USA (no{at}thanks.com) writes:
> On 1 Apr 2005 23:48:56 GMT, dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
> 
>>USA (no{at}thanks.com) writes:
>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:10:10 -0800, "Society"
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> wrote in message 
>>>>news:1112231042.944302.187070{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Society wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Among other swerves] into unreality Michael C.
>>>>>> Morris takes in this article is his "we also need
>>>>>> everyone... to" blah blah blah plea.  Feminism is a
>>>>>> political movement born of a fascist demand that
>>>>>> everyone conform to its demands. [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050330/ap_on_re_as/laura_bush_afghanistan
>>>>>
>>>>>   "KABUL, Afghanistan - Inspired by Afghan women
>>>>>   who have boldly shed their burqas after years of
>>>>>   Taliban repression, Laura Bush urged more
>>>>>   educational opportunities and greater rights
>>>>>   for women
>>>>
>>>>...but none for men...
>>>>
>>>>>   Wednesday in this war-wrecked nation."
>>>>>
>>>>> v curious -- distribution of feminism around
>>>>> the planet by this neoconservative cabal [...]
>>>>
>>>>"Neoconservative", ooh!  >>>and wiggles fingers>  "Neoconservative" is
>>>>just left liberal* code for "International Jewish
>>>>Conspiracy/Zionist Occupied Government".
>>> 
>>> Say it isn't so!  That sounds so insensitive and judgmental and angry.
>>> The liberals tell us all the time that they are never, never any of
>>> those things. They want nothing but more "diversity"
in the world but
>>> only so long as those diverse people agree with them.  
>>
>>Well, just as Karl Rove doesn't represent all " conservatives
", I dare
>>say that John Kerry didn't represent all " liberals ".
> 
> Karl Rove according to liberals is an evil genius.  It is hardly fair
> to compare someone of that ability to a common traitor.  

Who's the " traitor " ? The guy who went, or the one who... didn't ?

Thats a rhetorical question on my part, as I have seen zero evidence 
that any major US political candidate last year fits that rather
hyperbolic term. All of that was merely political noise.
 
>>Now, I happen to be a " liberal " of sorts... The 19th
Century kind,
>>who believes in personal responsibility, as well as a public sector,
>>where the powers of private capital can be... mitigated. 
> 
> That smacks of not only class envy but also of socialism in general.  

" Ah, you call anyone who wants the rich to pay taxes a socialist ".
Ed Broadbent, NDP leader, " Royal Canadian Air Farce ", 1984.

I don't believe that money=speech. 
   
>>In that, I rather like much, though certainly not all, of what we
>>have up here. I dare say that most of the fine regulars here from
>>the States would say similar about the feminised parts of their
>>republic. 
>>
>>And, my core question on this issue, is a simple one:
>>
>>What have the present set of US " conservatives " accomplished
>>towards men's rights, and towards men being given practical and
>>assured equal rights ?
> 
> Nothing. 
> 
> Now what has liberalism aka socialism done for men in the above
> manner? 

Nothing. Thus, *neither* ideology is much better in that area.

But, I much prefer ours to the US'.
   
>>Thats a serious question, folks, I'm not
>>prejudging. I am well aware that many such areas of endeavour
>>don't make it to the view of the pop media, so I cannot bet that
>>I will hear of any such endeavours from that source.
> 
> You can say you're not prejudging but your tone indicates otherwise.  

Huh ? How do you get " tone " in a text newsgroup ? My question is 
based on *precisely* what I wrote, that I may not have heard of 
specific actions and political moves to provide men with equal rights.

>>So, I ask, in the last five years, what have those in charge 
>>of the US federal gov't done for men ? 
> 
> Nothing.  

So, why are they any good, then ?
 
> Now what have "those in charge" of the US government the prior 8 years
> from 1993 until 2000 done for men?  

Did I say, or suggest that I thought any better of them, about this ?
No.
 
> I find it interesting that you can point fingers but you've got
> nothing better on your liberal end of the stick to offer.  

Well, I can point my " liberal stick " at a positive balance of trade, 
a federal budget in surplus, a shrinking national debt, and health
care for 100% of the people in Canada. 
 
> At the same time you're not honest enough to admit up front that 8
> years of Democrat reign in the US did nothing to elevate the position
> of men either.    

Huh ? Please *quote* me saying any such thing. 

Rather, my point was that, *had there been any such actions, back
then, by now, it's likely that, by way of here, for one, I would
have heard about them. So, that I have not, and theres been well
enough time, tells me that that regime did bupkis. But, theres 
*not been that kind of time* to say that about the guys now in.

So, I asked. Geese.
 
> I have absolutely no problem admitting the ugly truth that Republicans
> are not perfect or even useful in many, many areas.  To duck the issue
> or deny it is foolish because it is just true.  

OK.
 
> BTW, conservatives are not always Republicans although you seem to be
> mixing the two as though they were one and the same. 

Did you *mis* where I said that Karl Rove doesn't represent all US
conservatives, nor Kerry, US liberals.

I dare say that I know enough about US politics to suggest that
relatively few liberals voted for Bush, and relatively few
conservatives voted for Kerry.

> Many
> conservatives are bitterly displeased with the Republican Party these
> days and most aren't afraid to say so.  

Sure. Many liberals here aren't in Love with the Liberal Party.
Dissent is common.

>>>>IMO, Laura Bush travelled to Afghanistan so she
>>>>could wear outfits considered racy without any
>>>>change to her wardrobe.  ;-)
>>> 
>>> I don't believe her motives were as innocent or frivolous as even
>>> that.  She should IMO drop the cheerleading for girls stuff and devote
>>> more time to promoting two parent heterosexual families like the ones
>>> she and George and their daughters grew up in if she needs to take up
>>> a "cause." 
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>NOTE:
>>>>   * "liberal" in the US refers to someone who
>>>>    is "illiberal".
>>> 
>>> If a rose is a rose is a rose then it is equally true that a liberal
>>> by any other name (like "progressive") is still a
plain old socialist.
>>
>>Nope. Not this one ( And, if anyone wants to try me on, read my back
>>posts against gay " marriage "... Hardly anything that
meets the modern
>>caricature of " liberalism "...  ).
>>
>>Andre
> 
> You're being anti-homosexual "marriage" doesn't demonstrate much of
> anything for these purposes.  You're just an aberration among most
> liberals in that particular department.  

I'm not sure about that. Remember, what defines political views
in Canada is not what does it in the US. So, trying to transplant
such terms doesn't always work. 

For instance, our Liberals tend to believe that spending must be
paid for, unlike some, who want to put it on their Master Card...

And, I'll add that I follow goings on in the US, to a very likely
degree that exceeds most USians' following what goes on in Canada.
For more on that, look up Rick Mercer and " Talking With Americans. "
Now, *that* was funny.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 12:47:56 AM ---