Stand up for Traditional Marriage!
Gary Gore
traditional marriage at the ballot box - but the attacks by liberals
continue.
In 2008, voters in California, Arizona and Florida added their voices
to those in twenty-seven other states by adding amendments to their
state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one
woman.
But radical liberals and gay activists are working to overturn the
will of the people - even attempting to get judges to rule the
amendments unconstitutional. Others even want Congress to pass
legislation revoking the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Make sure that they don't succeed! Stand up and be counted for
traditional marriage!
deepdudu
So how does a marriage union between two homosexuals in any way
detract from you marriage experience?
John Doe
> Every time the American people have an opportunity, they support
> traditional marriage at the ballot box
Not really. Marriage is not traditional without the woman being
subservient to her husband. Marriage has been trashed by political
correctness forcing its way into the family.
To be most effective, marriage needs a head of household. Since
the husband is almost always physically more capable than the
wife, since the husband can enforce family decisions (without the
help of a big government police officer carrying a billy club and
gun), the husband should be head of household.
Following the plenty obvious teachings in the Bible, wedding vows
used to contain "to honor and obey". Political correctness has
done away with that, and the function of marriage has suffered
dearly.
But that does not apply to the ruling class, those who enforce
"equal rights" on the rest of us. They have prenuptial agreements
to force obedience. Ruling class women have fun, raise their
children, and perhaps run for political office. The ruling class
pass on their bloodlines and their inheritances to the next
generations, leaving the general public to cope with their
policies of "fairness". It helps keep distance between us and
them.
The ruling class use "equal rights" as a carrot to lure common
women who are suckers and/or self-serving with no sense of
country.
> but the attacks by liberals continue.
The general public act like fans on the left and on the right,
stimulated by their hatemonger cheerleaders. Actually, it's class
warfare. The ruling class is winning to the detriment of our
society.
--
Bob LeChevalier
>Gary Gore <GHGore Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Every time the American people have an opportunity, they support
>> traditional marriage at the ballot box
>
>Not really. Marriage is not traditional without the woman being
>subservient to her husband.
That largely depends on whose traditions you are following.
>To be most effective,
"Effective" towards what purpose?
>marriage needs a head of household.
No.
>Since the husband is almost always physically more capable than the
>wife,
only relevant for matters where physical capability are more important
>since the husband can enforce family decisions (without the
>help of a big government police officer carrying a billy club and
>gun),
You mean by throwing his "physical capability" around by wife- and
child-beating?
>the husband should be head of household.
More logical would be that if there must be a head of household, that
it be the more intelligent one, or the wiser one, or the one best able
to produce harmony. None of these necessarily is the male.
>Following the plenty obvious teachings in the Bible,
an irrelevancy from a past culture
>wedding vows used to contain "to honor and obey"
only in some religious weddings.
>But that does not apply to the ruling class,
"we the people"
>those who enforce "equal rights" on the rest of us. They have prenuptial agreements
>to force obedience.
I doubt that many prenups mention obedience. But nothing prevents you
from having a prenup, if you can talk a woman into putting up with
your bigotry.
>Ruling class women have fun, raise their
>children, and perhaps run for political office. The ruling class
>pass on their bloodlines and their inheritances to the next
>generations, leaving the general public to cope with their
>policies of "fairness".
The general public IS the "ruling class". It is YOUR problem if
"your" woman doesn't have fun, raise children, or run for political
office - society isn't stopping her.
>It helps keep distance between us and them.
Your prejudice is what does that.
>The ruling class use "equal rights" as a carrot to lure common
>women who are suckers and/or self-serving with no sense of
>country.
I guess you need to start making a better offer then.
>The general public act like fans on the left and on the right,
>stimulated by their hatemonger cheerleaders. Actually, it's class
>warfare. The ruling class is winning to the detriment of our
>society.
Others apparently think it to be to the benefit of our country. And
they have the votes, so you lose.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
John Doe
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> Gary Gore <GHGore Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Every time the American people have an opportunity, they
>>> support traditional marriage at the ballot box
>>
>> Not really. Marriage is not traditional without the woman being
>> subservient to her husband.
>
> That largely depends on whose traditions you are following.
It has been the tradition in our United States until the ruling
class forced "equal rights" on the masses. The Christian Bible
clearly spells out that tradition. I suspect the Muslim Bible does
too.
>> To be most effective,
>
> "Effective" towards what purpose?
The purpose of effectively running a family, of course.
>> marriage needs a head of household.
>
> No.
Says a true believer in The Church of an Ever Expanding
Government(The CEEG).
>> Since the husband is almost always physically more capable than
>> the wife,
>
> only relevant for matters where physical capability are more
> important
Like enforcing decisions.
>> since the husband can enforce family decisions (without the
>> help of a big government police officer carrying a billy club
>> and gun),
>
> You mean by throwing his "physical capability" around by wife-
> and child-beating?
Hello troll.
As a devout follower of The CEEG, Chandelier, you believe only
police officers should use force against other people. But in fact
police officers make mistakes too. I believe that a wife should
obey her husband in family matters. You believe that a wife should
obey a big government police officer in family matters, because
you believe that government knows better than a husband how to run
his family.
>> the husband should be head of household.
>
> More logical would be that if there must be a head of household,
> that it be the more intelligent one, or the wiser one, or the
> one best able to produce harmony.
Sounds like a Fairytale Land on the Internet, Chandelier. In the
real world of governance, the decision-making branch requires an
executive branch to enforce its decisions.
Anyone who suggests that a wife does not affect the decisions of
her husband is very naïve or deceptive. There is no question about
that in my mind, even in exceptionally women-oppressive countries.
I'm talking about the one that enforces family decisions. As a
zealous follower of The CEEG, Chandelier, you believe a big
government police officer with billy club and gun should be the
tiebreaker and enforcer of family decisions. I think the husband,
the physically more capable spouse, should fill that role.
> None of these necessarily is the male.
To help your memory, Chandelier, you should chop your replies into
fewer parts. I said "the husband is almost always physically more
capable than the wife". And if you don't know that, Chandelier,
you're not nearly bright as you think you are.
>> Following the plenty obvious teachings in the Bible,
>
> an irrelevancy from a past culture
Among those of us who are burdened with laws that promote women
over men, Yes, at least for now. But I'm pretty sure that a wife's
obedience to her husband exists here and now among the ruling
class. The ruling class don't follow the same rules they force on
the rest of us, otherwise more than 12 of our top 500 companies
would have female CEOs.
The ruling class gave up on the idea of quotas just in time, and
they are fortified behind the wall of the Senate filibuster. They
will never allow "equal rights" to divide their own ranks. Anyone
who believes that the glass ceiling is going away is a fool.
>> wedding vows used to contain "to honor and obey"
>
> only in some religious weddings.
But of course that is baloney, Chandelier. The wife's vow to
"love, honor, and obey" her husband was the standard here in our
United States before the ruling class bestowed feminism on the
rest of us.
>> But that does not apply to the ruling class,
>
> "we the people"
Thomas Jefferson admired women who were soft, passive, modest, and
chaste, and who possessed such artistic talents as made them
ornaments of a masculine world. As mothers and housekeepers they
were domestic workhorses, but as sexual objects they must be
delicate and beautiful, living works of art existing in an
imaginative world of romantic love. (McLaughlin, 1988, p. 195).
>> those who enforce "equal rights" on the rest of us. They have
>> prenuptial agreements to force obedience.
>
> I doubt that many prenups mention obedience.
But of course it does not have to.
> But nothing prevents you from having a prenup
Your mother firmly objected, Chandelier.
> if you can talk a woman into putting up with your bigotry.
Are you nym-shifting, Chandelier? If we are going to start calling
names, I need more than 200 posts to pick through.
>> Ruling class women have fun, raise their children, and perhaps
>> run for political office. The ruling class pass on their
>> bloodlines and their inheritances to the next generations,
>> leaving the general public to cope with their policies of
>> "fairness".
>
> The general public IS the "ruling class".
The ruling class is that group above the glass ceiling,
Chandelier, the class where 98% of businesses are run by men. Very
much unlike the way they make it for those of us under the glass
ceiling.
> It is YOUR problem if "your" woman doesn't have fun
Your mother has lots of fun around me, Chandelier, if you would
call her a woman...
> raise children, or run for political office - society isn't
> stopping her.
>
>> It helps keep distance between us and them.
>
> Your prejudice is what does that.
Says a hypocrite who denies the meaning of the fact that only 12
of our top 500 companies are run by women.
>> The ruling class use "equal rights" as a carrot to lure common
>> women who are suckers and/or self-serving with no sense of
>> country.
>
> I guess you need to start making a better offer then.
I am trying.
>> The general public act like fans on the left and on the right,
>> stimulated by their hatemonger cheerleaders. Actually, it's
>> class warfare. The ruling class is winning to the detriment of
>> our society.
>
> Others apparently think it to be to the benefit of our country.
I have no idea what the fuck you're referring to, Chandelier.
> And they have the votes, so you lose.
Yup, the vote was given to women by the ruling class, and
instantly/consequently became impossible to take away.
--
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> lojbab lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab lojban.org>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.conservatism
> Subject: Re: Stand up for Traditional Marriage!
> Message-ID: <l8jg17l00ev30qdpl3tqodsnammvtlca55 4ax.com>
> References: <2c578061-62b3-4663-956f-0e8ca18ff875 b21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <4e17b764$0$2349$c3e8da3$76a7c58f 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: 88
> 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, 09 Jul 2011 08:55:27 -0400
>
John Doe
That, so far, is the closest I have found to my mega theory. If I
read it correctly, the main difference between her opinion and
mine is that apparently she thinks what's bad for the goose isn't
bad for the gander. She thinks that the ruling class is made up of
men and women are victims.
The idea that men easily rise through the ranks seems a little odd
when you consider what men born into the ruling class must do.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab lojban.org> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>> Gary Gore <GHGore Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every time the American people have an opportunity, they
>>>> support traditional marriage at the ballot box
>>>
>>> Not really. Marriage is not traditional without the woman being
>>> subservient to her husband.
>>
>> That largely depends on whose traditions you are following.
>
>It has been the tradition in our United States until the ruling
>class forced "equal rights" on the masses.
You mean with the DofI, or the Bill of Rights, or do you mean the 14th
amendment?
>The Christian Bible
>clearly spells out that tradition. I suspect the Muslim Bible does
>too.
This is a secular nation. No one in our society is obliged to follow
the rules of any sacred text unless THEY choose to.
>>> To be most effective,
>>
>> "Effective" towards what purpose?
>
>The purpose of effectively running a family, of course.
physical strength has no relevance to that sort of effectiveness.
>>> marriage needs a head of household.
>>
>> No.
>
>Says a true believer in The Church of an Ever Expanding
>Government(The CEEG).
Government has nothing to do with it. My wife and I are equals. Our
household runs quite effectively - indeed to the point that we've
never had a serious argument in almost 25 years, and have successfully
raised kids in the process.
>>> Since the husband is almost always physically more capable than
>>> the wife,
>>
>> only relevant for matters where physical capability are more
>> important
>
>Like enforcing decisions.
If you need physical force to enforce your decisions, you belong in
prison. Assault is a crime.
>>> since the husband can enforce family decisions (without the
>>> help of a big government police officer carrying a billy club
>>> and gun),
>>
>> You mean by throwing his "physical capability" around by wife-
>> and child-beating?
>
>Hello troll.
I didn't start this noxious thread.
>As a devout follower of The CEEG, Chandelier, you believe only
>police officers should use force against other people.
You fail the mind-reading test.
>I believe that a wife should obey her husband in family matters.
If she believes differently and you use force against her, you deserve
prison.
>You believe that a wife should obey a big government police officer in family matters,
You fail the mind-reading test.
>because you believe that government knows better than a husband how to run
>his family.
You fail the mind-reading test.
I believe that a woman has a right to run her own life. A husband has
a right to an opinion, and to express that opinion (though sometimes
it is wiser not to), but not to decide for the woman.
>>> the husband should be head of household.
>>
>> More logical would be that if there must be a head of household,
>> that it be the more intelligent one, or the wiser one, or the
>> one best able to produce harmony.
>
>Sounds like a Fairytale Land on the Internet, Chandelier. In the
>real world of governance, the decision-making branch requires an
>executive branch to enforce its decisions.
There is no need for a "decision-making branch". EVERYONE decides.
>Anyone who suggests that a wife does not affect the decisions of
>her husband is very naïve or deceptive.
Someone is creating strawmen.
>I'm talking about the one that enforces family decisions.
What do you mean by "enforce"? If it involves physical force, go
directly to jail. Do not pass GO.
>As a
>zealous follower of The CEEG, Chandelier, you believe a big
>government police officer with billy club and gun should be the
>tiebreaker and enforcer of family decisions.
You again fail the mind reader test.
>> None of these necessarily is the male.
>
>To help your memory, Chandelier, you should chop your replies into
>fewer parts.
I respond to posts on the fly. Memory is irrelevant.
>I said "the husband is almost always physically more
>capable than the wife".
I don't care what you said. Physical capability is not a particularly
important qualification for any "family" matter.
>But I'm pretty sure that a wife's
>obedience to her husband exists here and now among the ruling
>class.
Hillary would undoubtedly disagree with you, with justification.
>The ruling class don't follow the same rules they force on
>the rest of us, otherwise more than 12 of our top 500 companies
>would have female CEOs.
I suspect that is 12 more than there were 50 years ago.
>The ruling class gave up on the idea of quotas just in time, and
>they are fortified behind the wall of the Senate filibuster. They
>will never allow "equal rights" to divide their own ranks. Anyone
>who believes that the glass ceiling is going away is a fool.
I fully expect a female president within the next couple of decades.
>>> wedding vows used to contain "to honor and obey"
>>
>> only in some religious weddings.
>
>But of course that is baloney, Chandelier. The wife's vow to
>"love, honor, and obey" her husband was the standard here in our
>United States
Sorry, but the standard in some church is NOT the standard in our
SECULAR society.
>>> But that does not apply to the ruling class,
>>
>> "we the people"
>
>Thomas Jefferson admired women who were soft, passive, modest, and
>chaste, and who possessed such artistic talents as made them
>ornaments of a masculine world.
Whoopie for TJ.
He also believed that Saul of Tarsus was a demon-worshipper that
perverted the teachings of Jesus.
>> But nothing prevents you from having a prenup
>
>Your mother firmly objected, Chandelier.
You fail the mind reading test.
>> if you can talk a woman into putting up with your bigotry.
>
>Are you nym-shifting, Chandelier?
I have been "lojbab" pretty much from the day I started posting on
Usenet more than 20 years ago.
But given that you haven't spelled my name correctly once, you'll have
a hell of a time finding anything.
>If we are going to start calling
>names, I need more than 200 posts to pick through.
I am responding only to ONE post. The one I quote from.
That is my norm, unless I explicitly cite additional posts, or
incorporate them through tested quotation
>>> Ruling class women have fun, raise their children, and perhaps
>>> run for political office. The ruling class pass on their
>>> bloodlines and their inheritances to the next generations,
>>> leaving the general public to cope with their policies of
>>> "fairness".
>>
>> The general public IS the "ruling class".
>
>The ruling class is that group above the glass ceiling,
Ideology, not reality.
>Chandelier, the class where 98% of businesses are run by men.
Women tend to run smaller businesses (perhaps by choice, perhaps
sometimes due to discrimination), but they run a hell of a lot more of
them than you seem to think.
<In 2007, 30 percent of private companies were owned by women, but they
<accounted for only 13 percent of employment and 11 percent of sales.
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/nov2010/sb20101117_344437.htm
>> It is YOUR problem if "your" woman doesn't have fun
>
>Your mother has lots of fun around me, Chandelier, if you would
>call her a woman...
Given that my mother died almost 40 years ago, your fantasies are
laughable.
>> raise children, or run for political office - society isn't
>> stopping her.
>>
>>> It helps keep distance between us and them.
>>
>> Your prejudice is what does that.
>
>Says a hypocrite who denies the meaning of the fact that only 12
>of our top 500 companies are run by women.
There is no "meaning" to that fact.
The US hasn't yet had a woman president, but Israel, Pakistan, India,
Germany, and the UK, among others, have done quite well with women on
top of the government.
>>> The ruling class use "equal rights" as a carrot to lure common
>>> women who are suckers and/or self-serving with no sense of
>>> country.
>>
>> I guess you need to start making a better offer then.
>
>I am trying.
Women probably find you very trying indeed, especially when you start
applying your physical superiority to enforce discipline.
>>> The general public act like fans on the left and on the right,
>>> stimulated by their hatemonger cheerleaders. Actually, it's
>>> class warfare. The ruling class is winning to the detriment of
>>> our society.
>>
>> Others apparently think it to be to the benefit of our country.
>
>I have no idea what the fuck you're referring to, Chandelier.
That is quite clear.
>> And they have the votes, so you lose.
>
>Yup, the vote was given to women by the ruling class, and
>instantly/consequently became impossible to take away.
Good.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
John Doe
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab lojban.org> wrote:
>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Gary Gore <GHGore Bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Every time the American people have an opportunity, they
>>>>> support traditional marriage at the ballot box
>>>>
>>>> Not really. Marriage is not traditional without the woman
>>>> being subservient to her husband.
>>>
>>> That largely depends on whose traditions you are following.
>>
>> It has been the tradition in our United States until the ruling
>> class forced "equal rights" on the masses.
>
> You mean with the DofI, or the Bill of Rights, or do you mean
> the 14th amendment?
Ground Zero was the 19th amendment, Dimbulb.
>> The Christian Bible clearly spells out that tradition. I
>> suspect the Muslim Bible does too.
>
> I have redefined marriage and government enforces my beliefs.
>
>>>> To be most effective,
>>>
>>> "Effective" towards what purpose?
>>
>> The purpose of effectively running a family, of course.
>
>>>> marriage needs a head of household.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Says a true believer in The Church of an Ever Expanding
>> Government(The CEEG).
>>
>>>> Since the husband is almost always physically more capable
>>>> than the wife,
>>>
>>> only relevant for matters where physical capability are more
>>> important
>>
>> Like enforcing decisions.
>
> Only a police officer can use force against others, according to
> the The CEEG doctrine.
>
>>>> since the husband can enforce family decisions (without the
>>>> help of a big government police officer carrying a billy club
>>>> and gun),
>>>
>>> You mean by throwing his "physical capability" around by wife-
>>> and child-beating?
>>
>> Hello troll.
>
> I didn't start this noxious thread.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Dimbulb.
>> As a devout follower of The CEEG, Dimbulb, you believe only
>> police officers should use force against other people.
>
> I resemble that remark.
>
>> I believe that a wife should obey her husband in family
>> matters.
>
> As a devout follower of The CEEG, I believe only a police
> officer should use force against others.
>> You believe that a wife should obey a big government police
>> officer in family matters,
>
> Admittedly, I am a cannibal left liberal believer in The CEEG.
>
>> because you believe that government knows better than a husband
>> how to run his family.
>
> I think The CEEG should enforce my beliefs on all lower class
> families.
>
>>>> the husband should be head of household.
>>>
>>> More logical would be that if there must be a head of
>>> household, that it be the more intelligent one, or the wiser
>>> one, or the one best able to produce harmony.
>>
>> Sounds like a Fairytale Land on the Internet, Dimbulb. In the
>> real world of governance, the decision-making branch requires
>> an executive branch to enforce its decisions.
>
> There is no need for a "decision-making branch". EVERYONE
> decides.
That is the doctrine of The CEEG... Big government decides how a
family should be run. Only a police officer should use force
against others.
That is why lower-class families (including so-called single
parents) are the shit nowadays, and our society is suffering
dearly because of that.
>> Anyone who suggests that a wife does not affect the decisions
>> of her husband is very na�ve or deceptive.
>
> I get it. Even if the more physically capable spouse (the
> husband) has the last word, the woman's opinion naturally
> matters.
>
>> I'm talking about the one that enforces family decisions.
>
> go directly to jail. And say Hi to my mother, please.
>
>> As a zealous follower of The CEEG, Dimbulb, you believe a big
>> government police officer with billy club and gun should be the
>> tiebreaker and enforcer of family decisions.
>
> Of course I do.
>> But I'm pretty sure that a wife's obedience to her husband
>> exists here and now among the ruling class.
>
> Considering the fact that 98% of our top 500 companies are run
> by men, obviously women are not the breadwinners among the
> ruling class.
>
>> The ruling class don't follow the same rules they force on the
>> rest of us, otherwise more than 12 of our top 500 companies
>> would have female CEOs.
>>
>> The ruling class gave up on the idea of quotas just in time,
>> and they are fortified behind the wall of the Senate
>> filibuster. They will never allow "equal rights" to divide
>> their own ranks. Anyone who believes that the glass ceiling is
>> going away is a fool.
>
> I fully expect a female president within the next couple of
> decades.
So do I, Dimbulb. Common women and their puppets need an
occasional doping, to help them continue the fantasy that someday
the ruling class will practice what they force on the rest of us.
A woman president will be promoted as another milestone along the
way to that end. True believers in The CEEG are suckered the phony
signs shown by their deity (the ruling class).
Maybe they have no sense of country. Maybe they just don't care.
>>>> wedding vows used to contain "to honor and obey"
>>>
>>> only in some religious weddings.
>>
>> But of course that is baloney, Dimbulb. The wife's vow to
>> "love, honor, and obey" her husband was the standard here in
>> our United States
>
> I know, I'm just an atheist believer in The CEEG spewing
> bullshit.
>
>>>> But that does not apply to the ruling class,
>>>
>>> "we the people"
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson admired women who were soft, passive, modest,
>> and chaste, and who possessed such artistic talents as made
>> them ornaments of a masculine world. As mothers and
>> housekeepers they were domestic workhorses, but as sexual
>> objects they must be delicate and beautiful, living works of
>> art existing in an imaginative world of romantic love.
>> (McLaughlin, 1988, p. 195).
>
> Ouch! I'll remember that one.
>
>>> if you can talk a woman into putting up with your bigotry.
That's the way it was for all men until the ruling class begin
forcing feminism on the rest of us, nowadays only ruling class men
can talk women into putting up with their bigotry.
>> Are you nym-shifting, Dimbulb?
>
> I have been "lojbab" pretty much from the day I started posting
> on Usenet more than 20 years ago.
In 20 years, Dimbulb, you haven't figured out how to properly
separate a signature from the body of your post. Searching the
archive for your current e-mail ID gets 200 or 300 results. But
your belief in The CEEG is obvious anyway. Apparently you just
spam bullshit to help advertise your website.
>>>> Ruling class women have fun, raise their children, and
>>>> perhaps run for political office. The ruling class pass on
>>>> their bloodlines and their inheritances to the next
>>>> generations, leaving the general public to cope with their
>>>> policies of "fairness".
>>>
>>> The general public IS the "ruling class".
>>
>> The ruling class is that group above the glass ceiling,
>
> You mean the ruling class that forces "equal rights" on those
> under the glass ceiling, but does not practice it themselves.
>
> Women tend to run smaller businesses (perhaps by choice, perhaps
> sometimes due to discrimination)
Apparently it's "by choice" when trying to justify a silly belief
that 98% of our top companies being run by men is not obvious
discrimination.
Following the plenty obvious teachings in the Bible, wedding vows
used to contain "to honor and obey". Under the glass ceiling,
political correctness has done away with that, and the function of
marriage and our society as a whole has suffered dearly.
But that does not apply to the ruling class, those who enforce
"equal rights" on the rest of us. Ruling class women have fun,
raise their children, and perhaps run for political office. The
ruling class pass on their bloodlines and their inheritances to
the next generations, leaving the general public to cope with
their policies of "fairness". It helps keep distance between us
and them.
> The US hasn't yet had a woman president
In other words... Common women should continue believing the fairy
tale that someday (somewhere over the rainbow) the ruling class
will practice what they force on the rest of us. You think that
woman president should be thought of as another milestone along
the way to that end. True believers in The CEEG must believe those
phony signs of progress, because The CEEG tells them so.
>>>> The ruling class use "equal rights" as a carrot to lure
>>>> common women who are suckers and/or self-serving with no
>>>> sense of country.
>>>
>>> I guess you need to start making a better offer then.
>>
>> I am trying.
>
> Women probably find you very trying indeed
I should have tried harder, Dimbulb, to make it over the fence
before that damn mutt beat me to it.
>>>> The general public act like fans on the left and on the
>>>> right, stimulated by their hatemonger cheerleaders. Actually,
>>>> it's class warfare. The ruling class is winning to the
>>>> detriment of our society.
>>>
>>> Others apparently think it to be to the benefit of our
>>> country.
>>
>> I have no idea what the fuck you're referring to, Dimbulb.
>
> I hope you're not asking me.
>
>>> And they have the votes, so you lose.
>>
>> Yup, the vote was given to women by the ruling class, and
>> instantly/consequently became impossible to take away.
>
> Good.
Spoken from the heart by a true believer in The Church of an Ever
Expanding Government. Families should be and do what big
government wants them to do. Only a police officer should use
force against others. It's The CEEG doctrine!
My mega-theory relies on the idea that government always
eventually goes crazy on the people, that is well known history.
I think we have a good system, and I hate seeing it fall apart.
If feminism is a good thing, how come the ruling class doesn't
practice it? I don't believe the "it's only a matter of time"
bullshit. The fact that the ruling class doesn't practice what
they preach is not coincidence.
--
>
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> lojbab lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-01!easynews.com!en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab lojban.org>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.conservatism
> Subject: Re: Stand up for Traditional Marriage!
> Message-ID: <rt9p17pna6m9a1u34avm0n0j9gc97edfkk 4ax.com>
> References: <2c578061-62b3-4663-956f-0e8ca18ff875 b21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <4e17b764$0$2349$c3e8da3$76a7c58f news.astraweb.com> <l8jg17l00ev30qdpl3tqodsnammvtlca55 4ax.com> <4e190b84$0$27989$c3e8da3$38634283 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 280
> 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: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:28:52 -0400
>
Gary Gore
continue.
In 2008, voters in California, Arizona and Florida added their voices
to those in twenty-seven other states by adding amendments to their
state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one
woman.
But radical liberals and gay activists are working to overturn the
will of the people - even attempting to get judges to rule the
amendments unconstitutional. Others even want those in Congress to
John Doe
See also Google Groups
Gary Gore <garyhgore gmail.com> wrote:
> 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!y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Gary Gore <garyhgore gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.guns
> Subject: Stand up for Traditional Marriage!
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <2734b22c-587c-420e-8e7f-9223f9e17969 y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.56.152.117
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1311290956 5189 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2011 23:29:16 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:29:16 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.56.152.117; posting-account=2XHO0woAAABSWDlLywFuBQPt9ZMjkcmx
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe)
John Smith
When we start treating homosexuals for their mental illness, the world
will be a better place to live and raise a family ...
Regards,
JS