In article  , USA
  wrote:

> 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.

Karl Rove is a creep, helping those who would exploit God's creation for
their material, worldly gain. Truly one of the Sons of Belial.
>
>>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.

Sounds to me like Adam Smith.

Whoops! Wasn't supposed to know that..
>>
>>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.

Exaclly. Aren't the conservatives supposed to be better than the liberals?
>
> Now what has liberalism aka socialism done for men in the above
> manner?

Well, if what the 'liberal' judges in Florida did for Michael Schiavo, who
WAS Terri's husband and guardian are an indicator of... Ermmm... Funny how
when the state says a husband is the guardian of his wife, the religious
right gets all het up, and totally ignores that even the bible says the
same..

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

Exactly. Aren't the conservatives supposed to be better than the liberals?
>
> Now what have "those in charge" of the US government the prior 8 years
> from 1993 until 2000 done for men?

Put alot of them to work - remember it was the faux-liberal skirt chaser
Clinton that went around the world, first in Jakarta in 1993 to get American
drilling rights to the Indonesian gas fields and secure energy resources,
then on to sign the NAFTA (which WAS supported wholeheartedly by President
Bush Sr.), then into expanded agreement with the WTO.. oh you get the point.
Truthfully, there WAS no liberal government during the Clintoon years, just
a bunch of self-serving Haahvahd liberals making noise about social issues
while they were raping and pillaging on the economic side just as bad, if
not worse, than the most avaricious me-first conservatives. That's why so
many republicans hated the man so much - they couldn't get a real grip on
him or have a target to hit, until the Monica Lewinsky thing broke open..
>
> I find it interesting that you can point fingers but you've got
> nothing better on your liberal end of the stick to offer.

America needs a man like Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen again. Have you ever
heard any of his sermons? They're absolutely wonderful! If any sort of
movement away from the cultural malaise we're in is going to happen, it
isn't going to be from the political end: Too much avarice and corrpution is
in the mix. A spiritual awakening is the only way forward, but who's going
to want to stop shopping and being materialistic and shallow long enough to
get there?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> BTW, conservatives are not always Republicans although you seem to be
> mixing the two as though they were one and the same.  Many
> conservatives are bitterly displeased with the Republican Party these
> days and most aren't afraid to say so.

Don't you know it.

Massachusetts' residents moving into New Hampshire had less to do with why
the state voted for Kerry (who struck me as bland as milquetoast) than most
on the outside think. Bush has betrayed this nation and conservatism, by
embracing the policies he has.

The bigger issue is, that politicians, left or right, are only doing what
the citizens demand. The problem with that is, the average man or woman on
the street has no inner life and doesn't know what is important from what is
merely material want.

We live by political expediency and what we are sold, not by what we need.
Unless that realization can be grabbed onto by everyone, there will be no
real change until the system crumbles under it's own weight. And until that
happens, the left vs. right game goes on and the masters of the sport rake
in the bucks to the detriment of the whole nation.

Deb.


>>
>>>>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.
>
>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 9:48:14 PM ---