A PROPOSAL FOR ENDING REVERSE-DISCRIMINATION
Mark Sobolewski
the S.C. made a mixed and rather nebulous ruling
on the two reverse discrimination and affirmative
actions cases brought before it by the Center
for Individual Rights and the plaintiffs.
I want to say that there is a light at the end of the
tunnel and it is this: While noisy protestors
were trying to argue that special privileges for some
wasn't discrimination against others, the general
public isn't being fooled. More people now oppose
preferences and this was shown when proposition 209
was passed in California. Even the term
"Affirmative Action" now has a bad name.
When a critical mass of support builds, this
usually means that it's time to maybe just
pass legislation. Here are a number of positive
strategies that people may use, on an individual
and collective level, to make this happen!!!
First, the CIR website is: http://www.cir-usa.org/
I have been donating to them about $20 per year
for the past 10 years. If you want rights, you
should be willing to pay for them. Imagine
if every person who opposed affirmative action
was to support this organization directly and indirectly!
(They also do a lot of other worthwhile things
as well.)
*YOU* should mail every friend you have and refer
them (and their support) to this organization and ask
them to do the same to their list. That alone may help
to start the ball rolling!!!
Beyond that, there's another step: Ask them
to take action and refer others to start writing their
political representatives and requesting new legislation to
outlaw reverse discrimination at the federal level.
It's NOT as crazy as it sounds. All it takes is for
someone to propose a bill, a co-sponsor, and then
put it on the floor for a debate.
If you have a strong leftist senator or congressperson, forget
it. They are not going to listen to a letter from
someone that's not in their main group of political
supporters. However, if that politician is in a district
that is only traditionally supporting them out of
party loyalty and could switch (in other words,
a swing district) then your letter could mean a lot.
Especially if a lot of people write at the same time.
Even if a politician is "conservative" or may be
sympathetic to ending reverse discrimation, they
may not want to "rock the boat" unless their
constituents write to them and express themselves!
If you need to "throw away your vote", remember that
giving it away to a politician who takes you for
granted isn't doing you a lot of good either!
Here's a link to the NRA web site that allows you
to look up your elected officials and rates them
according to gun rights.
http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials
(It's not secret that if someone is against gun rights
they probably are huge fans of affirmative action too.)
FINALLY, and I am doing this personally, schedule a REAL
meeting with your congressperson or senator. No kidding!
Just call up the office and schedule an appointment.
Get your brother, friend, or co-worker in another district
to do the same thing.
People now know that "affirmative action" is code
for "reverse discrimination". Let's put it into law!
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
mark_so...@yahoo.com
Hyerdahl1
>From: Mark Sobolewski mark_so...@yahoo.com
>Date: 6/24/2003 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
><mark_sobolewski-79...@newssvr32-ext.news.prodigy.com>
>
>As I'm sure many people felt, I was disappointed when the S.C. made a mixed
and rather nebulous ruling on the two reverse discrimination and affirmative
>actions cases brought before it by the Center>for Individual Rights and the
plaintiffs.
It seems the holding is neither mixed, nor nebulous. It was clear to me that
the court finds a need in our society to be inclusive and diverse. It also
seems clear that strictly held quotas are not the answer to the diversity
issue. I rather liked that.
>I want to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is this:
While noisy protestors were trying to argue that special privileges for some
wasn't discrimination against others, the general public isn't being fooled.
More people now oppose
preferences and this was shown when proposition 209 was passed in California.
Actually, many other jurisdictions learned what prop 209 really meant, the
desire of the masses of white males didn't want to discuss discrimination at
all. They wanted the maintenence of the status quo, with white men holding all
the cards. As to having more people opposed to inclusion and diversity, I
think you're wrong about that, but just in case you're not, no matter how many
people want it, we can't, in a free society, implement slavery if it too
becomes popular. :-)
Even the term >"Affirmative Action" now has a bad name.
No problem, Mark; perhaps we can change the name to "Positive Providence" and
fool all those rich Republicans into thinking it's something that benefits the
rich. :-)
>When a critical mass of support builds, this>usually means that it's time to
maybe just pass legislation.
Go for it, Mark; try to convince 2/3 of congress. :-)
Here are a number of positive
>strategies that people may use, on an individual>and collective level, to make
this happen!!!
>
>First, the CIR website is: http://www.cir-usa.org/
>
>I have been donating to them about $20 per year for the past 10 years.
That ought to buy them a hood or two.
:-)
If you want rights, you>should be willing to pay for them.
Gee, Mark...it sounds almost as if you're suggesting that the rich can _buy_
rights.
Hmmmmm. Well, be my guest, but I suspect it might fail. Altho, my son just
sent me a button that says America is a nation of sheep, run by wolves and
owned by pigs. Hmmmmm.
Imagine>if every person who opposed affirmative action was to support this
organization directly and indirectly!
Are there enough hoods, do you suppose, to go 'round?
>(They also do a lot of other worthwhile things>as well.)
>
I'm sure...
>*YOU* should mail every friend you have and refer>them (and their support) to
this organization and ask them to do the same to their list.
Well, if that's all you've got, is the friends of those in this NG, I'm not
going to get worried. :-)
That alone may help
>to start the ball rolling!!!
Start the ball rolling
Gents in white
Start 'yer yallowling
that white is right
Call them rights
when they are wrongs
make women pray
or parade in thongs
Don't include
Keep the ball in your court
Exclusion serves
The Kings of sport
And when your tired of all your folly
don't forget the words of Dolly
" You can always cuddle up to your cash register; it's a little lumpy, but it
rings."
>Beyond that, there's another step: Ask them>to take action and refer others to
start writing their>political representatives and requesting new legislation to
outlaw reverse discrimination at the federal level.
I've already written to my reps, Mark. Don't worry. :-)
>
>It's NOT as crazy as it sounds. All it takes is for>someone to propose a
bill, a co-sponsor, and then put it on the floor for a debate.
It's election time, Mark. How much faith are you putting in this? :-)
>
>If you have a strong leftist senator or congressperson, forget>it. They are
not going to listen to a letter from someone that's not in their main group of
political
>supporters. However, if that politician is in a district that is only
traditionally supporting them out of party loyalty and could switch (in other
words,>a swing district) then your letter could mean a lot.
>Especially if a lot of people write at the same time.
There's something relatively scary about large groups of stupid people; I
think that's why we have three branches of govt. :-)
>
>Even if a politician is "conservative" or may be >sympathetic to ending
reverse discrimation, they>may not want to "rock the boat" unless
their>constituents write to them and express themselves!
Well, let's see....I wonder if I hit W. Virginia? ....Yes... whew!
>If you need to "throw away your vote", remember that>giving it away to a
politician who takes you for
>granted isn't doing you a lot of good either!
>
When it comes to a choice between voting for a person you know won't represent
your sexist and racist interests, it damn sure that voting for the other fellow
won't do much good either. :-)
>Here's a link to the NRA web site that allows you>to look up your elected
officials and rates them>according to gun rights.
But Mark. You are being simplistic. I'm a card-carrying member of the NRA and
I don't support ANY of your racist sexist agenda.
>http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials
>(It's not secret that if someone is against gun rights>they probably are huge
fans of affirmative action too.)
Boy, did you call that one wrong.
>
>FINALLY, and I am doing this personally, schedule a REAL meeting with your
congressperson or senator. No kidding!
>Just call up the office and schedule an appointment.
Well, let's see....do I want to speak to the honorable Boxer, or the honorable
Finestein ? :-)
>Get your brother, friend, or co-worker in another district>to do the same
thing.
>
Or your sister, friend or co worker, eh?
>People now know that "affirmative action" is code>for "reverse
discrimination". Let's put it into law!
>
Nonsense! In fact, the SC found a need to continue diversity in our nations
schools and workplaces. This is NOT reverse discrimination.
>regards,
>Mark Sobolewski
>mark_so...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
volantus4
over $100 to the CIR this year.
Mark Sobolewski
hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_so...@yahoo.com
> >As I'm sure many people felt, I was disappointed when the S.C. made a mixed
> and rather nebulous ruling on the two reverse discrimination and affirmative
> >actions cases brought before it by the Center>for Individual Rights and the
> plaintiffs.
>
> It seems the holding is neither mixed, nor nebulous. It was clear to me that
> the court finds a need in our society to be inclusive and diverse. It also
> seems clear that strictly held quotas are not the answer to the diversity
> issue. I rather liked that.
I see you've kissed and made up with your protectors. :-)
Well, no duh you "rather like" discriminatory policies in place
when they suit you without a need for a quota.
> >I want to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is this:
> While noisy protestors were trying to argue that special privileges for some
> wasn't discrimination against others, the general public isn't being fooled.
> More people now oppose
> preferences and this was shown when proposition 209 was passed in California.
>
>
> Actually, many other jurisdictions learned what prop 209 really meant, the
> desire of the masses of white males didn't want to discuss discrimination at
> all.
Yeah, that's the problem with racism: it assumes people think
a certain way due to their race and gender. Especially
white males. :-)
> They wanted the maintenence of the status quo, with white men holding
> all
> the cards.
You mean by making discrimination and preferences illegal
according to the state law? Yeah, that REALLY keeps
the status quo in place!
> As to having more people opposed to inclusion and diversity, I
> think you're wrong about that, but just in case you're not, no matter how
> many
> people want it, we can't, in a free society, implement slavery if it too
> becomes popular. :-)
So you're all for democracy except when it goes against
your interpretation of acceptable discrimination. Isn't
it just horrible when you lose?
Enjoy the victory Parg and I'm big enough to let you have
your party. Enjoy it while it lasts.
> Even the term >"Affirmative Action" now has a bad name.
>
> No problem, Mark; perhaps we can change the name to "Positive Providence"
> and
> fool all those rich Republicans into thinking it's something that benefits
> the
> rich. :-)
You mean Steven Speilberg and the Kennedy family are all Republicans? :-)
Fortunately, Carol Ann, the Republicans _DO_ have a lot
of supporters who are genuinely wealthy rather than
a bunch of illiterate bigots in Florida who voted
for Pat Buchanon by mistake. :-) Or black men
who can't vote because they have a DV felony on their
record.
I like how that works out!
In response to your point: The affirmative action label is becoming
a bit similar to "feminism". Unlike feminism, affirmative action
won't lend itself easily to a new label.
> >When a critical mass of support builds, this>usually means that it's time to
> maybe just pass legislation.
>
> Go for it, Mark; try to convince 2/3 of congress. :-)
Supposedly, that happened before no?
Just as the civil rights act of 1964 passed with
rather nebulous promises it wouldn't be abused, well,
so could a new act pass no? Let's call it something such as:
The Homeland Security and Equal Opportunity Act of 2004
Or
The Anti-Terrorism Freedom and Equal Opportunity Act of 2004
I like it! Fortunately, there are no alpha males to
challenge Bush, are there? Too bad, so sad.
> Here are a number of positive
> >strategies that people may use, on an individual>and collective level, to
> >make
> this happen!!!
> >
> >First, the CIR website is: http://www.cir-usa.org/
> >
> >I have been donating to them about $20 per year for the past 10 years.
>
> That ought to buy them a hood or two.
> :-)
Ooh. You mean by defending a white woman they were
in the KKK? Ok...
> If you want rights, you>should be willing to pay for them.
>
> Gee, Mark...it sounds almost as if you're suggesting that the rich can _buy_
> rights.
You mean when the Unions take money from their members and spend
them (against a supreme court decision) on non-union activities?
Regardless, why not? If someone cares about rights then
they'll put in an effort.
> Hmmmmm. Well, be my guest, but I suspect it might fail. Altho, my son just
> sent me a button that says America is a nation of sheep, run by wolves and
> owned by pigs. Hmmmmm.
HAHAHAHA!
Yet, you don't want to leave it for one that wasn't established
by white males, no? Try Asia, the Middle East, or South America.
See how long you last!
If you want to try France, you better brush up on Arabic.
If you want to go to Germany, study up on Turkish.
> Imagine>if every person who opposed affirmative action was to support this
> organization directly and indirectly!
>
> Are there enough hoods, do you suppose, to go 'round?
Speaking of hoods...
You are proud of the S.C. eliminating quotas and sticking too
good ol' girl backroom dealings to discriminate based upon
race. If there's any secret corruption, it's the anti-white
male crowd.
Fortunately, they've been exposed by their own courtroom.
Won't it be nice when you lose another supreme court decision
and then whine about how unfair it is? :-)
> >(They also do a lot of other worthwhile things>as well.)
> >
> I'm sure...
>
> >*YOU* should mail every friend you have and refer>them (and their support)
> >to
> this organization and ask them to do the same to their list.
>
> Well, if that's all you've got, is the friends of those in this NG, I'm not
> going to get worried. :-)
Proposition 209 passed due to a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY, no?
(Even if it was created by evil white men to perpetuate the
status quo even as they comprise a majority of the politicians
and judges you crave for protection :-)
The case before the S.C. had one positive effect: To bring HUGE
national and INTERNATIONAL attention to this issue.
People now know that discrimination against race is going
on based upon some diversity scheme and that it's secret.
Yeah, that REALLY goes over well for future race relations.
I'm big enough, Parg, to look at a bigger picture than ONE
law. For example, abortion rights. I could care less
about them. Really. Perhaps this issue will wake men
up to LARGER issues and change public perceptions about
all the evil "rich" republican party. Apparently, they
want someone whose capable of standing up to Bin Laden
and not just sucking up Haagen Daaz.
> >Beyond that, there's another step: Ask them>to take action and refer others
> >to
> start writing their>political representatives and requesting new legislation
> to
> outlaw reverse discrimination at the federal level.
>
> I've already written to my reps, Mark. Don't worry. :-)
Yeah, but they already have lesbo lovers. :-)
Indeed Carol Ann, the Bush campaign showed that all of you
leftist creeps clump together helping to make the electoral
college work in our favor. Do keep it up.
> >It's NOT as crazy as it sounds. All it takes is for>someone to propose a
> bill, a co-sponsor, and then put it on the floor for a debate.
>
> It's election time, Mark. How much faith are you putting in this? :-)
I believe that's in another year and a few months (how time flies.)
That leaves enough time for the economy to start a recovery
(which will scare people to elect a new president lest
the recover be interrupted) as well as the continuing
fear on the war on terror (wars kept FDR in office
for quite a while.)
Hmmm, plenty of time to put a few new S.C justices in place.
Sandra's health isn't so good. Maybe she should take a break.
> >If you have a strong leftist senator or congressperson, forget>it. They are
> not going to listen to a letter from someone that's not in their main group
> of
> political
> >supporters. However, if that politician is in a district that is only
> traditionally supporting them out of party loyalty and could switch (in other
> words,>a swing district) then your letter could mean a lot.
> >Especially if a lot of people write at the same time.
>
> There's something relatively scary about large groups of stupid people; I
> think that's why we have three branches of govt. :-)
Actually, no.
Honestly Parg: If your agenda was smart they would have
stopped somewhere in the 80's and tried to work out
a deal. Instead, they got greedy and even ruthless.
It's all downhill from here. Really.
Or should I say "backhill"?
> >Even if a politician is "conservative" or may be >sympathetic to ending
> reverse discrimation, they>may not want to "rock the boat" unless
> their>constituents write to them and express themselves!
>
> Well, let's see....I wonder if I hit W. Virginia? ....Yes... whew!
>
> >If you need to "throw away your vote", remember that>giving it away to a
> politician who takes you for
> >granted isn't doing you a lot of good either!
> >
> When it comes to a choice between voting for a person you know won't
> represent
> your sexist and racist interests, it damn sure that voting for the other
> fellow
> won't do much good either. :-)
You mean racists who have a certain agenda such as diversity?
> >Here's a link to the NRA web site that allows you>to look up your elected
> officials and rates them>according to gun rights.
>
> But Mark. You are being simplistic. I'm a card-carrying member of the NRA
> and
> I don't support ANY of your racist sexist agenda.
I somehow doubt that. Tell you what Parg: prove it.
You don't even have to reveal your identity. If you have
a card, you should have a number. Give me the first 4 numbers
followed by XXXXX. If it's valid, I can tell you.
> >http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?url=http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials
> >(It's not secret that if someone is against gun rights>they probably are
> >huge
> fans of affirmative action too.)
>
> Boy, did you call that one wrong.
It's funny you should support the NRA because they've
been responsible for putting George W. Bush into office!
Really, it was neat: All the anti-gunners went around
in union gun owning democratic districts and blew away
any support from their conservative union base. Good
going Sarah Brady! Thanks a lot!
> >FINALLY, and I am doing this personally, schedule a REAL meeting with your
> congressperson or senator. No kidding!
> >Just call up the office and schedule an appointment.
>
> Well, let's see....do I want to speak to the honorable Boxer, or the
> honorable
> Finestein ? :-)
I've moved to St. Louis. And no, I don't think so.
I think Boxer and Feinstein will be lucky if their
power doesn't go out and the freeways don't crumble
because of a 40 billion dollar deficit.
> >People now know that "affirmative action" is code>for "reverse
> discrimination". Let's put it into law!
> >
> Nonsense! In fact, the SC found a need to continue diversity in our nations
> schools and workplaces. This is NOT reverse discrimination.
Just as the Beverly Hills police department says they
aren't racial profiling. They're just making safety
stops. :-)
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
Jill <Jill...@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:51:11 GMT, Mark Sobolewski
> <mark_so...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the link below, Mark. The name of the site/group is the
> Center for Individual Rights. You didn't include the name but I
> thought it was important for those (like me) who didn't know of this
> group to get their full name.
> >First, the CIR website is: http://www.cir-usa.org/
> >
> >I have been donating to them about $20 per year
> >for the past 10 years. If you want rights, you
> >should be willing to pay for them. Imagine
> >if every person who opposed affirmative action
> >was to support this organization directly and indirectly!
> >(They also do a lot of other worthwhile things
> >as well.)
> >
> >*YOU* should mail every friend you have and refer
> >them (and their support) to this organization and ask
> >them to do the same to their list. That alone may help
> >to start the ball rolling!!!
>
> mail.
CIR is basically the replacement for the ACLU. I wouldn't
be surprised if 20 years from now that was what happened.
NOW has a membership of about 100,000 aging feminists
(and I think when their nursing home cuts off their
mail, that's the end of their membership :-)
A lot of this crazy 60's stuff is literally going out of style.
I just saw a commercial for the NYT. It had an alpha
male type white male in a white shirt and his
prim and proper wife and daughter who presumably is
off to Radcliffe checking up on the Internet.
How many of THOSE families exist anymore? Poor NYT.
They just don't get it.
> >Beyond that, there's another step: Ask them
> >to take action and refer others to start writing their
> >political representatives and requesting new legislation to
> >outlaw reverse discrimination at the federal level.
> >
> >It's NOT as crazy as it sounds. All it takes is for
> >someone to propose a bill, a co-sponsor, and then
> >put it on the floor for a debate.
>
> I've recently begun to get acitively involved in legislation on the
> state level. I was supposed to attend my first hearing tomorrow but
> it was postponed. I'm not surprised as it had to do with making
> changes in the way Wisconsin calculates CS amounts.
I think it would be neat for someone to point out
that if a child's welfare was considered BEFORE custody
was given to the parent least financially capable
of taking care of them, maybe there wouldn't be a problem!
> >If you have a strong leftist senator or congressperson, forget
> >it. They are not going to listen to a letter from
> >someone that's not in their main group of political
> >supporters.
>
> I disagree. Not about the point that the politician won't listen.
> They won't when it counts. But by law, every Congressman must answer
> any letter, email, or phone call within (I believe its) 30 days of
> receiving the communication. I recently sent an email to my Senate
> representatives opposing part of a piece of legislation that was up
> for reauthorization. One never answered but that's easy to do when
> they are contacted by email as records are easier to dispose of (the
> delete key).
>
> The other sent me a canned email auto reply stating that he was very
> busy in Washington and would respond by US mail in a week. That never
> happened either but the canned reply told me I'd at least made it to
> his email box. And technically speaking, his canned auto reply
> qualifies as a "real" response to me.
Granted. But Jill, I ask, what good is this? I know
that it helps generate statistics for the congressperson
to think about whether or not an issue has national support
but still, they are ideologically driven. Don't you think?
> I would suggest that in order to be heard and counted at all, it is
> best to fax or snail mail correspondence to Washington or even to
> state and local officials.
Agreed that snail mail is best but if email works, why not?
> >FINALLY, and I am doing this personally, schedule a REAL
> >meeting with your congressperson or senator. No kidding!
> >Just call up the office and schedule an appointment.
> >Get your brother, friend, or co-worker in another district
> >to do the same thing.
>
> Excellent idea! Thanks again, Mark.
I'm thinking this might help with my career just to ask
them for tips and suggestions.
But just IMAGINE if nearly every senator and congressman
had an anti-affirmative action citizen/lobbyist suggesting
that someone submit a bill. Especially before election
time!
Society
news:mark_sobolewski-F7...@newssvr32-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>
>Carol Ann Hem-and-haw moaned for another spanking...
>>
>> > Mark Sobolewski explained...
>> >
>> > As I'm sure many people felt, I was disappointed
>> > rather nebulous ruling on the two reverse discrimination
>> > and affirmative actions cases brought before it by
>> > the Center for Individual Rights and the plaintiffs.
>>
>> It seems
Ahh, "seems" -- the usual Parg-speak signal that she's
having another of her hallucinatory fits.
>> the holding is neither mixed, nor nebulous. It was clear
>> to me
And "clear to me" means "downloaded into her FemiBorg
cranial capsule" in Parg-speak. Ha ha.
>> that the court finds a need in our society to be
>> inclusive and diverse. It also seems clear that
>> strictly held quotas are not the answer to the diversity
>> issue. I rather liked that.
>
> I see you've kissed and made up with your protectors. :-)
<chuckle>
Excellent reply, Mark!
> Well, no duh you "rather like" discriminatory policies
> in place when they suit you without a need for a quota.
>
>> >I want to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel
>> > and it is this: While noisy protestors were trying to argue
>> > that special privileges for some wasn't discrimination
>> > against others, the general public isn't being fooled.
>> > More people now oppose preferences and this was
>> > shown when Proposition 209 was passed in California.
>>
>> Actually,
"Actually" is a FemiBorg code word Pargol-Ann uses
to signal that she's about to tell a lie.
>> many other jurisdictions learned what prop 209 really
>> meant, the desire of the masses of white males didn't
>> want to discuss discrimination at all.
>
> Yeah, that's the problem with racism: it assumes people
> think a certain way due to their race and gender.
> Especially white males. :-)
<laugh>
Wow. Carol Ann has become the vanguard of the new
color-blind America! She can't tell the difference between
a "white male" and Ward Connerly, the creator of California's
Prop. 209 and the upcoming Racial Privacy Initiative.
Or, she told a lie.
I believe the latter is the likelier possibility. :-)
>> They wanted the maintenence of the status quo, with
>> white men holding all the cards.
>
> You mean by making discrimination and preferences illegal
> according to the state law? Yeah, that REALLY keeps
> the status quo in place!
Carol Ann Pargyway will say anything no matter how false.
She's so easy to catch out as the idiotic fem-bigot she is.
>> As to having more people opposed to inclusion and
>> diversity, I think
The short-hair hyerdahl pup would like to be able
to think, but having been assimilated by a FemiBorg
hive, she never will. Ha ha.
>> you're wrong about that, but just in case you're not,
>> no matter how many people want it, we can't, in a
>> free society, implement slavery if it too becomes popular. :-)
>
> So you're all for democracy except when it goes against
> your interpretation of acceptable discrimination. Isn't
> it just horrible when you lose?
>
> Enjoy the victory Parg and I'm big enough to let you have
> your party. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Yeah, given that Pargrobot was hooting not so long
ago that college enrollments are 60% women, "diversity"
would require giving _men_ special consideration. Won't
be long before _that_ suit gets filed.
>> > Even the term "Affirmative Action" now has a bad name.
>>
>> No problem, Mark; perhaps we can change the name
>> to "Positive Providence" and fool all those rich Republicans
>> into thinking it's something that benefits the rich. :-)
>
> You mean Steven Speilberg and the Kennedy family
> are all Republicans? :-)
And Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (the #1 and #2 richest
people in the US)? Naaah!
Poor Pargy-wargy, she's soooo confused. <laugh>
> Fortunately, Carol Ann, the Republicans _DO_ have a lot
> of supporters who are genuinely wealthy rather than
> a bunch of illiterate bigots in Florida who voted for
> Pat Buchanon by mistake. :-) Or black men who can't
> vote because they have a DV felony on their record.
>
> I like how that works out!
<grin>
> In response to your point: The affirmative action label
> is becoming a bit similar to "feminism". Unlike feminism,
> affirmative action won't lend itself easily to a new label.
Yeah, "affirmative action" IS the new label for what was
more honestly called "reverse discrimination".
>> > When a critical mass of support builds, this usually
>> > means that it's time to maybe just pass legislation.
>>
>> Go for it, Mark; try to convince 2/3 of congress. :-)
>
> Supposedly, that happened before no?
>
> Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with
> rather nebulous promises it wouldn't be abused, well,
> so could a new act pass no?
Somewhere Senator Hubert Humphrey is eating a hat...
BTW, just to poke a soiled thumb into Pargy Ann's eye,
that 1964 act passed with only a majority vote.
> Let's call it something such as:
>
> The Homeland Security and Equal Opportunity Act of 2004
>
> Or
>
> The Anti-Terrorism Freedom and Equal Opportunity Act of 2004
>
> I like it! Fortunately, there are no alpha males to
> challenge Bush, are there? Too bad, so sad.
Mark, did you notice that it was the Democrats that pushed
making airport screeners Federal employees -- a move that
considerably 'whitened' that particular workforce? The Pargoids
of America don't like being touched by dark-skinned people, eh?
>> > Here are a number of positive strategies that people
>> > may use, on an individual and collective level, to make
>> > this happen!!!
>> >
>> > First, the CIR website is: http://www.cir-usa.org/
>> >
>> > I have been donating to them about $20 per year for
>> > the past 10 years.
> >
> > That ought to buy them a hood or two.
> > :-)
>
> Ooh. You mean by defending a white woman they were
> in the KKK? Ok...
Naah. The KKK is the shtick of Sen. Robert Byrd-D West Virginia.
>> > If you want rights, you should be willing to pay for them.
>>
>>Gee, Mark...it sounds
..."sounds" being a FemiBorg synonym for "seems"...
>>almost as if you're suggesting that the rich can _buy_
>>rights.
>
> You mean when the Unions take money from their
> members and spend them (against a Supreme Court
> decision) on non-union activities?
>
> Regardless, why not? If someone cares about rights
> then they'll put in an effort.
Pargoids are routinely downloaded with a belief in a
free lunch by their FemiBorg hive. That is easily done
to feminist true believers; for after all, what feminist ever
"put in an effort" to earn "rights"? Naah, they just went
begging for rights and only when it was safe to do so.
Oh sure, women's history classes make a big deal over
Abigail Adams but what price did the Crown put on her
head compared to her man's? Uh huh, zero.
>> Hmmmmm. Well, be my guest, but I suspect
..."suspect" is a FemiBorg word for "desperately hope"...
>> it might fail. Altho, my son just sent me a button that
>> says America is a nation of sheep, run by wolves and
>> owned by pigs. Hmmmmm.
>
> HAHAHAHA!
>
> Yet, you don't want to leave it for one that wasn't established
> by white males, no? Try Asia, the Middle East, or South
> America. See how long you last!
Carol Pargyann Hyerdahldroid ran away from the offer
of several on this happy news to provide her with a plane
ticket away from this nation "established by white males".
Her actions speak volumes. Her mouth writes a lot of
feminist checks that her tail is too frightened to cash.
> If you want to try France, you better brush up on Arabic.
> If you want to go to Germany, study up on Turkish.
Hey Mark, Pargo Ann spoke highly of Amsterdam in a
recent post. The Dutch kill people who don't like Arabs
overrunning their country. Remember Pim Fortuyn? He
was shot in Amsterdam. Is Pargo Ann developing a
craving to wear a burqa? Heh heh.
>> > Imagine if every person who opposed affirmative action
>> > was to support this organization directly and indirectly!
> >
> > Are there enough hoods, do you suppose, to go 'round?
>
> Speaking of hoods...
...Carol Ann wants a burqa! That white sheet and pointy
cap of her mentors is considered too 'revealing' by her
crowd -- if you get my drift. ;-)
> You are proud of the S.C. eliminating quotas and sticking
> to good ol' girl backroom dealings to discriminate based
> upon race. If there's any secret corruption, it's the anti-white
> male crowd.
>
> Fortunately, they've been exposed by their own courtroom.
> Won't it be nice when you lose another supreme court
> decision and then whine about how unfair it is? :-)
<laugh>
Makes her mad that the decision didn't touch Prop. 209
at all, doesn't it?
>> > (They also do a lot of other worthwhile things as well.)
>> >
>> > *YOU* should mail every friend you have and refer
>> > them (and their support) to this organization and ask
>> > them to do the same to their list.
> >
> > Well, if that's all you've got, is the friends of those in
> > this NG, I'm not going to get worried. :-)
>
> Proposition 209 passed due to a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY,
> no?
Yup. As Ronald Reagan once said to a chagrined leftist
as he pointed out a few problems with the lefty's beliefs:
"Facts are inconvenient things"
> (Even if it was created by evil white men to perpetuate the
> status quo even as they comprise a majority of the politicians
> and judges you crave for protection :-)
Has anyone told Ward Connerly and Larry Elder that
they're now "white men"?
> The case before the S.C. had one positive effect: To bring
> HUGE national and INTERNATIONAL attention to this issue.
> People now know that discrimination against race is going
> on based upon some diversity scheme and that it's secret.
>
> Yeah, that REALLY goes over well for future race relations.
>
> I'm big enough, Parg, to look at a bigger picture than ONE
> law. For example, abortion rights. I could care less
> about them. Really. Perhaps this issue will wake men
> up to LARGER issues and change public perceptions about
> all the evil "rich" Republican party. Apparently, they
> want someone whose capable of standing up to Bin Laden
> and not just sucking up Haagen Daaz.
Or swallowing Big Macs. BTW, the founder of the McDonalds
chain was a Democrat and his wife (also one of Dem) larded
out the dough to the Democrat Party's various coffers.
>> > Beyond that, there's another step: Ask them to take
>> > action and refer others to start writing their political
>> > representatives and requesting new legislation to
>> > outlaw reverse discrimination at the federal level.
>>
>> I've already written to my reps, Mark. Don't worry. :-)
>
> Yeah, but they already have lesbo lovers. :-)
>
> Indeed Carol Ann, the Bush campaign showed that all
> of you leftist creeps clump together helping to make the
> Electoral College work in our favor. Do keep it up.
<laugh>
>> > It's NOT as crazy as it sounds. All it takes is for
>> > someone to propose a bill, a co-sponsor, and then
>> > put it on the floor for a debate.
>>
>> It's election time, Mark. How much faith are you putting
>> in this? :-)
>
> I believe that's in another year and a few months (how
> time flies.)
Even sooner in California. I hear rumors from my insider
contacts that there are already enough petition signatures
to force a recall election of Gov. Gray "Prince of Darkness"
Davis.
> That leaves enough time for the economy to start a recovery
> (which will scare people to elect a new president lest
> the recover be interrupted) as well as the continuing
> fear on the war on terror (wars kept FDR in office
> for quite a while.)
>
> Hmmm, plenty of time to put a few new S.C justices
> in place. Sandra's health isn't so good. Maybe she
> should take a break.
>
> [...] Honestly Parg: If your agenda was smart they
> would have stopped somewhere in the 80's and tried
> to work out a deal. Instead, they got greedy and even
> ruthless. It's all downhill from here. Really.
>
> Or should I say "backhill"?
>
>> > Even if a politician is "conservative" or may be
>> > sympathetic to ending reverse discrimation, they
>> > may not want to "rock the boat" unless their
>> > constituents write to them and express themselves!
>>
>>Well, let's see....I wonder if I hit W. Virginia?
>>....Yes... whew!
Unsurprising that Parg-robot should mention the state
whose senior Senator -- a Democrat -- climbed to the post
of Grand Kleagle of his Ku Klux Klan. Yup, I'm talkin'
'bout Bobby Big-Bird. Parg's hero. Heh heh.
>> > If you need to "throw away your vote", remember that
>> > giving it away to a politician who takes you for
>> > granted isn't doing you a lot of good either!
>>
>>When it comes to a choice between voting for a person
>>you know won't represent your sexist and racist interests,
>>it damn sure that voting for the other fellow won't do much
>>good either. :-)
>
> You mean racists who have a certain agenda such as
> diversity?
You've got her again, Mark.
I'm cutting it short 'cause you've already run up the score
awfully high against Carol Ann Whistling-Past-the-Graveyard.
She wanted a spanking and got you to give her one. Again!
(You're such a nice guy about pleasing women, Mark. ;-)
Mr. F. Le Mur
wrote:
->"Mark Sobolewski" <mark_so...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
->news:mark_sobolewski-F7...@newssvr32-ext.news.prodigy.com...
->>
->>Carol Ann Hem-and-haw moaned for another spanking...
->>> >I want to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel
->>> > and it is this: While noisy protestors were trying to argue
->>> > that special privileges for some wasn't discrimination
->>> > against others, the general public isn't being fooled.
->>> > More people now oppose preferences and this was
->>> > shown when Proposition 209 was passed in California.
->>>
->>> Actually,
->
->"Actually" is a FemiBorg code word Pargol-Ann uses
->to signal that she's about to tell a lie.
The first word of any Pargerdahl sentence is a signal that it's
Hyerdahl1
>From: Mark Sobolewski mark_so...@yahoo.com
>Date: 6/25/2003 8:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
><mark_sobolewski-F7...@newssvr32-ext.news.prodigy.com>
>
>In article <20030625010833...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_so...@yahoo.com
>> ><mark_sobolewski-79...@newssvr32-ext.news.prodigy.com>
>> >As I'm sure many people felt, I was disappointed when the S.C. made a
>mixed
>> and rather nebulous ruling on the two reverse discrimination and
>affirmative
>> >actions cases brought before it by the Center>for Individual Rights and
>the
>> plaintiffs.
>>
>> It seems the holding is neither mixed, nor nebulous. It was clear to me
>that> the court finds a need in our society to be inclusive and diverse. It
also
>> seems clear that strictly held quotas are not the answer to the diversity
>> issue. I rather liked that.
>
>I see you've kissed and made up with your protectors. :-)
????? I almost always agree with the court, and the court protects us all,
Mark...even you. :-) I can think of only two cases off the top of my head,
where I have disagreed with the court in the past 10 years. And even when I
don't totally accept the holding in its totality, I generally tend to hold the
court in esteem as the balance of power it represents.
>>Well, no duh you "rather like" discriminatory policies in place
>when they suit you without a need for a quota.
>
???? The law is usually refined as it applies. I've no preconceived notion
that we've seen the last of balance on this issue OR of further interpretation.
>> >I want to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is
>this:> While noisy protestors were trying to argue that special privileges for
>some> wasn't discrimination against others, the general public isn't being
>fooled. > More people now oppose
>> preferences and this was shown when proposition 209 was passed in
>California.
>>
>> Actually, many other jurisdictions learned what prop 209 really meant, the
>> desire of the masses of white males didn't want to discuss discrimination
>at> all.
>
>Yeah, that's the problem with racism: it assumes people think a certain way
due to their race and gender.
It's easy to assume that a law designed to end discrimination is designed by
folks who DON'T want it ended, when it fails to provide address of remedy. You
may not be able to fit that into a Rush Limbaugh soundbite, but I assure you
the American public really is educated enough to understand the premise. Well,
at least over half of them are. :-)
Especially>white males. :-)
>
Well, white males can only fool the masses for so long, Mark....and I think the
time is just about up.
>> They wanted the maintenence of the status quo, with white men holding
>> all>> the cards.
>
>You mean by making discrimination and preferences illegal according to the
state law? Yeah, that REALLY keeps
>the status quo in place!
>
It does indeed when it FAILS to address the already existing inequality. AND,
I already offered you bitter boys a viable way to end AA, and you turned me
down, cold.
:-)
>> As to having more people opposed to inclusion and diversity, I>> think
you're wrong about that, but just in case you're not, no matter how > many
>> people want it, we can't, in a free society, implement slavery if it too
>> becomes popular. :-)
>
>So you're all for democracy except when it goes against your interpretation of
acceptable discrimination.
I'm all for democracy as it is defined as the right for all to have a say, but
NOT when that say intereferes with the equal rights of others. That's why the
SC is so beloved Mark...or so hated. THose of us who want all people included
in the process love individual rights; those who only want white males to
benefit, aren't quite so happy with that. I can understand completely.
Isn't>it just horrible when you lose?
Ah, Mark....in my own life, I'm a winner, even when I lose a battle. You see,
life is so wonderful and beautiful that, if you change your 'wants' to
preferences, every day is great. In my life, I had amazing wins and (to me)
sad losses, but I sort of adopt the philosophy that each day is precious and
like Tom Hanks said in his film,...the one where he was marooned on the island,
upon being asked what made him keep going, his answer was, "well, you never
know what the tide will bring in".
That is how I tend to live my life. I don't count how much my my partner is
bringing in any more than my partner counts. We just enjoy what we
have...together, and when the tide brings clams, we have clams, and when it
brings death, we weep together.
>
>Enjoy the victory Parg and I'm big enough to let you have>your party. Enjoy
it while it lasts.
>
Victory; it's a god-damned celebration what with the holding today on gays!
The tide was good today, another step toward greater equality.
>> Even the term >"Affirmative Action" now has a bad name.
>>
>> No problem, Mark; perhaps we can change the name to "Positive Providence"
>> and> fool all those rich Republicans into thinking it's something that
benefits
>> the>> rich. :-)
>
>You mean Steven Speilberg and the Kennedy family are all Republicans? :-)
>
Hahahahahaha! Well, not the last time I checked.
>Fortunately, Carol Ann, the Republicans _DO_ have a lot>of supporters who are
genuinely wealthy rather than>a bunch of illiterate bigots in Florida who voted
>for Pat Buchanon by mistake. :-)
You know, I was thinking about that the other day, and I came to the
conclusion, that I'm pretty comfortable with people who MAKE mistakes, rather
than people who invent them on purpose.
Or black men>who can't vote because they have a DV felony on their>record.
???? When you abuse your rights, you lose your rights. Of course, when you
pay your debt to society, that is another matter.
>I like how that works out!
>
>In response to your point: The affirmative action label is becoming>a bit
similar to "feminism". Unlike feminism, affirmative action>won't lend itself
easily to a new label.
>
>> >When a critical mass of support builds, this>usually means that it's time
>to> maybe just pass legislation.
>>
>> Go for it, Mark; try to convince 2/3 of congress. :-)
>
>Supposedly, that happened before no?
Yes, back when hell froze over. :-)
>>Just as the civil rights act of 1964 passed with rather nebulous promises it
wouldn't be abused, well, so could a new act pass no? Let's call it something
such as:
>
>The Homeland Security and Equal Opportunity Act of 2004
>
You can always try, but Mark, how many times do you think you can fool all the
people? Even those you call "illiterate" can learn by cause and effect. Or
perhaps the ballots are just as flawed now as then?
>Or >>The Anti-Terrorism Freedom and Equal Opportunity Act of 2004
>
>I like it! Fortunately, there are no alpha males to>challenge Bush, are
there? Too bad, so sad.
I think that people will tire of arrogance, Mark. The difficult problems that
face our society will probably not be adequately addressed by those who created
them.
But, we shall see. And, as usual, I will weather what ere the tide brings in.
>> Here are a number of positive
>> >strategies that people may use, on an individual>and collective level, to
>> >make>> this happen!!!
>> >
>> >First, the CIR website is: http://www.cir-usa.org/
>> >
>> >I have been donating to them about $20 per year for the past 10 years.
>>
>> That ought to buy them a hood or two.
>> :-)
>
>Ooh. You mean by defending a white woman they were >in the KKK? Ok...
>
No, by defending EXCLUSION they are like those in the KKK. It's really too bad
I had to explain tho...I thought I was being funny.
:-(
>
> If you want rights, you>should be willing to pay for them.
>>
>> Gee, Mark...it sounds almost as if you're suggesting that the rich can
>_buy_>> rights.
>
>You mean when the Unions take money from their members and spend>them (against
a supreme court decision) on non-union activities?
>
Well, if unions are to be effective at supporting the working stiffs compared
to the money made by owners, they have to place that money where it will do the
most good, no? Of course, with more and more talk of campaign finance reform,
I certainly don't mind having union members choose whether they want to vote
for higher pay for themselves when the owners prosper.
>Regardless, why not? If someone cares about rights then>they'll put in an
effort.
>
>> Hmmmmm. Well, be my guest, but I suspect it might fail. Altho, my son
>just>> sent me a button that says America is a nation of sheep, run by wolves
and> owned by pigs. Hmmmmm.
>
>HAHAHAHA!
>
>Yet, you don't want to leave it for one that wasn't established>by white
males, no?
America was established by our pioneer forbears, Mark....men and women who
built America one log at a time. Men didn't arrive here alone, but I suspect
...in your heart...you know that.
Try Asia, the Middle East, or South America.>See how long you last!
Mark, I know myself pretty well; I could survive in many places 'round the
world, but I need not in order to prove some worth of womenkind. Women do
everything men do plus gestate today. And our foremothers were just as
necessary in creating our past. You're just a sexist; too bad, really.
>>If you want to try France, you better brush up on Arabic.
Why? Last time I spent some time in French Polynesia, I got yelled at for
trying to get a cup of coffee before the dining room was open...and I got
yelled at in French, which almost felt like a savage kiss in a hallway! :-)
If you want to go to Germany, study up on Turkish.
Mark, I'm not any more afraid of the Turks than I am of the French. :-)
Europe seems to be handling things somewhat better these days, or perhaps it's
my imagination.
>> Imagine>if every person who opposed affirmative action was to support
this>> organization directly and indirectly!
>>
>> Are there enough hoods, do you suppose, to go 'round?
>
>Speaking of hoods...
>
Yes?
>You are proud of the S.C. eliminating quotas and sticking too>good ol' girl
backroom dealings to discriminate based upon race. If there's any secret
corruption, it's the anti-white>male crowd.
>
Well Mark, in a way I see this as your own fault; after all, bitter boys could
have given up their perks, their endowments, and their nepotism as we all know
that men get hired by other men thru networking and the fact that people tend
to hire and promote those most like themselves. I suggested a way to end that,
but no one was interested.
>Fortunately, they've been exposed by their own courtroom.>Won't it be nice
when you lose another supreme court decision>and then whine about how unfair it
is? :-)
Perhaps you'd like to show me WHERE I did that? No? Not agreeing with the SC
is not, in itself a "whine"....altho after one or two SC decisions in the past
ten years or so, I needed some wine. :-)
(edit)
>>
>> >*YOU* should mail every friend you have and refer>them (and their support)
to this organization and ask them to do the same to their list.
>>
>> Well, if that's all you've got, is the friends of those in this NG, I'm not
>> going to get worried. :-)
>
>Proposition 209 passed due to a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY, no?
I suppose that would depend on whether you find that a truely democratic vote
is based on INFORMED CONSENT. :-)
I would hope, that if the vote were held again today, that it might be...shall
we say...more evolved.
(edit)
>
>The case before the S.C. had one positive effect: To bring HUGE>national and
INTERNATIONAL attention to this issue. People now know that discrimination
against race is going
>on based upon some diversity scheme and that it's secret.
I don't think it's going to be "secret" for long, Mark. Colleges will let us
know how they intend to include and diversify and if they try to create a
quota, it will be denied.
>
>Yeah, that REALLY goes over well for future race relations.
Mark, how many black and hispanic people have you left in your will? Blood is
still thicker than water, eh? Besides, aren't you the postor who believed in
'a black gene'?
>
>I'm big enough, Parg, to look at a bigger picture than ONE>law. For example,
abortion rights. I could care less
>about them. Really. Perhaps this issue will wake men up to LARGER issues and
change public perceptions about
>all the evil "rich" republican party.
Mark, you have no reason to care about abortion; it isn't your body someone is
trying to use for a purpose not your own.
However, I must admit that the abortion issue has stymied the Republican cause.
Prior to the Kristian Koalition taking over the Republican party, I was a
Republican myself. Think of all the good talent Republicans lost when they
sold their souls for a mess of pottage. However, since that time, I have even
grown more apart from the Republican party, since now I find them not only
aganst women and inclusion, but I also find them meanspirited, spiteful and
unable to answer direct questions. The last time I voted Republican, Ronald
Reagan was running for the first time.
Apparently, they>want someone whose capable of standing up to Bin Laden
>and not just sucking up Haagen Daaz.
>
Personal attacks against Gore don't impress me. I wasn't all that thrilled
with Gore either. For me, it was a matter of voting against someone rather
than voting for another. When I voted for Clinton, I voted FOR someone.
>> >Beyond that, there's another step: Ask them>to take action and refer>others
>> >to> start writing their>political representatives and requesting new
>legislation >> to>> outlaw reverse discrimination at the federal level.
>>
>> I've already written to my reps, Mark. Don't worry. :-)
>
>Yeah, but they already have lesbo lovers. :-)
REally? Di Fi and Boxer? I didn't know that. Wow. Imagine getting elected
in the OLD homophobic environment.
>>Indeed Carol Ann, the Bush campaign showed that all of you>leftist creeps
clump together helping to make the electoral
>college work in our favor.
???? Mark, the past is past. I understand how appealing it must be to dwell
in times filled with delusion and voter intrigue, but it's been done. AS to
the electoral college, unlike some, I support it. It prevents a voting block
of states with large populations from having the total say. To me, that's just
another form of inclusion.
:-)
>> >It's NOT as crazy as it sounds. All it takes is for>someone to propose a
>> bill, a co-sponsor, and then put it on the floor for a debate.
>>
>> It's election time, Mark. How much faith are you putting in this? :-)
>
>I believe that's in another year and a few months (how time flies.)
Yes indeed; my point exactly.
:-)
>>That leaves enough time for the economy to start a recovery (which will scare
people to elect a new president lest the recover be interrupted) as well as the
continuing fear on the war on terror (wars kept FDR in office for quite a
while.)
Well, you may not have noticed, but I can assure you that Bush is no FDR. :-)
>
>Hmmm, plenty of time to put a few new S.C justices in place.>Sandra's health
isn't so good. Maybe she should take a break.
>
And, maybe she will, Mark....but maybe, just maybe, she's not exactly who you
thought she was, much like Justice Souter. In fact, the only Justice you may
have pegged correctly is Thomas. :-)
>> >If you have a strong leftist senator or congressperson, forget>it. They
>are not going to listen to a letter from someone that's not in their main
group of political supporters. However, if that politician is in a district
that is only
traditionally supporting them out of party loyalty and could switch (in>other
>> words,>a swing district) then your letter could mean a lot.>> >Especially if
a lot of people write at the same time.
>>
>> There's something relatively scary about large groups of stupid people; I
>> think that's why we have three branches of govt. :-)
>
>Actually, no.
Actually yes. Stupid people in large crowds scare me.
>>Honestly Parg: If your agenda was smart they would have>stopped somewhere in
the 80's and tried to work out a deal. Instead, they got greedy and even
ruthless.
I can agree with you on one point; the Democrats are now as ruthless as
Republicans. I'm glad you noticed. I think that Democrats had to catch their
breath for a moment, but they're moving on. Soon, you may see more of that, as
FOX gets outfoxed. :-)'
>It's all downhill from here. Really.
>
>Or should I say "backhill"?
I don't know; I was actually thinking 'downwind'. :-)
>> >Even if a politician is "conservative" or may be >sympathetic to ending
reverse discrimation, they>may not want to "rock the boat" unless
their>constituents write to them and express themselves!
>>
>> Well, let's see....I wonder if I hit W. Virginia? ....Yes... whew!
>>
>> >If you need to "throw away your vote", remember that>giving it away to
apolitician who takes you forgranted isn't doing you a lot of good either!
A lot depends on how you phrase things.
>> >
>> When it comes to a choice between voting for a person you know won't
represent your sexist and racist interests, it's damn sure that voting for the
other
fellow won't do much good either. :-)
>
>You mean racists who have a certain agenda such as diversity?
Mark, diversity is anything BUT racist. I heard a poem from a
child....gosh..several years ago; I wish I could remember how it
went....something like......
"He drew a circle that left me out
They all were there within
I took my crayon and circled wide
drawing everyone in."
It's just a child's poem tho...nothing to get all excited about. :-)
>
>> >Here's a link to the NRA web site that allows you>to look up your elected>>
officials and rates them>according to gun rights.
>>
>> But Mark. You are being simplistic. I'm a card-carrying member of the NRA
>
>> and
>> I don't support ANY of your racist sexist agenda.
>
>I somehow doubt that. Tell you what Parg: prove it.>You don't even have to
reveal your identity. If you have
>a card, you should have a number. Give me the first 4 numbers>followed by
XXXXX. If it's valid, I can tell you.
The number can, in fact, tell you something about me. I don't think I want to
do that. However, I will tell you this; I am a lifetime member and it was at
least ten years ago that I signed up. Also, from what I recall (I don't carry
my card with me every day) the most current change was not four numbers at all.
:-)
>
>> Well, let's see....do I want to speak to the honorable Boxer, or the >
honorable
>> Finestein ? :-)
>
>I've moved to St. Louis. And no, I don't think so. >I think Boxer and
Feinstein will be lucky if their>power doesn't go out and the freeways don't
crumble>because of a 40 billion dollar deficit.
I like St. Louie but it's kind of hot there this time of year. Isn't there
some kind of famous beer gardens there? I haven't been there since I was a
child. CA is not the favored child at the moment. I don't expect any help
from on high, Mark.
>
>
>
>
>
Mark Sobolewski
part stands out:
hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message news:<20030627021421...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> >> But Mark. You are being simplistic. I'm a card-carrying member of the NRA
>
> >> and
> >> I don't support ANY of your racist sexist agenda.
> >
> >I somehow doubt that. Tell you what Parg: prove it.>You don't even have to
> reveal your identity. If you have
> >a card, you should have a number. Give me the first 4 numbers>followed by
> XXXXX. If it's valid, I can tell you.
>
> The number can, in fact, tell you something about me. I don't think I want to
> do that. However, I will tell you this; I am a lifetime member and it was at
> least ten years ago that I signed up. Also, from what I recall (I don't carry
> my card with me every day) the most current change was not four numbers at all.
> :-)
You aren't a member of the NRA either lifetime or no. Giving the
first 4 numbers will not identify you. There's about a million
other members with the same prefix!
You don't have a card Parg/Carol Ann Hemingway. You never did.
You don't have a het relationship or even a lesbo one that
you crave.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski