In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:

> > > Feminism supports both enviornmentalism and the notion of the
> > shrinking> family.
> >
> > :-)  Indeed, with feminism, families are going to be shrinking.
> > The problem is that without immigrant electoral votes,
> > feminism wouldn't exist anymore.  Think "red".
>
> I don't see your point, Mark;

Sure you do.  You may disagree with it, but you clearly
see it as you dispute it below.  Arguments of ignorance
are not very convincing...

> with more and more people moving to blue
> states, there should be more voters voting blue.

Unfortunately, illegal immigrants can't vote. :-)

>  ANd with what's
> happening to those people being outsourced, I'd say the Dems have a
> shot at the next election.

Many of the jobs just move to red states where taxes are lower.
And about outsources, well, a global economy isn't
a bad thing, yes?  I believe we can even say there's
a "global test" going on... :-)

> > > So, I'm not sure why you included feminism as being against
> > > those things.  As to illegal immigration, I'm in favor of a very
> > strict> immigration policy, similar to the one is Oz.
> >
> > I don't understand the Oz reference.  What I am saying is
> > that despite the claims of "metro" advocates, feminism
> > relies upon very unhealthy environmental practices to survive
> > in the states: disposable diapers, SUV driving to daycare centers,
> > commutes for career women to cities that have become
> > nothing more than office complexes, etc.
> >
> Well, Australia has a pretty tight immigration policy that we could
> implement here.

This is helpful when the whole country is also a continent. :-)

Sadly, cracking down on illegal immigration is made difficult
not only by geographic barriers but also political ones:
Both parties now support amnesty for illegals.  It's strange
that much of the opposition is coming from Hillary Clinton
whose trying to move to the center.

> Perhaps one of our candidates will choose that as an
> issue worth discussing.  In any event, men are also fathers of babys
> using diapers, and drivers of SUVs so I'm not seeing much logic to your
> position.

Most of those disposable diapers are being applied by women.
If a woman exploits, er, manages the primary care of a child
she should take responsibility don't you think?

> > >   Illegal> immigration creates stress on the society helping
> > > > to create problems with housing, transportion, etc.
> > > > as well as feminism having career women use
> > > > all kinds of instant products to help them
> > > > save time which they would have done at home.
> > > >
> > > Women and men both use the same kinds of things to make life easier
> > at> home and at work.
> >
> > Nah.  Few women have housewives. :-)
>
> That seems to be changing, Mark.  Many women aren't marrying sexist
> pigs like you, so you have to go to Russia for love.

And this disproves my point, how?

The fewer career women who are marrying are not marrying
househusbands.

> And women here
> don't want men like you, dear.

They don't want breadwinners who give them chivalrous
treatment they crave? :-)

> > If it wasn't for illegal immigration, California would still
> > be considered conservative.  Illegal immigration transformed
> > California into a leftist state (it also trashed it's
> > economy and educational and roads system.)
> >
> California and other border states certainly have immigration issues
> not faced by many other states.  But let's face it, the feds have done
> nothing to help CA.   Also, CA is an ocean state and most of the ocean
> states are blue. ..i.e. Oregon.

So you're saying diversity is bad?

At the turn of the previous century, Polish and German
immigration helped the economy.

> AND, legal immigration should be> > tightened, so that we draw those
> here who will contribute to our> society, more than they take from it.
> >
> > Whatever happened to compassion?  To welcoming the huddled wretched
> > masses? :-)
>
> I don't think we can afford "the huddled masses", do you?

WOW!  I mean, like, wow!

Whatever happened to being so thankful for all the CHILDREN
these women were bringing and the future doctors they
would provide? :-)

Leftism is at war with itself.  GA, are you looking
at this?

> > I was laughing when I read a French marxist bemoaning the low
> > birthrate of ethnic French women and proclaiming that
> > the solution lay in increasing the welfare state.  Yeah,
> > the same welfare state paying Algerians to have 8 kids
> > in their families. :-)
> >
> Most educated peoples of the world seem to be having fewer children.
> Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that having sprogs (:-) is not
> perhaps the best use of their time and lives.  AND, the welfare state
> can be prevented thru better immigration policies and other means.

Provided that the people who advocate such poicies can avoid
jail in France for committing a hate crime. :-)  Did
you hear what happened to Bridget Bardot?

> > > > (edit)
> > >
> > > > > Question: If socialism is so great, why is it always
> > > > necessary to raise taxes?  One thing you can say
> > > > about capitalism: They sure do lower the cost of
> > > > all those cars to trash the world, eh?  If socialists
> > > > ran things (as they did in Eastern Europe), people
> > > > would live in poverty AND trash the environment.
> > > > Win win!
> > >
> > > I don't know what you mean by that, Mark.  London still swings like
> a
> > > pendulum 'do'.  :-)  I mean right now we have friends spending
> their
> > > very valuable lbs over here on their vacation.  As to pure
> capitalism
> > > or pure communism, the dog dies no matter which you choose.
> >
> > The 'dog' lived quite well for centuries long before Marx
> > hit the scene, yes?  We only know for sure that pure
> > communism doesn't work.
>
> Well, since there is not one single western society that does not have
> social programs, we know much more than you think we know.  :-)

Yep.  The same societies with huge growth in recent immigrant
populations.  I guess they know how to put themselves out
of their own misery.

> I
> consider myself an economic conservative, Mark.  I am, as you know, a
> social liberal.  I think you find that difficult to assimilate.

I agree.  It's a shame there's no more money for new socialist
programs to bail out career women, eh? :-)

> > > (edit)
> > >
> > > > Here's the thing: It's a lot easier to control capitalism,
> > > > through a system of checks and balances, than it is
> > > > to basically have the wolf watch the henhouse which
> > > > is having a single form of oversight for industry
> > > > and government.
> > >
> > > I agree with Mark on this issue;  I consider myself a compassionate
> > > capitalist.  :-)
> >
> > Yikes.  I can find no way to view your agreement as backhanded
> either.
>
> Well, you keep trying to pigeon-hole me, and it isn't possible.  On one
> hand, I'm extremely liberal when it comes to social issues.  OTOH, I
> support the second ammendment right to own my guns, and want
> immigration tightly controlled.  I've been a proponent of welfare
> reform since 1966 when I was still in school.  :-)  I've had friends
> categorize me as a libertarian, but that doesn't fit in with my liberal
> social agenda.
> I do consider myself a compassionate capitalist.  I view the world as
> chugging along well, with an Ayn Rand approach for the majority, with a
> safety net for those Rand never considered, i.e. the old, the infirm,
> those who are uneducable, etc.

Immigrants...

>  I also support social programs for
> CHILDREN who are our future lifeblood.

Ola children of Mexico!

> When I agree with you, or just
> about anyone else, on a particular issue, I let you know, and hope you
> would do the same with me.  BTW, sometime you and I should forget our
> debate on sexism and concentrate on education.  I'd like to hear what
> you have to say about that subject.

Certainly.

Public education is a huge boondoggle which was intended to
ensure that poor children would have a chance but
instead resulted in 40% of elementary school children failing
basic reading and math standards.

This is because education has been less about educating
children and more about feeding leftist teachers unions
and providing a babysitting service for single mothers.
It's also sought to lower academic standards in favor
of a diversity racial agenda.

The children of mostly conservative parents generally
wind up going to districts out in the suburbs or
home schooling.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/23/05 12:02:27 PM ---