Hello GA,

I'm going to slim this down.  Assume anything I edited out I agree
with you:


In article ,
 Grizzlie Antagonist  wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2005 10:35:16 -0800, mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> >To be fair to her, I don't think she would bother granting
> >women the choice of "buying" a foreign spouse.  
> 
> 
> Oh, come on.  Here you are again, giving her too much credit.
> 
> OF COURSE, it's a choice that she would grant to women ("Women will
> exercise their choice to attain men and to dispose of them as THEY see
> fit and not as YOU see fit, regardless of whether YOU like it or not"

I would argue that I don't give her all that much power.
She, nor women even, can't "grant" them the "choice" to
date wealthy, "non-sexist" men to grant all their dreams.

She can say women can do as they see fit but REALITY says
otherwise.  I choose to disempower her.

> - no, she never said that, but doesn't that ring like something that
> she might say?) and that she would deny to men (bitterboys buying
> foreign women because American women won't have them and because their
> blow-up dolls aren't functional).

My opinion is that she can blab on all she likes about
how "bitterboys" "buy" women while "liberated women"
enjoy the "choice" to wind up alone and childless because
they planned that all along.

It's clear to everyone, including her, what a farce she's saying.
Yes?  
 
> Based on her own statements, there are a zillion choices which, in the
> name of "equality", she would grant to women and not to men,

We know she's a hypocrite who demands gender neutral laws
when it suits women and intervention on the part of the
state when women are having problems.

Sadly, there are lots of women who support her idealism.
Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for her and them,
these women are gradually being bred out by HER admission!
SHE'S worried shitless that "bitterboys" and their wives
are sprogging out homeschooled kids while her best hope
for her agenda to even survive as a shadow of itself lies
in illegal immigrants looking for a handout.

That's truly pathetic.  Can't you allow yourself to gloat
just a little?  Come on!

> and we've
> covered all of them from reproductive choice to cross-gender athletic
> participation.  Why do you think this would be any different?

I choose not to view her opinion as troublesome.  That's
how she gets off.  Don't you realize that?

> >She is
> >aware that most liberated women wind up alone because of
> >their personal selfishness.
> 
> 
> She believes that selfishness is acceptable for women, unacceptable
> for men (another example) and affects a posture of not being aware
> that loneliness might be painful.

Agreed.  She lives in a fantasy world created by chivalry and
is angry because at a subconscious level she realizes just
how easily that bubble can pop.

She truly is an example of how leading a non-virtuous life
leads to misery at every level.  She lives a humble life,
though she wants and pretends here she has more, and is
alone.  Don't pity her but certainly don't take her too
seriously other than as a tool to evaluate less unfortunate
women similar to her who are on the same path.

> No, it certainly isn't my career either.  It couldn't be.  Because
> I've been barred from Google since May 2002, I can't write posts when
> I'm at the office, even though I have Internet access.
> 
> I have to come home and use my Forte newsreader.

I'm surprised your ISP doesn't give you http access to usenet
services.  

> >> You used to tell me that I was too reliably Republican and
> >> allowed them to screw me over and that I should have held my vote up
> >> for grabs between the Republicans and some acceptable third party
> >> alternative.
> >>
> >> So last year, I tell you that for the first time in my life, I voted
> >> for a third-party presidential candidate - in effect, telling you
> >that
> >> you might have been right.  And your response was "What did you do
> >> that for?  You threw your vote away."
> >
> >Gosh!  I hope I didn't say that. 
> 
> 
> Damn!  I'm doing a Google search and I can't find what you said.  I
> seem to remember that you didn't approve of my decision, but I can't
> prove it.

I may have said something that may be taken that way.  I'm
telling what what I think NOW and I certainly see how
it's advantageous to you to vote.

I also say it's advantageous for men to have relationships with
women.  Look at how my personal life irks Parg.  She would
prefer it if I wound up alone.  A WOMAN _choosing_ to
share a life with me without buying into her philosophy
in any way really gets her ire.  Ideally, she wants
women alone so they go running to the state.  

> >If you could educate me about how I said third parties were
> >bad, I would appreciate it.  I said they did provide
> >an alternative to feeling like a slave to one of the two
> >major parties or dropping out.
> 
> 
> That is what you told me in November 2002 when I boasted about not
> having voted at all, and I could swear that you said differently in
> November 2004 when I said I voted for Peroutska.
> 
> But I can't prove it.

I think I may have said he's a bit nuts but that's just my opinion.
He's still an alternative to voting socialistcrat.

I'm partially biased, I'll confess, because I interviewed to work
at his company and the interviewer was a tremendous asshole.

> I agree.  As I said, I hope that the rest of them are suffering.

By definition, their anger and hatred for men requires them
to suffer at some level.  It's like an addiction to
crack.

> Nor does anyone impose it on them or remind them of it.  They have a
> freedom hitherto granted to spoiled children and spoiled animals.
> Even my sister probably imposed some mild discipline on her Bijon for
> wetting the carpet.

And I say men must accept some responsibility for this.  
We don't blame the animal if it soils carpets due to bad
training.  If you start believing posts the dog makes
to usenet, whose to blame for that? ;-)

That's partly what angers her about me too: I show that
her beliefs are irrelevent through declaration and action.
It's like popping a bubble!

> >I think the hate Bush crowd were inspired by the success
> >of the demonizing Nixon campaign.  They managed to hang
> >just about every bad thing on that guy's shoulders
> >including the vietnam war and make him the republican
> >albatross.
> 
> 
> Yes, they did, and he gave them every opportunity to do that.  Of
> course, they manufactured their own opportunities, as well.

Nixon was probably one of the first republican moderate sellouts.
Up to then, conservatives largely were fervently anti-socialist
through and through.  
 
> >The fact is that such people who are throwing a temper
> >tantrum can't win.  GW, unlike Nixon, will survive a second
> >term.  They aren't going to hang him out to dry.
> 
> 
> Probably not since he doesn't have a paranoid self-destructive
> personality as Nixon did.
> 
> However, he has been compared to an LBJ-style megalomaniac, and like
> LBJ, he could be very badly crippled by this war.

Nixon's paranoia was somewhat justified however.  There WERE
communists taking over the news media and they were out
to get him.

> It's just as well for them.  The suburbs are an hour/90 minute drive
> of stop-and-go traffic away from downtown.
> 
> I well remember the joys of spending an hour and a half on the 110 to
> travel 15 miles from Pasadena when I lived in Pasadena and worked
> downtown - and then another hour and a half on the way back.

Why didn't you park and ride and take the metro?
 
> >> The idea that Roe v. Wade could be overturned some day is HORRIFYING
> >> to her and her colleagues even though she has made a conscious choice
> >> to die with her genes in and it would have no effect on her personal
> >> life.
> >
> >Think of it as Stalingrad.   
> 
> Or a Maginot Line.

Kind of.  

> Well again, my point is that by disdaining men, she chose to allow the
> life of the dog to remain too large a part of her universe -- and
> again, she was bound to outlive the dog.

Do you really think so?  Some people just love their pets
disproportionately.
  
> >Come now!  Part of the success of leftism has been to capitalize
> >on the misery it causes in it's followers.  As she became
> >more lonely and more angry at men for daring to not live
> >up to her one sided demands, that only pushed her zeal
> >for leftism farther.  Parg is the extreme, of course.
> 
> Of course, except that Puke is NOT necessarily the extreme.
> 
> I don't think that the average woman is that different from Puke
> beneath the surface.  It's just that Puke is a little more up front
> about what she thinks about men, but again, I don't think it differs
> from what the average woman thinks.

I agree that Puke's sentiments are shared by most American women.
It's a very alluring philosophy of self-entitlement and
importance.  

However, I suspect that the "parg" thinking is being weeded
out of practical, working class and even middle class women.
I talked with a number of pleasant young women and I didn't
get any of the feelings of disdain I had experienced 
from women in the 80's.  

Remember: Parg's scared what I'm saying is true and she would
delight if what you're saying is true.  So are you giving
the devil her due?

> Just listen to the way that women talk among themselves when they
> think they are not being overheard - or even if they don't give a shit
> about being overheard.
> 
> I've always given Puke some credit for the minor saving grace of
> honesty.
> 
> And I've always saved most of my wrath for the "moderate"
"average"
> women - the evil and contemptible 80% of the female population that
> proclaims, "I'm not a feminist, but..."

Agreed.  But note that unlike Parg, most women are not necessarily
willing to go quite so far as your sister or my landlady.  
 
> Without that minor saving grace of honesty, they are even more
> contemptible than Puke, really.

Puke is hardly "honest", don't you think?  She lies outright
or changes her position to suit her ideology's interests.

You need to remember that the whole country isn't comprised
of Los Angeles or Bay Area women.  
  
> Because it's not their job, of course.  Why would they bother?
> 
> Men are just desserts.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446512559/qid=1108617905/sr=2-1/ref=pd
> _bbs_b_2_1/002-5521444-6542404
> 
> Why do they even bother to worry about something no more important to
> them than a dish of ice cream?

People read books to try to quit something because they value
that something very much.  Get it?

Parg is here blabbing with us because SHE'S LONELY!!!!!!
Women are crazy and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I wouldn't call them evil anymore than saying kids who
put their fingers in electrical sockets are evil.

Do you see the difference between our philosophy?  

1) I find a way to find compassion for women and
ultimately to even work with them.  This drives
Parg types crazy.

2) I regard women as helpless and laughably unequal.
This also drives the parg types crazy.

> >I've painfully seen for myself how this ideology has destroyed
> >families and undermined personal relationships.
>  
> Yes, Bill Clinton caused a rift between me and other family members
> for a few years.

Yet in the long run, Clinton's sellouts have helped this country
far more than Nixon's best efforts. :-)

When I hear people trying to pull the "Bush stole the
election" dribble I argue back at them, laughingly,
"Well, I guess you're not going to bother voting
next election then, eh?"  This puts them in the
hot seat because by trying to go on with a system
they claim is bankrupt, they only lend it credibility.

The fact is that socialists are scumbag theives because
they can't win playing fair.
 
> >I don't want to criticize you (really) but suggest maybe
> >at these vulnerable times she and others such as her
> >might be more receptive to listening to your message. 
> 
> You're probably right, and I'm visiting my folks in Los Angeles this
> weekend, and I might see my sister.
> 
> But it seems somewhat cruel to say - well, if you'd chosen to surround
> yourself with the trappings of domesticity, a husband and kids, you
> wouldn't be so miserable now about your dog.

I would say that this doesn't serve any purpose other than
to punish her which is not a decent thing for a brother
to do.
 
> I might not have the courage to do it.  I've expressed that thought to
> my folks though.

Then again, I must agree with you that if she's wailing on and on
about her dog that it does across as messed up.  Even very
dedicated pet owners at least have the courtesy and good
taste to keep those feelings to themselves.

I'm reminded of a scene in the Simpsons where everyone is
in the Navy in a submarine and they think they're going to
die and the officer tells everyone to think of their loved
ones and Moe thinks of his kitty cat and looks at the
screen and barks "What are YOU looking at?" :-)

If she's aware of your conservative beliefs, you can tastefully
argue that the family that's been there for her does have
permanent value and this should be thought about before
lauding democrats who want to make every woman into a unit
unto themselves.

So yes, it can be a very powerful observation for all concerned.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/18/05 9:24:52 PM ---