Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION

In article <1150476714.474294.204900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:

PolishKnight wrote:
Masculist wrote:
Lost wrote:
PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1149382472.936532.286640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't care about Puke's socialist agenda or your capitalist one.
Your capitalist agenda will not and is not leading to an
anti-feminist
or a non-feminist society. I've told you this several times, and it
seems to make no real impression.

Indeed. But I don't really consider myself a socialist, but rather a
'compassionate capitalist'.

Yeah, when it comes to tossing working fathers out on the
street to make room for rich white women to have hobby jobs
or black men behind on their mommy-support payments
into jail, you're real compassionate. :-)

You're only "compassionate" when it comes to protecting
your own agenda's interests.

IMO, we need to have the kind of
competition in society that encourages people to invent, promote,
inquire, and basically to get ahead.

White males have been doing this all along. No need
for "diversity" for them to do work that clearly
deserved nobel prizes in science.

Bill Gates is a wonderful example
of what a person can accomplish in such a society

What did Gates innovate or invent?

, and he is realizing
his full potential by following the ideal that the more we GET from
living in a great society, the more we OWE. I think more of him today,
that I did yesterday.

How much has he given away out of his wealth? A fraction
of a percent?

That's partially because we don't live with a capitalist agenda.
Welfare has been the lifeblood of feminism for 40 years.

Social programs are part and parcel of EVERY SINGLE western society,
Mark.

One could say they're part of nearly every society:
Iran has a "social program" of women wearing headgear, for
example.

But I think what you mean is the "social program"
in the sense of marxist largesse goodies which
most women require in order to be "liberated".
This doesn't refute what I said above. Non sequitur.

There's not one that can get along without the "compassionate"
part of compassionate capitalist. :-)

Yet, many of the inventors and innovators of society,
mostly men, came from impovershed backgrounds and
picked themselves up by their bootstraps.
Ability, doncha know.

And women voters (feminists or
not) understand quite well that it takes two to co-create children.

Yep. Without male support, which is quite easy for him
due to his siring abilities that don't leave him
a helpless damsel in distress, feminism doesn't last very
long.

Thus, there's no reason why two shouldn't be expected to pay.

I'm sure men can be trained in how to abandon babies
in leau of killing them or cash welfare checks.
Maybe we can take a class? :-)

And, we are a society that wants our children fed, clothed and
educated. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Hehehehe. All of them? Comprende? :-)

Society wanting something and actually getting it are
two different things. Too bad, so sad, that all these
socialist programs are going to pot: public education
and social security. Just consider it a failed evolutionary
experiment.

Democracy is the lifeblood of feminism, just as democracy is the
lifeblood of socialism. Why do you think there were all those
'democratic republics'?

Feminism exists in all countries, democratic or not, in one form or
another.

Sure. Islamic feminism exists in the U.S. to help free women
from decadence. Saudi Arabia bankrolls billons of dollars
to build mosques here. Isn't it great that diversity allows
other cultures to better enlighten us? :-)

It often comes as a shock to westerners when the great god of
democracy is questioned but ask yourself what it ever achieved.
Democracy didn't give us trial by jury: force of arms at Runnymede did
that. Democracy didn't give us laws that said no man can be tried
twice for the same offence. Force of arms did that, too. Democracy, at
least in Britain, has rescinded that one, though.

You are confusing two terms of art, Mark.

Attributions: I didn't write this.

Democracy, as a social
construct only means that each person has a voice in deciding their
political outcomes. Democracy as a form of govt. is JUST that, a form
of govt. no greater than, say, a Republic, which is what we enjoy here
in 'the states'.

Apples and Oranges: There are several types of republics
including democratic.

Democracy, as a social construct, does indeed give
us the ideals that allow us all the things you list above. The fact
that arms were used to implement those ideals does nothing to dampen
the meaning of Democracy.

I hate to say this, but I agree with you. Democracies
ultimately achieve their goals through force of arms.
Democracy is merely the tool used to help establish
how force is used.

It wasn't democracy that ended serfdom and slavery. It wasn't
democracy that ended droit du seigneur and the infamous jus primae
noctis that was part of that system. Moving closer to modern times, it
wasn't democracy that gave working men the right form trades unions or
to wear clothes that resembled those of 'gentlemen' or to refuse to
salute the squire when he rode by. Even the self-proclaimed bastion of
democracy, the United States, wasn't formed by democratic means.

The US was formed by democratic PRINCIPLES,

As was Nazi Germany...

and that is evidenced in
one history book after another. It was the NOTION that people should
be able to choose what, if any, religion to practice, and to speak
freely, etc. As we are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
principles of democracy are often only implemented thru some kind of
armed force. Only after that, can democracy thrive in some situations.

Hmmm, it almost sounds like you disagree with John
"cut and run" Murtha...

Democracy didn't give us the rule of law, public schools or universal
health care (where it's available). Angry men gave us those.

"Angry men" cannot "give" what they do not own, and they never owned
women or women's rights.

Hahahahaha! Ever hear possession is 9/10s of the law.

Yeah, men can't keep women down unless men decide they
will and then they do. Otherwise, it's impossible. :-)

Besides, just what do you think would have
happened had there been no war? :-) England is not exactly a third
world communist nation. :-)

You've argued in previous posts that war is a "wash" because
it's just men fighting other men, remember? Now, you're
almost praising war as a tool of liberation.

You don't know what you're talking about.

So what did democracy give us? Democracy gave us a system where the
least have as much say in running the country as the best.

Who are YOU to decide who is "least" and who is "best"? Isn't that
what Hitler wanted ...to be the "DECIDER IN CHIEF". :-)

Now that's a poor use of Godwin's law.

Hitler was a socialist who came to power in a democracy.

Where anonymous leeches and wastrels can vote for more and more
benefits and
rights for themselves at the expense of those who produce the wealth
that makes society possible. Democracy gave us socialism and its
daughter, feminism.

He sees "leeches and wastrels" as being women. :-)

You're right: It's not just women but also illegal immigrants.
Your neice gets to work long hours so they can enjoy
government benefits at her expense. Bon appetit. :-)

The French are also discovering the merits of "diversity"
expecially young women who try to walk home in North
Paris without headgear.

The barbarians are at the gates, honey.

Poor baby doesn't seem to like it that the majority rules, but ONLY
when women become the majority? :-) How self serving can you get.

Our precious Constitution was founded upon the principle
of not totally trusting majority rule.

(edit)

About ending slavery: The civil war in the states didn't end slavery
so much as preserve the union even at the expense of undermining
democratic principles it was built on. It USED slavery (conscription)
to accomplish this goal. Afterwards, force of arms resulted in
such a mess that blacks languished as second class citizens
until recent times. The wrong side won the civil war (if only
Stonewall hadn't gotten killed...)

Ah, but slavery HAS ended.

No, it hasn't. Not worldwide at least. North Africa and
parts of Asia still engage in open slavery.

It might have been what is called an
unintended consequence of federalism. :-) So, do you really suppose
that if the south had won the war that we'd still have slavery today?
I don't think so. The notion of democracy would have won the day no
matter who won the war.

I half agree with Parg here. I don't buy Parg's
"notion of democracy" but certainly democracies
with their better standard of living could have put
economic pressure on the South to end slavery.

By the same token, Islamic nations that have significant
oil revenues can use their economic power along
with "democratic notions" of "diversity" to spread
their message. And it's working: Islam is the
fastest growing religion in western countries.
(Even excluding Coulter's definition of a religion :-)

(edit)

Much like with the USSR, such programs are slowly collapsing
due to their own bloated weight in the states. It's simply
amazing: Trillions of dollars are being dumped into a massive
hole and doing absolutely nothing to improve education
and childcare for middle class career women. It's a dirty
little secret in the states that women are becoming
more dependent upon traditional men than ever. Even Parg
has stopped signing the tune of women not needing men around
anymore and that women need men to pay the bills while
she exercises her "ability" to gestate.

Nonsense! Women gestate in all parts of the world, with or without men
to support them.

And if liberated women want the same standard of living
you see on your TV programs about women in Africa,
that opportunity is available to them. :-)

That proves my point that men have little to do with
it once that seed is passed on.

Until the children start starving in the women's care.

And what I DID say was that I have no
objection to women making the best trade they can for their unique
skills,

Apparently, gestating children into poverty is a unique
skill... :-)

which is quite a bit different from suggesting that women NEED
men. :-)

Yeah, women don't NEED men which is why they don't
need continued financial support from men lest they
and their children suffer. Otherwise, you gals
are free of Patri-poppa. :-)

(edit)


Ann Coulter has already stated that women voting wasn't
a good idea (the left's eyes popped out of their sockets
when they saw that in print.)

And yet, Annie didn't give up HER right to vote, eh? :-)

Why not?

You don't apparently mind the contradiction of
wealthy white men such as Kerry who favor other
white males being discriminated against. If he
was sincere, he would refuse to run and leave the
seat for a woman, yes?

It's a perfectly legitimate position to vote to end
one's voting rights. People immigrant to this
country even if it means giving up their voting
rights in their own nation.

Even your
own Dave Sim's 'Jayne' wasn't able to do what she said she would, and
come out publically(as a WOMAN) to give up HER right to vote. ;-) You
boys are pathetic.

Cite? Quote?

Most women on the right> are anti-feminists even if not to a full
degree.

No woman has come forward to give up the RIGHTS won by feminism, which
makes all of them feminist, "if not to a full degree". :-)

Millions of women do it all the time in the states when
they give up their precious career and buy Coulter's books
and agree with her.

And they, and their men, are breeding.

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Use for Sub-Woofer
    ... To get a feel for what I am thinking of, imagine a country with only ... greater risk to society than texting. ... the incompetent and the corrupt. ... also like to remove the democracy from the situation before you make ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: Wake Up And Smell The Invasion !!!!
    ... a system of society or group living in which there is no private ... a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism ... a theory and practice of socialism including the labor ... Main Entry: social democracy ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: OT: Wake Up And Smell The Invasion !!!!
    ... a system of society or group living in which there is no private ... a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism ... a theory and practice of socialism including the labor ... Main Entry: social democracy ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION
    ... or a non-feminist society. ... Democracy didn't give us trial by jury: force of arms at Runnymede did ... It wasn't democracy that ended serfdom and slavery. ... Democracy gave us socialism and its ...
    (soc.men)
  • Bush mob has taken the first steps toward destroying democracy and establishing tyranny -- r
    ... Categorically, in every closing society, someone who ... wants to crush democracy will establish a military tribunal system ... We owe a great debt to Naomi Wolf, who cut her teeth in writing about ... a prison system outside of the rule of law -- I call it a secret ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading