Jesus Christ.  It's the neighborhood retards - out on another date.


As usual, it's the board whore and our resident male
protection-order-writing traitor having a serious sweaty palms moment,
while they engage in media-watch stereotyping.

Look at those lack-luster expressions as they trade those platonics!

Listen those half-hearted protesting rationalizations about the system
that they collaborate in!


They're making time, they are, here on soc.men.
Another greasy, dago night in Little Italy.....
....dowwwnn, stomach.


Today, our sitcom personalities are talking about gas.

I'll bet that's because whenever Debwhorah gets humped, the unlucky
victim gets to hear some escape.  But, maybe it's also due to the
source of Grizzlie Asscrater's cookie-cut opinions.

Whatever the source, you can bet it all centers between a strawman
"left" and a strawman "right".  We shall narrowly
escape a "Marxist"
Armageddon, because it was never there to begin with.

They'll nervously peck while saying goodbye for the night and then log
off.  Debwhorah will hand Bob the jar of his balls for the night, and
Adjective will lick his own while doing more of women's dirty work for
them - probably take home work for his home computer.

Tomorrow, they'll be back to con society some more by acting out more
of the same stereotypes:

"Oh!"  "I lean left!"
"Aah!   I lean right!"


.....Where would society's dysfunctionals be, by now, without their role
playing?



- - -

The face of an angel, the charm of the devil ...the power of a god:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Men_First/
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----



Giggling Gayrod wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:57:58 -0500, "Debwhorah Terrorist"
>  wrote:
>
> >In article  , Gritty
> >Anallube   wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:36:13 -0600, USAsshole 
wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:11:35 -0600, "HombreVIII"

> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote in message
> >>>>news:l1cb419i6fr0eh7b8oufeu55btepsu0q9t{at}4ax.com...
> >>>>> All media is left leaning
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Which explains why the terms "monopoly" and
"anti-competitive"
haven't been
> >>>>uttered in a sentence together on television in decades.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hint: The media telling us how extremely left wing it
is and that
as
> >>>>reasonable people we should always hold a view more right wing
than whatever
> >>>>it says does not make it true.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm
> >>>>
> >>>What a lame site.
> >>>
> >>>Other favorite liberal arguments go something like:
> >>>
> >>>"GE is a huge evil corporation and it owns NBC so obviously
> >>>conservatives (the big corporation) are in control of the
media."
> >>>
> >>>If that were true there would be no fag shows or fag anything on
Bravo
> >>>(a cable channel owned and run by NBC). But there are plenty of
such
> >>>trashy crap shows in evidence.  For example, ever hear of
"Queer
Eye
> >>>for the Straight Guy"?  Or how about the NBC show
"Will and
Grace"?
> >>>These days a homo is inserted into every TV show almost as if
every
> >>>family has one of their own which is far from accurate.
> >>>
> >>>If conservatives were doing the hands on running of either the
> >>>entertainment or news departments of the alphabet networks and
their
> >>>cable clones, you wouldn't hear the words gay, lesbian, or
homosexual
> >>>and you certainly wouldn't see any.
> >>>
> >>>Why does GE let liberals run NBC news and entertainment divisions?
> >>>Because they are still making big money.  When that ceases to be
true
> >>>we might see a change.  In light of what happened with idiot Dan
> >>>Rather, it seems Viacom is starting to pay attention to how costly
CBS
> >>>News is to run because it has virtually no ratings.  Even so they
> >>>won't become a conservative run news division but rather CBS News
will
> >>>probably pretty much cease to exist.  Hopefully NBC and ABC will
> >>>follow shortly there after.
> >>
> >>
> >> People get mixed up when they operate from the paradigm that "Big
> >> Business" = conservative or conservatism.
> >>
> >> Big Business is NOT conservative.  As an institution, it may not
be
> >> particularly liberal either, but Big Business is NOT conservative.
> >>
> >> Some libertarian/free market types will use conservative arguments
to
> >> justify the actions of Big Business, and the Big Businessmen
> >> themselves might ape those arguments when they feel it is in their
> >> best interest to do so, but that's not the same thing as saying
that
> >> Big Business = conservative.
> >>
> >> Anyone who thinks that Big Business = conservative needs to
channel
> >> Russell Kirk and ask him about that - because the First
Conservative
> >> of the 20th century must turn over in his grave every time someone
> >> identifies conservatism with "Big Business".
> >>
> >> Big Business is all about what will maximize stock prices, market
> >> share, and the compensation received by the CEO's who run it.
It's
> >> not about ideology at all.
> >>
> >> So, for example, if drilling in the Arctic (I favor that by the
way,
> >> I'm fed up with high prices at the gas pump)
> >
> >You can thank major retirement plan investment dollars going into
the
> >commodities markets for this one. A finite resource being sought
after by a
> >larger amount of dollars is of course going to raise the roof.
Started about
> >6 years ago, and they're only getting worse. I read (and I'll see if
I can
> >find an online copy) a report on the oil commodities markets in a
paper a
> >few weeks back. If the markets were not being flooded with this
money, we'd
> >be looking at prices more along the lines of 35 to 40 dollars a
barrel.
> >
> >Isn't it nice to know that you are subsidizing retirees every time
you pull
> >up to the pump?
>
>
>
> My folks are retirees so it could be worse.
>
> Though I did have to chuckle at a National Review magazine cover (I
> think it was NR) that I saw a few weeks ago showing a cartoon in
which
> an aging boomer eats gruel while portraits of his wealthy parents
> (living longer thanks to medical advances and collecting more
> benefits) look on indulgently.
>
> I'm doing a little better than eating gruel :) but that cartoon did
> hit home somewhat.  Although I chuckled at it, it hit home a little
> TOO hard to induce me to buy the magazine and read the feature
> article.
>
> Still, my folks went through the depression and WW2 and brought me up
> so maybe they are deserving of some financial support at my expense.
> I've always wanted them to live long and spend my inheritance.  I
> always wanted to make it on my own.
>
>
>
> >Wonderful value system, there. Why bother with retirement savings,
when you
> >can get a private system to form itself into a neo-socialist
redistribution
> >scheme where the consumer supports you! This is better than anything
a
> >government could do - it's a 'free' market system!
> >
> >Marx was a dilettante, that's for sure.
>
>
> You might also have described the reason why real estate prices are
> skyrocketing.  At least in my part of the country.  Real estate
> investment trusts are also frequently used as retirement vehicles.
>
> So land is also a scarce commodity pursued by large amounts of
retiree
> dollars.
>
>
>
> >>  will maximize all of
> >> those things, and if drilling in the Arctic is regarded as
> >> "conservative", then Big Oil appears to be
"conservative" given
the
> >> requirements of the moment.
> >
> >My thoughts on the ANWR reserves is to leave it: It's not going
anywhere,
> >and if it's never disturbed, it will only increase in value relative
to the
> >miles per gallon that can be utilized from it. There is also the
point that
> >at some time in the future, the cost of oil may go so high, given
China's
> >demands on the markets (they are only going to buy our debt for so
long, and
> >when they decide it's time to use their yuan for oil purchases
instead,
> >we're screwed), that it may have the ability to impact the
military's cost
> >in buying the fuel it may require. At what point does a bit of
foresight go
> >into looking at what the markets can do and how it may affect our
ability to
> >protect ourselves and actually become policy? I'd like to see it
only used
> >for emergency military purposes - a national reserve for our defense
and not
> >for women named Tiffany to tool around going shopping in their
Hummers
> >with..
>
>
>
> Maybe, but the high price of gas has got to be strangling the economy
> right now and impacting people not as able to pay for it as Tiffany
> is.
>
> I don't know why I should give a shit though.  I'm a fatalist who
> thinks that Western civilization is coming to an end - and maybe
> SHOULD come to an end.
>
>
>
>
> >> But plenty of businessmen traded with and made profits from trade
with
> >> the Worker's Paradises that were the old Soviet Union and Eastern
bloc
> >> states.  Funding communism doesn't sound like a particularly
> >> "conservative" thing to do but that was what was
necessary given
the
> >> requirements of THAT moment.
> >>
> >> A large number of cultural conservatives decry the
McDonaldsization or
> >> the Starbuckization or the Wal-Martization of the country.  When a
> >> part of a large chain makes its presence known in a small town,
local
> >> businesses are very often threatened and very unconservative
> >> population upheavals and economic dislocations result.
> >>
> >> Big Business tends to support the unconservative policy of
affirmative
> >> action.
> >
> >Believe me, it's only done because an EOE rating for a company means
that
> >they can do business with the government. I spent many years as the
token
> >tit in the work crew, so the contractor could get the plum DOD
contracts.
> >That EOE rating applies to every aspect of business, including sales
and
> >Uncle Sam is a huge purchaser.
>
>
> >> There are costs associated with affirmative action that Big
> >> Business - with the advantages of large market share - can pass
onto
> >> their consumers with relative impunity.  This has the desired
effect
> >> of squeezing out smaller competitors who can't afford to absorb
those
> >> costs OR pass them onto consumers.
> >>
> >> Regardless of election results, the overwhelmingly dominant
cultural
> >> motifs are liberal (often nihilistically so), feminist, activist,
> >> pro-gay rights, etc.  That's what Big Business sees when it
surveys
> >> the marketing landscape.
> >>
> >> Obviously, people who are NOT liberals or feminists or activists
or
> >> pro-gay rights represent a significant share of the population and
> >> obviously those people are consumers too - but those people don't
> >> purchase consumer goods as a bloc.
> >
> >That's not quite true. Those consumers DO purchase in blocs, it's
just that
> >the data isn't collected to show that. I'm still in the Nielsen
Homescan
> >Survey - 5 years now - and as I have over time changed the purchases
I've
> >made, and shifted to more locally produced, organic or handmade
(just higher
> >quality overall), I've also lost the ability to record those
purchases - no
> >bar codes.
> >
> >I went as far as recording for an entire week, all the things I
bought,
> >where, how much and how many and what the cost was. All the data
that is
> >taken by the scanner. I sent in the e-mail journal and within a week
got a
> >response back from Nielsen. They didn't WANT to know really, what I
was
> >buying, if it didn't have a bar code on it. The rep on the phone was
very
> >nice, and she completely understood what I was doing and why, but
they were
> >only interested in providing sales data to the major producers about
what
> >was selling and why.
> >
> >This is supposedly an impartial 50,000 plus household survey of the
things
> >that Americans buy, but if it's handmade, or locally grown or
manufactured,
> >don't bother. It was an eye opener to how much status quo is
maintained by
> >selecting the parameters of the data collection. It virtually
guarantees
> >that large businesses and goods and food producers will appear to be
the
> >only ones in the markets and it's just not so.
> >
> >Their marketing and data collection is off the rails. I won't even
get into
> >the inanity of the surveys and the questions and how they are
phrased.
>
>
>
> You did all this as an individual though.  You didn't organize or
> respond to anyone who organized you.  You didn't receive input from
> any klatch.  So I think that my point still holds.
>
>
> >> They don't organize in the same hive; they don't take cues from
one
> >> another on what is and is not politically correct.  Liberals,
> >> activists, feminists, etc DO organize and DO act as a bloc and are
the
> >> most readily identifiable consumer group that Big Business sees
when
> >> it surveys the marketing landscape.
> >>
> >> So Big Business largely caters to these people.  It doesn't
somehow
> >> suppress conservative distaste by making money from these people
> >> because it has no conservative distaste to suppress.  Big Business
> >> again is all about profit and market share.
> >>
> >> So yeah, people who argue that the news media and the
entertainment
> >> media can't possibly be liberal because they are owned by Big
Business