Deborah Terreson wrote:

> In article  , Dustbin
>   wrote:
>
>
>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article  , Grizzlie
>>>Antagonist   wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:32:42 -0500, "Deborah Terreson"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article
 , Grizzlie
>>>>>Antagonist   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2005/chapin030105.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BC: One of the most underrated books that I’ve ever
read was Modern
>>>>>>Sex: Liberation and its Discontents which is a
compilation of essays
>>>>>
>>>>>>from City Journal. An essay of yours,
"Feminists and their Enemies" is
>>>>>
>>>>>>included. Would you agree with Justice Bork when he stated in
>>>>>>Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and
American Decline
>>>>>>that radical feminism is the most destructive and
fanatical movement
>>>>>>to come down to us from the Sixties [p.193]? I mean
obviously the
>>>>>>radical feminists have some serious competition for
the title.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HS: Simple answer: yes, I would. You may recall
that in my book I
>>>>>>talked a bit about the ANTI-suffrage movement,
which of course has
>>>>>>been very much derided by history. But I found it
fascinating to go
>>>>>>back and read what those people were saying, and
realize how prescient
>>>>>>they were in some ways; notably, those having to do
with the impact of
>>>>>>the women's movement on children and family.
Obviously, I'm not
>>>>>>advocating rolling back suffrage -- but I agree
we're still reluctant
>>>>>>to honestly deal with the how destructive radical
feminism has been to
>>>>>>so many lives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gummint's NEVER gonna roll back suffrage -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think that it will happen someday, though not in our lifetimes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>look at all the taxable revenue
>>>>>they'll lose!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think this argument holds water.
>>>>
>>>>I've heard that men, as a group, are net contributors and that women,
>>>>as a group, are net receivers.
>>>>
>>>>But even if this isn't true, the fact is that foreign nationals can't
>>>>vote in U.S. elections either, but I imagine that if they make money
>>>>here, they can be taxed on it here.
>>>>
>>>>So why should eliminating women's suffrage mean that women can't be
>>>>taxed on income?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because of a pesky little item about taxation without representation.
>>
>>There are many of us outside the US who are
>>subject to the crazed policies of that demented
>>freak in the oval office who have no vot and no
>>represenation.
>>
>>Because of amerika's reach and abuse of it's
>>power I have for some years been saying that
>>there should be 'no approbation without
>>representaion.'
>>
>>What about it loud-mouthed amerikans; can we
>>vote in your presidential elections; can we have
>>senatorial and congressional representation?
>
>
> Sure. Have some of your country's larger corporations do business here, send
> lobbyists and special interest representatives and you can buy almost any
> politician and get them to do exactly what you want!
>
> America is the global marketplace, where only money matters.
>
> The appearance of moral, spiritual piety is just a cheap veneer - probably
> made now in China, to boot.

Well, I appreciate your honesty but that is not
what I meant; we do plenty of business with
amerika; we do have a number of groups
representing various groups (such as the tourism
industry) in amerika.

What I meant was "We the people ..." getting
some representation. Unfortunately, I suspect
you might point out that "We the people ..."
don't get any real representaion in US either
since just about every politician is in the
pocket of one or more corps.

D.

> Deb.
>
>
>>D.
>>
>> > Come
>>
>>>on, G.A, you cannot tell me there wasn't a big connection to suffrage AND
>>>the Income Tax being created at the same time? To keep one,
taxation, while
>>>overturning the other, suffrage, will mean that women will STILL have
>>>political power, in effect we'll still be voting. Think about it.
>>>
>>>Better to cut women entirely out of the political picture all
the way - even
>>>to their money going into politics, and by dint of them earning untaxed
>>>capital, it will put the emphasis back into home and maintaining marriage
>>>for many, because that will be where the power they do wield
will have the
>>>most impact. The coolest part is, a system where married couples have one
>>>untaxed income, it allows those homes with stable marriages to
thrive. Also
>>>the sheer economic necessity when the social services are cut (remember,
>>>women are not paying taxes here, so there's less excuse to need
them) will
>>>change the desirability of single motherhood in a heartbeat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>------------------------------------
>>>>grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player
>>>>of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
>>>>   - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium),
June 11, 2004
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
>>>>hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
>>>>
>>>>   - Horace, the Roman poet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Logical positivism, dominant in American and
>>>>British universities, is suicidally bent upon
>>>>establishing the impossibility of knowing any-
>>>>thing.  (As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
>>>>Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces
>>>>himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
>>>>invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an
>>>>insect, not a man).
>>>>
>>>>    - Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent
>>>>      Things
>>>
>>>
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/6/05 12:23:52 AM ---