Re: Such a Feminist *** (was: Fight for Mel Gibson's fortune)

"PolishKnight" <marek1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:marek1-B31BFE.23372726042009@xxxxxxx
In article <uCVIl.25435$c45.19760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jill" <perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0od7v4hlg3umpat5k83lnvf2rra9im3e7a@xxxxxxxxxx


Yet, GA, Schlafly has written some of the most eloquent arguments
against affirmative action, the women's vote,



What? She's never argued against the women's vote.

No, Schlafly has not.

For the record, I did considerable research and from what I found,
Schlafly seems to have compared her achievements, proudly, to women's
suffrage implying that she supports it. (This is a rather different
challenge compared to claiming someone "never" said or did something
which is a rather daring statement to say the least.) Just to make sure
I don't mince my words, I believe I was mistaken and I acknowledge it as
I have done in the past.

That said, I have read numerous articles from her bashing AA and
indicating that she clearly gets it that women can't have it both ways
and marry up and still comprise a majority of collage admissions, for
instance.

I chuckled a bit at her original claim going back to the 1950's that
women were morally superior to men in the home and hearth and this
should translate into politics. What we have seen since the
introduction of women into politics going back to 1919 has been
increasing levels of corruption and waste by government officials and
policies.



You would probably be interested in the writings of free market economist
John Lott. In his book "Freedomnomics", he finds a direct statistical
correlation between women's suffrage and the growth of government -- enough
of one to attribute a cause-effect relationship between the one and the
other, if I read him correctly.





I took my wife out and she found it amazingly educational and
enlightening and gave her new respect for the issues of government
power
and individual protection. Every conservative should take his wife,
and
daughters out, and teach them how to defend themselves and the
consequences and resposibilities of doing so.




No, they shouldn't. Women with guns are squeaky little McElroyans who
use
guns to shoot men. What's so "conservative" about encouraging that
behavior?

Jill, have you ever been out to the range? Such a characterization of
women using firearms is similar to the one that all NRA members are
hicks with gun racks (ok, I am but not all of us are like that!)



Oh, bull***. You're not a "hick". You seem to enjoy pretending to be one
for the purpose of this discussion.





Seriously though, most of the women who get into the shooting sports
tend to do so as part of a conservative household. Most don't shoot
moose but do enjoy going along with the men for some plinkin' or to
participate in the women's competitions. It's touching to see the
self-confidence and responsibility young women learn




Why would you want young women to learn self-confidence? You sound like a
goddamn feminist.

And aren't you carrying coals to Newcastle? Those midgets ALREADY think
that they're better than men. Giving them the ability to kill a man must
necessarily only make them more monstrous than they already are.

What they need to learn is HUMILITY.



about the use of
deadly force and how it causes them to second guess giving that kind of
authority over to the government without question. (just like many men
could benefit from doing.)



Uh - those little Parges already wax anti-government when it comes to the
issue of abortion. "Don't tell me what to do with my body" and all that
***! The fact is that government SHOULD be telling women -- especially
young women of child-bearing age -- what to do with their bodies.

Do you really think that handling a gun turns those midgets into libertarian
conservatives? Into female Sobolewski clones?

Bull***! I'm positive that it doesn't move them from the Obama-Hillary
camp.



For the record, anyone of you in the DC area please come by and I'll
take you out to the NRA range, my treat.

LOL. Enough conservative little gals manage to shoot and kill men and
get away with it (that female discount in sentencing thing) that I
find it mind boggling that PK would actually suggest training his wife
in how to do it *better.*



Well, yeah. It is mind-boggling.

However, having met Mark twice and his wife once (I seem to remember that
she is a "conservative little gal"), I don't think that she intends to
kill
him.

Still, why take chances?

Most of the cases I read about where women off their men with firearms
tend to be women who grabbed them from around the house rather than
having gone to the range with the husband or engaged in any shooting
with him.



Yeah, how very reassuring. And encouraging them to learn how to shoot
couldn't possibly aggravate the situation, could it?



Of course, not all women who off their husbands do so with a
gun. I had read that women preferred poison as a means to off their men
but, before someone seeks to correct me and demand a URL, I'm only going
to say that's what I heard. I'm sure that the FBI stats are available
if someone wants to dedicate a half hour to searching though.



Poison is more easily avoided. If you're suspicious of your wife, you can
always have her taste your sample before you do.



The fact of the matter is that if a woman, or a man for that matter, is
crazy then hiding the guns won't protect you.

And you should know by now -- you should have learned a long time
ago --
that I'm NOT a small government libertarian conservative.

I'm a LARGE government reactionary. Women and gays and minorities
should
be
put in their place;

Amen on all three counts.

I find the "minority" in their place argument to be charmingly naive.
Whites now technically are a minority in this country, sad to say, and
certainly in the world.



Aren't you the one who insists that red-state men hold the majority of the
guns? So why COULDN'T they put them to good use?



That's why the left is both pushing for the USA
to abide by a "world consensus" while at the same time cynically pushing
for "minority preferences."

Ironically, Jill, like Phyllis Schlafly is an outspoken woman who can
sometimes be rude (I say that with true respect, Jill). This is one of
the paradoxes of a true traditionalist woman whom at the same time is
politically active and takes on characteristics of man-hating feminists.


Thank you, Jill. I'm still amazed. I really am.

I have to say that I'm not entirely comfortable with my relatively recent
disdain for certain minorities. Up until a few years ago, I would have
said
that on racial/ethnic matters, I'm as tolerant as the next guy.

Being a criminal defense attorney has augmented my cynicism and
intolerance
levels by several notches. The black and Latino underclasses are
pathologically and irredeemably sick, sick, sick! This isn't true for
every
single individual within those subcultures but it's true for those
subcultures as a whole.

They're sick, sick, sick! And incurably so. They're not going to get
well. How could they get well? Conservatives should drop their pro-life
philosophy and start figuring out ways to prevent certain people from
coming
into the world.

One of the problems with that, GA, is that this thinking is already
coming into play with them thinking about how to limit OUR numbers.



Why is that a problem?



In addition, despite continuous leftist cynical claims to the contrary,
white guys are the few people left on the planet who aren't engaging in
outright self-interest racism.



Maybe white guys need to fight fire with fire.



Sadly, we have lots of white guys racked
by white guilt, or selling out their brethren for socialist goodies (or
the promise thereof).



It's true. I'm describing solutions that would be implemented in the ideal
world, not in the world as it stands now.



Can you imagine if, say, the Democrats put up an Indian candidate? Or a
Vietnamese? My wife and I know many people in these communities and
they have more bickering and infighting than us Europeans. We're
entering a special new era of politics where even the interests of
middle and upper class white women may be eclipsed.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the rednecks and crackers who make up the
white underclass are that much better.

Sigh, GA, for someone who prides himself on keeping it real this sounds
like you being half-apolegetic, doesn't it?



Not in the least. I'm being honest.


Do you really think you'd fear for your life as much if you went to some
white trailer park as much as an inner city hispanic or black ghetto?



I might -- if they knew that I was of Jewish ancestry. The ironic thing is
that while I'm proud of my ancestry, I'm disgusted with most of my Jewish
contemporaries -- who are, of course, far far far to my political left.

And a dark-skinned person -- even one with legitimate business in that
trailer park -- might have the same fear in that white trailer park as I
would have in that hispanic or black ghetto.

Most of my clients are black or latino, but also included are white guys
from the sticks who are likely to be skinheads with vague white supremacist
sympathies. I don't volunteer the information that their publicly-appointed
attorney is of Jewish ancestry.

I wasn't explicitly thinking about or talking about violent crime towards
outsiders anyway. Most violent crime involves perpetrators and victims from
the same ethnic group -- black on black; hispanic on hispanic; white on
white.

I was thinking of other pathologies such as drugs and illegitimate kids and
living off of the government tit. I would be less than honest if I said
that some of that *** wasn't also going on among the white underclass. I
don't think it's particularly fair for you to call that acknowledgement a
way of "apologizing".

These pathologies are probably not as prevalent among the white underclass
as they are elsewhere, but they exist there, to some extent. I would also
say that most white perps are less likely to have the same attitude of
ENTITLEMENT that the other perps have.


It's funny because Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich (yeah, great examples)
came from such backgrounds. _I_ came from one (now here we go!) I am
going to my H.S. reunion this summer. Probably about 40% of the class
or so are very working class, but very nice people but the other 50%
wound up becoming successful.



How elitist of you. You're saying that you can't be both "working class"
and "successful".

Don't forget, I know that you're only PRETENDING to be a hick.



The remaining 10% I know turned out to be
thugs and lower class underclass but, hey, that's where they started
out. Overall, that's a better result than the Dems have produced with
their special interest handouts.

I'm not even saying that those dopey
white kids from the suburbs with their I-Pods, their GameBoys, and those
glassy-eyed expressions on their faces (usually underneath a baseball cap
being worn backwards) are that much better.

In their defense, the same was often said of us when we were young. I
was into Atari 2600. Most of them grow out of it.



Oh, bull***.

When they grow out of it, they become those earnest young shits who tug you
by your sleeve and urge to register to vote for Obama and in favor of gay
marriage.

Sodomize those little shits in spades! They're not going to lead any sort
of anti-feminist anti-multiculturalist revolution. Blow out the candles and
curse the darkness!


gays, in particular, should be forced to remain discreet
and in the closet (if possible, a medical cure should be found for
homosexuality);

I think I've finally found a kindred spirit.



Heh.



and left-wing thought should be criminalized.

It's the left that now, as always, seeks to criminalize right wing
thought (fairness doctrine.) Left wing ideas are immature and
unworkable and require only effective spokemen (and spokewomen) to
discredit them. Sadly, the main problem is that most right wingers have
jobs and lives and are pussies.



Left wing thought DOESN'T require effective spokespeople to discredit it.
Brute force needs to be used.



If only.

Government
should be as large as it needs to be to accomplish all of these things.
Obviously, I'm totally against the wrong people having access to guns.

Of course.



I mean, get a load of YOUR favorite traditionalist woman, Sarah
Palin,

PK and Sarah sitting in a tree. K I S S I N G!


You're just baiting me. You're a married man, and I don't think that
you're
THAT smitten. Sarah Palin is trash. She might be attractive in a
gaudy
way. She ought to be working for World Wrestling Entertainment as a
diva
for some hyper-kinetic wrestler so that the trailer-trash yokels
watching
on
TV can have a cheap thrill.

I stand by what I observed: Palin is a sitting governor and neither of
you are.



Hah! You make goo-goo eyes at Palin. I make fun of her appearance. You
respond with the non sequitur that she's a governor.

Does THAT make her attractive -- the fact that she is a governor?

Dixy Lee Ray was a governor. Want to sleep with her?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dixyleeray.gif



Sarah always reminds me of that weird and nerdy chick every girl knew
in high school...the one who was overly athletic and never got asked
to dances by boys and the one who always rubbed up way too close to
the other girls in the showers after gym class (and yes we had to
share showers...2 girls to each stall).

It's funny. On the one hand we hear that Sarah is a bimbo who ran in
beauty contests and on the other hand, she's a nerd.

Ooooh, what an evil mind you have, Jill. I guess you can always go a
little
lower than I can. She IS a married woman with five kids.

Now, I didn't say that she was GOOD at it.

I've been following the latest turn in the Palin unwed mother drama and
while it's obvious that the press, both liberal and tabloid, are baiting
the father of the child, it is disturbing and sad that Palin hasn't made
a better effort to reach out to this father and show him and his family
respect. It couldn't have hurt to make at least that gesture and she
didn't. So this is a severe political faux paux that she deserves to
have blow up in her face.

Sheesh! You ought to know by now, GA, that my favorite traditionalist
woman, of all time, is Ann Coulter. You took my defense of Palin at
arguments that originated with the left against her to imply she's my
favorite conservative? That's dirty pool.



I thought you were a fan. You just envisioned yourself in a tree with
her.

GA (I think), I joked that YOU had said that she was my favorite
conservative woman when it's well known on this forum that I really dig
Ann Coulter.



Oh hell yeah. I'd forgotten how intensely everyone but me was keeping track
of your fantasies.



Palin clearly has skeletons in her closet but most significant
politicians do. That's the nature of modern politics, really.



I didn't suggest otherwise. That's not the point.



who compared herself to a pit bull with lipstick

So? Where's the beef? Did you see the incredibly gaffs made by
Biden
much less Obama himself in the 57th state?



You're missing the point. The point is not that this was a "gaffe".
The
point is that she trying to engage in some hyper-masculine swagger,
only
to
complain later on that her critics shouldn't be so mean to her cause
she's
only a girl.

I didn't miss the point. I clearly addressed it in this thread:
Pointing out a double standard in her detractors that they attack women
even as they argue that leftist women shouldn't be attacked isn't the
same as complaining that her critics shouldn't be mean to her because
she's a girl.




Well, you're wrong. That's not what she was doing.

She said, "Is it political? Is it sexism?"



and who tried to use her office
to persecute her brother-in-law and ended up firing ANOTHER man as
part
of
that effort

Just like Reagan was involved in Iran Contra, GHB tried to get the
Iranians to hold the hostages until the election, and GWB "lied" to
get
us into Iraq.

What a surprise! Sarah was accused of being unethical unlike Obama
who
sat in the front row of God Damn America church and his wife got a
big
diversity 6 figure job to sit around and call her husband and get
slush
money.



I'm not defending Obama or anyone else.

That's not the POINT.

The POINT is that she used her institutional power to persecute a
couple
of
men -- then played weak and helpless when the occasion suited her.

BOTH of those are YOUR interpretations and not legal or even objective
facts.




They are logical interpretations, based on what the facts are.

She accused a liberal feminist news media of being "sexist" (i.e.,
anti-woman) because in her warped mind, she found it useful to posture as
though she was the only Republican in the history of the world to get dumped
on by them.



You know...that was my gripe about the bitch from Day One. That she
was a man-hating-special-priviledges-for-women-only-demanding-petty-
bitch. I stand by that assessment.

And rightly so.

Now whose kissing in the tree? :-)

OK, seriously, Jill, calling someone else a petty-bitch? Really? OK...
I'll just let that one go.


I would think that you, of all people, could understand that politics
and law is about slighting around mud and that everyone is going to
get
wet. Remember what they tried to do to Clarence Thomas? Or to Rush
Limbaugh? It's not easy to be a public figure and enemy of the left.



That's right. And those whom you mention stood up and took their
medicine.
So did Dan Quayle. So, for that matter, did George W. Bush. And
Ronald
Reagan. I can go back in time at least as far as Richard Nixon. All
of
these MEN understood the ground rules going in.

If you're identified as a Republican or a conservative, you're going to
get
slammed by the mainstream media. The MEN of whom you speak understood
that,
and they entered the national arena with that understanding.

But Palin acted as though she was the only Republican in the history of
the
world who had gotten slammed by the mainstream media. And it's all
because
she was a "girl". Boo hoo hoo.

"Palin acted as though". yeah, that proves it. Thank heavens that's a
fact we can all rely upon...



As opposed to what? Your unsupported assertion that giving a woman a gun
makes her conservative and pro-male?



I disagree. She understood it. Every bit as well as Reagan or Nixon.
She just had that little advantage card she could play that those men
couldn't. And instead of walking the feminist talk and Manning Up and
taking the heat like a Man, she pulled out the Girl Card or Vagina
Card or whatever you want to call it and she got herself a nice little
discount on the political heat.

It's funny that on this forum, we've had flame wars that broke out (not
just between me and some here, but other posters as well) and this is on
a forum where flame wars are understood to be normal.




So?



I think that you may be right.

In any event, by playing that card, she cheapened the experiences that
those
other men had gone through. She was, in effect, claiming to be the only
Republican martyr.

Thank heaves that kind of behavior never happens on soc.men! :-)



Oh, does it? Give an example.




-- but then whined that her critics were picking on her 'cause
she was just a girl.

I think she was "whining" that her critics, especially on the left,
were
hypocrites who often bashed the right for attacking women but felt it
was ok to attack her.



No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o - she was saying that she was a victim because she
was
a
woman. Plain and simple, that's what she was saying.

Correct but you gotta love PK's spin machine even if he stole it lock,
stock, and barrel from the Liberals, eh?

I guess so.

I guess if you two agree with each other then you have to be right
especially after making slurs against me for simply disagreeing with
you. That's so unlike liberal behavior.



Who's making "slurs" against you?



The "whiner" slur is quite common on USENET so you should be familiar
with it by now. You whine here all the time. In fact, you seem to
have
embraced it like the dark side of the force so I find you using it to
be
rather amusing.



Well, you're wrong there.

I have always acknowledged that, to the extent that I receive verbal
abuse,
I bring it on myself.

I know perfectly well that being an avid and avowed misogynist -- an
avid
and avowed misogynist who sometimes verbally abuses others -- is an
invitation to be the target and recipient of verbal abuse myself. I've
accepted that as a ground rule.

Palin tried to swagger like a testosterone-crazed bully ("I'm a pit
bull
with lipstick") but ultimately DIDN'T accept the ground rules of the
arena
that she allowed herself to enter into -- unlike the MEN that you and I
have
compared her to.

Palin uses her real name and puts herself out in the public arena. GA,
be fair, that's pretty tough and more than getting flamed on USENET. In
addition, it's a non-sequitur. I argued that you're a whiner and don't
seem to mind it. You brag about cursing the darkness and regard people
who are optimists or see solutions as being hopeless.



That's right. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Anyway, I've given some solutions here. You don't seem to be impressed by
them.



That's great, but
Palin is out there taking the hits which is more than either of us are
doing.



She doesn't think that she SHOULD be taking the hits. She doesn't think
that she SHOULD be taking the abuse that male Republicans have taken before
her. She thinks that she's entitled to a pass because she's only a girl.
That's why she played the "sexism" card.



Ah, Sarah Palin. Those traditionalist babes bring out all of my
protective
instincts, and I just can't think of her without thinking how much
better
she'd look with a cord of piano wire wrapped around her neck.

And she JUST HAPPENED to mention that her choice as vice
presidential
candidate coincided with some sort of anniversary for women's
suffrage.

Know how you were supposed to respond to that observation? You were
supposed to paw the ground in shame and embarrassment that women
were
ever
deprived of the right to vote. If you didn't do that, then you're
just
plain insensitive in her estimation.

Whatever you might say about Palin, GA, give her some credit for
getting
elected to governor of Alaka and achieving many of the things she has
done.



Give her credit for WHAT? She's a WOMAN, for crying out loud. She
doesn't
even have any business VOTING, let alone doing any of that *** that
you
talk about. Give her credit indeed! She ought to be home slaving over
a
hot stove and taking care of her five kids.

Why bother at this late date. Three out of 5 of her kids are already
a dismal mess and we don't know how the other 2 are faring. This
again renders her nothing more than another run of the mill selfish
feminist who cares more about herself and her "brilliant" career than
she does about her own spawn.

I concede that both of you have a point that many conservative women
really do wind up undermining their own lives even in the pursuit of
laudable conservative goals. Ann Coulter, for example, is single and
childless.



As is Laura Ingraham.



I think that her hopes for higher office have been dashed.

Er, Governor is a pretty high office.



I said "higher".



Plus, she could probably make a
senate or congressional run.




You and other horny guys who are thinking with your glands may be less
inclined to vote for her in the future after she's hit with the menopause.



I love it how armchair quarterbacks like to casually declare what
successful, but controversial people are capable of. I give respect to
people such as Hillary Clinton, for instance, not out of "real" respect
but acknowledgment that these people get far for a reason. they have
something going for them and it would be at my peril to ignore it.



Well, these "people" don't deserve any respect. So you should live
dangerously and face the peril by ignoring them as a matter of principle.



Some Republicans
who are savaged by the anal-rectal scrutiny given to their personal lives
by
the news media find ways to survive (Reagan) or re-invent themselves
(Nixon), but I don't think that Palin can do that.

Nixon is a horrid example. 'Nuff said.



A horrid example of WHAT? He may be a horrid example of many things, but
political resiliency isn't one of them.

His political career was dead in the water in 1962; yet he became POTUS in
1968. I don't think Palin can pull that off.



Yes, I know you disagree with her on many things including being
a VP for a horrid sellout like McCain but, still, she deserves
respect
from us.



Jesus Christ, it must be eight years or more that I've been carrying on
this
dialogue with you and you STILL don't seem to get it.

I resent her for being born FEMALE. I resent her for being born FEMALE
and
entering (what should still be) the male world of politics.

I don't give a *** about her record in office. Why are you trying to
discuss that with me?

It's hard for me to "get that" when I hear you discuss aspects of
political her behavior and then turn around and say you're just against
all women in politics.



Obviously, I AM against all women in office and if I'm discussing aspects of
her political behavior, it's just to show you that she isn't living up to
the standards that you claim to be holding her to.

I've been trying to show you and I HAVE shown you -- whether you want to
acknowledge it or not -- that Palin is a Republican Hillary. She disdains
men and she regards her *** as her chariot.



Let's compare traditionalist women, Society, to free market
conservatives. When wildlife and other resources are privatized,
there's a compelling interest to preserve them unlike the tragedy
of
the
commons. Traditionalist women tend to recognize the value of
traditional men at least in their private lives.

Jesus Christ. I recognize the value of my automobile in my private
life
and
I take it in regularly for maintenance. That doesn't mean that I
ever
get
emotionally involved with it.

I didn't say you had to. Even so, imagine the emotional feeling
you'd
have if your car broke down irrevocably. One of the main arguments
that
was used by feminists to justify their position with normal women was
the notion that if a male breadwinner died or left them, she'd be
helpless and alone. Did you ever see what women are like when their
car
breaks down on the side of the road?

Most women either put TOO MUCH care into their car (and take it for
unnecessary treatments because their mechanic recommends it) OR they
neglect it awfully and wind up on the side of the road and then
calling
for... a man! (pretty funny)

Indeed, you recognize that the car needs to be taken care of but not
coddled and put it into perspective. Traditional women are better at
this than so-called equal women or feminists. I'm not saying such
women
are perfect by any means.




You've changed the subject and again missed the point entirely. My
point
is
that women regard men with the same lack of emotional detachment that a
sensible person regards his car.

People in general care far more about their cars than most women care
about men. It's just true.

I'm still amazed, Jill.

That was my point (caring about a car is still caring, even if not
emotional).

regards,
PolishKnight





--
"Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores, mox daturos progenium
vitiosiorem" ("Our parents, viler than our grandparents, begot us who are
even viler, and we shall bring forth a progeny more degenerate still") -
Horace, Odes, III, 6


.

Loading