Deborah Terreson wrote:
> Turin wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
> ..and let me guess, you get the starring role as the irate
neighborhood
> crank?
>
> "Bah!"  "You all suck!"



Hahahaha, ...me, the "irate crank", when she's got constipated
"Antagonist" over there, doing the tired old "hard
bitten" routine all
the time.  The cover of all closet feminists...


Yeah.  It's amazing how the role playing "solution" twists things
around.

For instance, the weaklings (like Thomas Shit and Greasy Asswipe), who
insist that they are "sexists" do all of the emotion based arguing in
their encounters with these women.

Meanwhile, the butches (like Debwhorah and Hyerdahl), who demand the
right to retain their "femininity" (ie. not having equal
responsibilities to go with their equal rights), go a hell of a lot
further in the way of making fact based arguments.

So, what we wind up with, there, is emotional screaming from the
pretended stubborn traditionalists, and cold logic emanating from the
part-time careerists and housewife feminists.


And, they all pretend it's just the opposite.
Perfect system for the Debs, Carols, Jaynes, Heidis, and Sues out
there.....


(Yo, Deb.  I'm guessing that another "topless piccy" is probably due
for you about this time...)



> > - - -
> >
> > 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

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100