In article  ,
"remarksman{at}yahoo.com"  wrote:

> Deborah Terreson wrote:
>> In article  , "Society"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Deborah Terreson"
 wrote in message
>> > news:6bSdndnygb9ZTLjfRVn-ow{at}comcast.com...
>> >>
>> >> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote...
>> >>>
>> >>> Deborah Terreson wrote...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Gummint's NEVER gonna roll back suffrage -
>> >>>>look at all the taxable revenue they'll lose!
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think this argument holds water.
>> >
>> > Me neither.
>> >
>> >>> I've heard that men, as a group, are net contributors
>> >>> and that women, as a group, are net receivers.
>> >
>> > Yup.  That's so.
>> >
>> >>> But even if this isn't true, the fact is that foreign
>> >>> nationals can't vote in U.S. elections either,
>> >
>> > Or children residing in the US, even ones who are
>> > US citizens!
>> >
>> >>> but I imagine that if they make money here,
>> >>> they can be taxed on it here.
>> >
>> > Yup.  They certainly are!
>> >
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > Ha ha ha ha!!!
>> >
>> > Got a cite in the US Constitution about that one,
>> > Deb?
>>
>> Revolutionary stuff, sweetcakes. This was, if I do recall, one of the
> main
>> points that got the Constitutiuon created.
>>
>> I'm talking about the *spirit* of the issue, the raison d'etre -
> something
>> you should not miss, but do, in so many of your arguments. Saucers
> are
>> deeper than you.
>
> oooo -- an eminently stealable line
>
>
>> Ermm.. over the years, I have come to find you SO
>> spiritless on occasion. You only live in the NOW - what you can see,
> what
>> you can touch - and you assume that things and points of view come
> into
>> being do so because there is a craven desire for money. THAT is YOUR
> corrupt
>> philosophy, based on how you judge yourself.
>
> ouch
>
>>
>> Nothing in your purview has a higher purpose, a deeper meaning.
>>
>
> oof
>
>
>> We go back again to my original statements about subtlety - remember
> that
>> from 4 or 5 years ago? Society, why do you even bother to get out of
> bed in
>> the morning with how you are sometimes? Fuck, did someone get your
> balls
>> years ago or was it your soul?
>>
>> >
>> >> 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?
>> >
>> > "Same time"?!!  Phooey, Deb.  Buy a calendar
>> > and check again.
>>
>> Within a period. One did not preecede the other by decades. There
> were real
>> economic and social forces at play that forced the government's hand,
> one
>> was they WERE taxing incomes and denying the vote to women - the
> politicians
>> of the day were also VERY susceptible to the patronage of women - the
>> 'Boston Brahmins' created the artform and many of their single female
>> domestics became quite wealthy, started their own businesses, and
> some were
>> quite successful even before the vote. But you know this already.
>
> them brahmins, they's still there...
>
> 'merica has always been a nation of hidden castes
>
>> >
>> > However, there is a big connection to women's
>> > suffrage and a rising soak-the-rich/spend-other-
>> > people's-money sentiment of that so-called
>> > "progressive" period.
>>
>> Like the rich have always been so put upon for their affluence and
> NEVER
>> helped create the very conditions that fostered the later
> 'progressive'
>> period and it's policies you scoff at. Here's a link to a book, in
> it's
>> entirety, written in *1890*, well before weening feminism and it's
> feel good
>> niceness, about the 'moral superiority' of the rich you seem so fond
> of.
>
> "soak the rich" in bushamerica?
>
> LOL!!
>
>>
>> http://www.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.html
>>
>> I particularly like the chapter about the rise of the tenements.
>>
>> Funny part is, very little has changed and hey, even consumption is
> making a
>> comeback - in Washington DC no less! Aren't you SO proud to be an
> American
>> in the 21st century? Look at how grand we are to embrace those very
> same
>> values from the 19th!
>>
>> > Was that the "big connection"
>> > between suffrage (19th Amendment) and the
>> > income tax (16 Amendment) you referred to, Deb?
>>
>> Geez, S, you are thick. Turin is right, you are a materialistic
> fem-boy.
>
>
> the batt'ry don wurk w/o acid
>
>> >
>> > Also, all the US Constitution guarantees is a Republican
>> > form of Government, Deb.  One need not be able to
>> > vote to have "representation" in the legislature.  (Duh.)
>>
>> You are grasping at pedantic straws.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I have thought about it.  Clearly, the challenge to you
>> > to "think about it" remains unanswered, Deb.
>>
>> See my reply to G.A, love. It's too bad that you cut out what I also
> said
>> later in my prior reply. I'm past the point of pasting it back in -
> this
>> game we played - remember it in the past? - is old and you can do
> better
>> than offer up this kind of hatchet job on my posts to make.. what?
> Some sort
>> of point, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Is this your old
>> re-hashing of your hackneyed 'moneyed interests can do no wrong'
> mantra?
>>
>> For someone who claims to be an anti-feminist, anti-fem-o-centric
> mentality
>> proponent, you sure do come off like a spoiled, shallow,
> materialistic girl
>> sometimes. You want it both ways - just like a woman.
>>
>> Gaaahh!!
>>
>> If my aims are too pro-man for you, that's not my problem after all,
> is it?
>>
>> Deb.
>
>
> yeesh...
>
> the High Priest and the Commandant of soc.men, both fish-hooked by
> someone named "Deb"
>
> goes to show: proclaiming oneself a "misogynist" is silly (tho
> attention-getting)
>
> "hating women" misses the point, it ain't about men vs women -- over
> There we got a shitload o' Hugo Schwyzer types, kowtowing to the
> matriarchy (at a tidy leetul profit!)
>
> whilst over Here we got ms. hardhat giving the boys (free!) lessons in
> spirituality
>
> lol
>
> must be the end o' the wurld!

Hey, most of this I have learned from the men I've worked with. Nothing
wrong with a hard hat. I love it because it is an intensely, powerful male
aspect - what I see sometimes takes my breath away.

Deb.




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/4/05 12:57:35 AM ---