I said, we're not a Big World player. That's OK, we don't need
to be Big, we just need to Be Better Than The US... And, we are...
I can live with that. :-)
> That isn't to say most of
> these places are terrible either. I have friends in these countries who
> are happy with where they live and if some Canadian or American told
> them how superior they are they'd tell them to f'off. So you're just as
> ugly a "Canadian" as you're accusing me of being!
<Laughs> Yeah, nice try there with MAKING UP stuff. Feel free to
PROVE that I have done such a thing, with regard to any place not
Canada or the US...
<foot tapping>
> > Fortunately, that is your own problem. A million bucks, even
> > the weak sissy Yank bucks, wouldn't get me to consider moving
> > to the Third World nation that sits between us and Mexico...
>
> You're only saying that because you're too cheap to pay a tip! :-)
Ibid Hitchens.
> Seriously, I don't think you're sincere about that.
Your delusions are entirely your own problem. From having to be
there for many months over the last four years, I am more than
ever non willing to spend even more such time in the US, never
mind reside in it. <shudder>
> The fact of the
> matter is that if someone offered me a million bucks to move nearly
> anywhere, I'd do it.
Which has exactly NOTHING to do with whether I'd do such a thing.
> It's one thing to have a political position and
> another to look at my own life situation. I pride myself on that
> honesty. I certainly won't retire in the states. My heart is in Poland
> or Ukraine. But in terms of what I "believe" in for humanity? The
> founding fathers of the USA were the greatest men that ever lived.
That's OK, you're allowed to be wrong... <g>
> I disagree with each of them about individual things but overall, they
> were giants, Andre. You are not in a position to call the heirs of
> their wisdom ignorant or uneducated.
Yeah, actually, I very much am. Deal with it.
> Heck, neither you or I can really
> bash someone such as Clinton or GW Bush as total losers. Have some
> respect even as you demand it.
No, I can 'bash' Shrub as a total moron. More to the point, a well
credentially professional can even 'bash' Shrub as a WAR CRIMINAL:
http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-George-W-Bush-Murder/dp/159315481X
I have a copy, and I have read it. He makes an excellent case.
Oh, and his work on the JFK assination is also excellent; I also
have a copy and have read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250
Only in the US is so much of the population so willfully feeble
minded as to NEED such a debunking of mass idiocy...
Andre