In article ,
 Grizzlie Antagonist  wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2005 11:58:18 -0800, mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I never thought I would say this, but Parg is rescuing me from GA. :-)
> >
> >Hyerdahl wrote:
> >> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:29:08 -0500, Mark Sobolewski
> >> >  wrote:
> >
> >GA asks:
> >> > Isn't that just more proof that conservatism (as it's practiced
> >> today)> doesn't equate with anti-feminism?
> >
> >And Parg helpfully answers:
> >> No;  it's just proof that you can't control a SC Justice once they
> >see
> >> the importance of the job required unless you appoint a stupid person
> >> like Clarence Thomas.
> >
> >Thank you Parg!  You saved me the trouble to address GA's misgivings
>
> I don't see it.

You're such a skeptic.  Are you EVER happy?

> I asked you if Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't just additional proof that
> conservatism, as it's practiced today, does NOT equate with
> anti-feminism.

Ok, I'm going to give you that: Neo-Con Conservatism as it's practiced
today is NOT anti-feminism.  But I won't call it merely
a lesser of two evils either.  How about this.  Let's conduct
a thought experiment (be honest, ok?)

Do YOU think that if Reagan had known what would have happened
with O'Connor, would he have still nominated her?  Ditto
with Bush Sr. and Souter.

Consider that ALL of the conservative justices on the court
today were put there by Reagan and Bush Sr.   GW need only
appoint a single conservative justice (in addition
to the current vacancy) for affirmative action and
federal abortion rights to end.

They may not be anti-feminism, but they certainly represent
the greatest REAL threat to it today.  Do you disagree?

Let's go the other direction for a moment: Bill Clinton.
That man and his wife, Rush Limbaugh says, has done more to kill
any hope of national daycare and healthcare and
welfare as a political entitlement than any conservative
politician today.  This was because Clinton was trying to
survive and his supporters miscalculated and thought that
his survival was worth making political sacrifices.
Do you think they erred?  There are leftists who spit
when Clinton's name is mentioned.

Back to GW: We both know about him throwing money
at senior citizens and education and running around with
"W means women" slogans.  But look at from a political
perspective: he's survived to make new judicial nominations.
Looking at it as a chess game: he's made a lot of stupid
moves but the opponent has a natural handicap (their
ideology is self-hateful).  He's a few moves from checkmate.

I'm not going to deny that he can blow it but there's
definitely room for optimism there.  If you can't see that,
then I think you're being emotional.

> Puke replies by issuing some sort of non sequitur and then changes the
> subject in order to flame some other SC justice.

So what?  My point is that Thomas is "anti-feminist" sufficiently
for her to spit at the mention of his name.

> I don't see how her argument helps you at all.

It's not an argument so much as her showing that both Bushes did
do things that severely (although not mortally) wounded her
agenda.

Do you deny this?

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/27/05 5:34:02 PM ---