On a side note, I am glad you don't want them to take federal dollars. I commend you for this and I hope you air your views to them.
CO USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 18:45:43 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
"Aaron, you didn't read my posts. I NEVER advocated federal funding for KPFA. I even said they shouldn't take it. That's not what the controversy is about."
And you didn't read my posts. I never said you advocated that. I said that you were either incorrect or lying when you said that they received NO FEDERAL DOLLARS. This is clearly what you said and now you are trying to slither or of admitting you were wrong.
CO USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 18:41:29 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
i accept her for what she is i don't want to throw her away; especially since her girlfriend is my friend as well, i just want to talk to her
Uk - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:57:44 (EST) from host62-7-40-96.btinternet.com
That's Adam Michael Gabriel Femecide. Yes, my parents were big on Biblical names (yeah, I know, Oh the irony).
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:46:45 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
"Unable to actually address what is said in responses to him, instead, continuing to chant the same tired accusations."
What, you want me to admit that I'm flaming you? Nope. Not gonna do it. I can't actually think of a single cogent question you've posted to me. Not that I'm interested in a conversation with you. I also don't care if you call me a child - not only do I know the truth, but I can take a little knock without breaking down in tears.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:41:50 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Michael Femecide, author, "How to Win Friends and Influence Enemies".
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:35:44 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Additional characteristics of flamers:
"Are you really that dense?"
"DIRECTLY contradicting previous comments you have made in the past about- yes it's true - WOMEN. "
... Unable to actually address what is said in responses to him, instead, continuing to chant the same tired accusations.
"SO get used to it - after all, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime."
... Threats to continue doing more of the same.
" And you, femmy, are definitely guilty of some SERIOUS crimes against women. "
... Unfounded accusations of criminal behavior.
Basically, not only a flamer, a child to boot.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:33:52 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
Hey, we can take up a collection and set up a website with a message board, "Michael's Musings and Advice".
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:33:17 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
"Note, he did not comment on the issue being discussed, instead he got in his little personal dig. He insisted in introducing something not at all germane to the discussion for the sole purpose of baiting. Nothing in his comment was directed to anything being discussed."
Not germane? Not germane? Are you really that dense? There you sit, spouting forth "wisdom" concerning women and DV, DIRECTLY contradicting previous comments you have made in the past about - yes it's true - WOMEN. Not germane? I think that the negative and insulting attitude you express toward women is directly related to EVERY post in here that even indirectly involves women. SO get used to it - after all, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. And you, femmy, are definitely guilty of some SERIOUS crimes against women.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:19:56 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
Hilary, you're quite right when you say nothing about her has changed. What has changed is your perception of her. I take it you are "creeped out" by her fascination with other women? That's understandable. Feeling different and unsure about her is normal too. It's not selfish. You two are drifting apart. She is going one way, you another. That's life. If she fades into the background of your circle of friends, so what? People come and people go all our lives. Never feel you must hang on to every friendship forever. Life doesn't work out that way. No need to feel guilt because of your convictions or sexual point of view. You do not have to accommodate everyone.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:18:21 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
Yeah right, as if you are going to find "Flamers," as it applies to the Internet, in Websters. No, Nick, "flamers" are into personal attacks, trying to bring everything down to that level. That is what Matt does. Note, he did not comment on the issue being discussed, instead he got in his little personal dig. He insisted in introducing something not at all germane to the discussion for the sole purpose of baiting. Nothing in his comment was directed to anything being discussed.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 16:02:48 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
by best friend just told me that she was dating one of my friends "girl friends" she is a girl, but appartently shes not a lesbain just curious. i don't know why i'm telling u probably cos since ur on the other side of the atlantic u can't do anything, i don't want to say anything to any other friends cos it wouldn't be considered right, (we are odd with manner's in the UK) why is it as soon as something happens which concernes me i stop worrying about everyone else i am a really selfish person. i know nothing should change she's still the same person but i feel that it does change stuff. i'm not 2 good at talking about what u are, sorry.
Uk - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:57:24 (EST) from host62-7-55-83.btinternet.com
Femichael, if all of us prove to be flamers, why are you still here? Who hasn't so we can bring them on board?
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:44:15 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Dictionaries optional, of course.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:43:41 (EST) from 220.127.116.11
"OK, Matt, you've proven yourself to be just another "flamer." I tried to converse with you, but that's clearly impossible for you".
Flamer? For what? Bringing in YOUR comments to prove YOU wrong? Wow. Good thing we don't use dictionary definitions here, eh Matt?
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:40:07 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I take it back. Unlike most mammals, Femichael cannot learn from past mistakes. Silly me.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:37:58 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
Sure Femichael, you can't dispute my comments, so that makes me a "flamer." Yeah, whatever make you happy.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:35:26 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
OK, since it has been dredged up once again ...
"Yes, I do lump all women into one group, because they ARE one group. In a previous post I said women are quite diverse, but I also said, on their most basic level, they are really all the same."
And I stand by that. Note the part which reads ... "In a previous post I said women are quite diverse" ... In my recent post I have pointed out two of these diversities (Jocks, and DV liars). Not all women are jocks nor do all women lie about DV. As I also said in a previous post, these are superficial differences. Again, in the most basic ways I consider them all the same.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:35:25 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
OK, Matt, you've proven yourself to be just another "flamer." I tried to converse with you, but that's clearly impossible for you.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:26:49 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
Here's a little blast from the past:
"Yes, I do lump all women into one group, because they ARE one group. In a previous post I said women are quite diverse, but I also said, on their most basic level, they are really all the same. As someone once said, "the greatest mistake a man makes concerning women is the silly notion that one differs appreciably from another." On a fundamental level, that is what I believe. I'm sure the women here do believe what they say. I also don't think they will remain constant to their current philosophy. If push ever came to shove they would give us (men) up in a heartbeat to save themselves or their ideology. I remember reading a section from the Book "Queen of the Damned" by Ann Rice. A book which, clearly, BTW shows how she really feels about men. Anyway, in this section men only were being singled out and slaughtered by the hundreds (as usual) by the "Queen." What did she depict the women doing? Cowering and running away. Were it the other way around, men would be throwing themselves en masse against the killer to try to save the women. I know it's fiction, but it sounded about right to me. Of course, if something were attacking their children many women would probably sacrifice themselves. If something happened to incapacitate men, in general, you think women would step up and defend us? Not bloody likely. It happens with ideology as it does with life and death. Exceptions would be extremely rare. Women, as a rule, can never be trusted. Certainly not with your soul.
USA - Monday, December 10, 2001 at 23:46:07 (EST) from adsl-78-167-177.gsp.bellsouth.net"
I don't know, maybe Femichael is capable of learning from past mistakes. After all, "It is not an all or nothing proposition."
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:26:41 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
"It is not an all or nothing proposition."
I'm not making this up, folks!
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:17:14 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
I must apologize - apparently it's asking tooo much to expect someone as challenged as yo-yo there to have a consistent set of..... opinions, for want of a better word. Oh, well. It makes everything easier, when the wackiness remains exposed for all to see!
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:15:26 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
Yes, Matt, I said
"Of course one cannot extrapolate THIS to all, or even a majority of women, but it illustrates just how murky the waters can get in these things."
On THIS particular issue one cannot extrapolate to all women. Just as because some women are "jocks" does not mean all women are jocks. It is you who want to "extrapolate" my view on this ONE area to my other views. Simply because I recognize this specific issue (ie: women lying about DV) cannot be extebded it to include all women does not preclude me from doing so on other matters. It is not an all or nothing proposition.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:14:57 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:02:52 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
(Smacks forehead with palm of hand)"What was I thinking?"
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 15:01:19 (EST) from 220.127.116.11
What you talkin' 'bout Matt? Does that response surprise you? You step on his toes and you're supposed to 'give it a rest'. Yet we are supposed to sit idly by while he spews his loathing and other stupid....stuff, and not say a word?
Sha, Matt, what were you thinking?
WERE you thinking?
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 14:39:08 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Give it a rest? Hey, you said it, you hypocrite! It's amazing how you contradict yourself with every other sentence you post.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 14:35:37 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
And if anti-male...certainly not anti-Joe!!
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 14:09:56 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I don't think a rational person would ever accuse Carolyn of being anti-male!
CA USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 14:03:30 (EST) from dial-039.arc-01.lodinet.com
For the record Carolyn is NOT anti-male!
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 14:00:29 (EST) from 209-145-163-10.dsl.accessus.net
Caution usually is borne of wisdom and maturity, from which also comes responsibility for one's actions. Some people seem hesitant, or even loathe, to take responsibility for their actions.
CA USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:59:30 (EST) from dial-039.arc-01.lodinet.com
"If a man's married to (or divorcing) a crazy shrew who wants to enrage him, he's best to not see her by himself (and he certainly knows she's a crazy shrew by the time he's divorcing her!), and he always has the obligation to have control over himself. It's difficult, of course, but we are ultimately the only ones responsible for our actions. "
Quite so. Of course, to me it's safest to assume she is a crazy shrew no matter if she is or not and proceed accordingly in a divorce situation. Come to think of it, that's how I always proceed, divorce notwithstanding. Works well too.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:54:59 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
Give it a rest Matt.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:50:36 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
"Of course one cannot extrapolate this to all, or even a majority of women, but it illustrates just how murky the waters can get in these things."
The irony, the irony!
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:47:57 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
and I don't think your and Carolyn's
experiences with abused women are representative of the whole.
Did you read what I wrote? I speciifically stated that some women DO make things up and gave an example. Did you miss that? Did you miss my statements about abuse against men being ignored or scoffed at sometimes and how that is wrong? However, because some women are not truly abused doesn't mean that all claims are bogus. That's like saying rape never occurs because some women file bogus rape claims. And of course there should be evidence -- did I ever once imply otherwise? It seems that no matter what I say, I'm anti-male because I know women who were actually beaten. Using that same logic, I must be anti-female because I know of abused men. So I'm anti-everyone, right?
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:34:50 (EST) from carolyn.interstat.net
If a man's married to (or divorcing) a crazy shrew who wants to enrage him, he's best to not see her by himself (and he certainly knows she's a crazy shrew by the time he's divorcing her!), and he always has the obligation to have control over himself. It's difficult, of course, but we are ultimately the only ones responsible for our actions.
My brother was divorced from a crazy woman (diagnosed manic depressive, in fact). She took him to the cleaners, almost literally, and when she was walking out with some of the goods (loading them into the pickup truck he'd bought for her, because she had no real job), he grabbed her keys from her hand. Big mistake. She called the cops and pressed d.v. charges. He went to a class with men who gave their wives/girfriends black eyes for not having the dinner hot, so it was kind of overkill. However, he went on to get counseling, and learned to choose healthy women from then on. He's got a wonderful wife now, who has her head on straight, and a grad. degree from UCLA. Some of the main things he learned are 1.) Stay away from crazy people, certainly don't date or marry them, and 2.) You are always responsible for your own actions. People, no matter how crazy, violent, etc., cannot make you do anything you don't intend to do.
So, although there are women who seek out men who are violent or battering types, there are never excuses to hit anyone, be it a husband or wife. There is no justification for domestic violence.
CA USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:32:40 (EST) from dial-039.arc-01.lodinet.com
You're quite right in demanding proof, Katie. The problem with anyone who works with domestic violence is they are too close to the problem. They see it day after day and begin to see the whole world in that way. Same with anything. If all you see, day in and day out, is one small segment of the population, it distorts your view of the world as a whole. It's not like they are going out at random and just happening to find that, everywhere they go, some woman has been abused. They go, specifically for that in each and every case. Same with people who work at DV shelters. They begin to look at every male as a potential batterer. I know this to be true because more than one of them have told me. Objectivity cannot flourish in such an environment. That's why many police forces don't keep people on certain kinds of jobs forever. It takes too much of a constant emotional strain as well as clouding their objectivity.
And, yes, women do make this stuff up, or, in some cases, deliberately provoke it. I recall seeing one of these programs showing the results of people using hidden cameras to "get the goods" on someone else. One of the vignettes concerned a man taping the wife he was divorcing while she was on the phone. In her conversation to her friend she was detailing how she planned to enrage him so that he would probably hit her (including repeatedly hitting him first). As she said, "When he does, I've 'got' him!" Meaning she would have the leg up she was looking for in the divorce proceedings, accusing him of battering her. Of course one cannot extrapolate this to all, or even a majority of women, but it illustrates just how murky the waters can get in these things. All too many women tend to jump to the "child abuse" thing in divorces these days too. Fortunately it's working in fewer and fewer cases as the public at large wises up to that scam as well.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 13:17:29 (EST) from adsl-20-146-228.gsp.bellsouth.net
"Asking me to declare certain public figures bigots when I don't know them that well does not merit an answer."
Oh give it up Monica. You can declare someone in here a bigot over one post and you can't tell by now whether those men are bigots or not? Puleeeeeeeeeeeeze...
I have no intention of emailing you when you can't be the least bit honest in public.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 11:44:49 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
...pain, pain is the answer. How do I know when there is life, the point at which there is pain, this I know. When the fetus has developed to a point that pain becomes an issue with it's demise, then I know in my heart that it is wrong. Is it not wrong, does it not feel wrong, to inflict pain upon an innocent fetus. We know right and wrong, God has enabled us to have a coherent feeling of right and wrong, can we therefore rationalize or ignore something we feel is so....not right, I feel like we should not...
Houston, Texas USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 11:42:37 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
"Asking me to declare certain public figures bigots when I don't know them that well does not merit an answer."
BS, Monica. What a cop-out! You apparently have no problem calling someone who posts on Carolyn's Guestbooks a bigot - someone you don't even know! You comment would be comical, if it wasn't so sad. No, wait, it is funny!
"KPFA does not "push a political agenda". They present news, opinions and culture from diverse groups."
See what I mean about funny? Do you actually believe this? Come back to reality, please! Or, lets go back to the World Socialist Web Site:
"In an era of increasing media monopolies, KPFA confronts what all small radio stations are facing. “People are very worried about the void that would be created,” says KPFA co-news director Aileen Alfandary, who has worked at the station for 20 years. “There's lots of right-wing media in this country. Don't we need something on the progressive end? If Pacifica self-destructs, there's nothing to take its place.”
Now this is a 20 year employee admitting that they are a "progressive" response to "right-wing media." Of course, we have to make sure we all understand the definitions being used: Progressive = Left-Wing Liberal, Right-Wing Media = successful commercial talk radio stations.
BWWAAAAAAAAAAaHAHAHAHAHhahahahAHAHAHAHHAhhahahahAHAHAHAH!!!!! This is fun!
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 09:11:04 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
Aaron, you didn't read my posts. I NEVER advocated federal funding for KPFA. I even said they shouldn't take it. That's not what the controversy is about.
Joy, if you want me to answer your questions, e-mail me and give me your e-mail, or post your e-mail, and I will e-mail you an answer, if the question deserves an answer. Asking me to declare certain public figures bigots when I don't know them that well does not merit an answer. I believe in using some discretion as to what I post here. I think I probably post too much anyway.
I think it is more appropriate to engage in interchanges between two people on e-mail, especially if its going to be a repeated exchange.
There are times when people have conflicting opinions and neither can change the other. Once each person has stated their opinion, sometimes a back-and-forth argument gets repetitive.
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 02:31:09 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
I understand that, Joy. I really do. But accusations are accusations and if there's no proof behind them I won't accept them. Even someone claiming that
they read this or that or had access to this or that is better but just someone *saying* something doesn't make it true.
I don't beleive my experiences with abused children are representative of the whole, and I don't think your and Carolyn's experiences with abused women are representative of the whole.
USA - Monday, January 14, 2002 at 00:02:42 (EST) from spider-tp011.proxy.aol.com
My computer won't copy and paste from the guestbook to the 'reply' space. Someday I'll get better at teaching myself HTML.
The thing is, undocumented abuse agaisnt women is just that: undocumented. You don't know if it exists because the evidence isn't there.
I simply don't accept that it's being done on a mass scale and it's a "silent" epidemic. Nobody's offered me evidence or even the indication that they once *saw* evidence that indicated that there is more domestic abuse going on out there than has been reported. However, I have personally looked at the numbers that suggest that domestic abuse happens far *less* than the public has been led to believe. I truly belive that the numbers are inflated, not underestimated. And someone making a claim that it's the opposite way around telling me it isn't so isn't going to have me automatically believing that, no matter how much I trust or like them or what I usually think about what they have to say. If it was my best friend who I've known since first grade making these kinds of claims, a person I know personally I would not believe her either just because she said so, even if she said she knew people who were abused herself.
I believe Linda Chavez wrote about the unlikeleihood of biological fathers committing ifnantidie around the time of the verdict of the Grossberg case. I took her at her word based on the fact that the Grossberg case is the only case I've known of where the mother has had "help". I should not have stated so and took Chavez at her word. But I grounded that on my own personal experience, which is wrong. I am sure there are statistics out there proving one way or the other. I just do not know where they are.
So, no, I am not going to take either Carolyn or PLM for their word when they claim that more women are being abused than the numbers indicate. Just because they say so doesn't make it true. I could claim here that the majority of child molesters practiced on chickens first or that most mothers who have killed their living children have had abortions in their past. However if I just make these claims without indicating that even *I* have accessed evidence that proves it I shouldn't expect anybody to believe me. Just because I know a child molester who practiced on a chicken first doesn't make me any more trustworthy.
Joy was right when she said I needed statistics to back up *my* accusations. I did not have them then: perhaps nobody should believe what I say. Later PLM provided a link that backs up some of what I said: perhaps people would believe that or maybe they think I am still a liar. They would be right ot think so and I am no better than Carolyn/PLM who make a baseless claim about domestic abuse rates being higher than is reported. I guess I'm sorry for that but the bottom line is I don't believe Carolyn's claim just because she insists it is so, nor should she beleive mine if I don't have back-up evidence for it. She may know some abused women: I feel truly sorry for them, but just because she personally knows some doesn't mean that they represent some unseen epidemic. I could pretty efficiently counter with that by saying I know some spectacular liars who have made baseless accusations about
their former partners which were later proven to be false. A few of these women even admitted they had lied. That doesn't mean that the majority of women who claim abuse are liars, just because I know a couple of liars.
The reports of inflated DA numbers can be found in Christina Hoff Sommer's book I Stole Feminism (and she had a lot of pretty reliable evidence herself)
and there's some info on the IWF site I think. See, there, lived up to my own rules, provided some statistics. I think that's always better than jsut a baselss accusation, and I'm sorry I went the other way with my other post, stating stuff I can't prove but that others can.
The bottum line is that I am not ready to believe Carolyn's claim just because she states it, no matter how much I respect her. If she chooses to view that as *personal* she can but I did not intend it that way.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 23:51:58 (EST) from spider-tp011.proxy.aol.com
Katie - I think you are underestimating violence against women. I am a Volunteer with Victim Assistance in my city. The majority of the calls we go on are Domestic Violence. And the vast majority of the calls it's the woman who is bruised, beaten and battered. And also it's not usually her that calls for help. It's neighbors or relatives. I am there when they take the pictures, fill out the reports, etc.
I'm not sure why you don't want to believe this is true... but you know the answer to that.
But it's not that people don't care... it's that the abused women don't seem to care. They keep going back and going back and going back... and I'll be the first to say that it makes me not care like I used to. It's frustrating because unless we can find a way to make these women care for and about themselves... it's not going to stop. Current methods of dealing with this problem are not working.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 23:29:23 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Carolyn, I didn't mean to imply that you were anti-male, but your post came off smelling . . . funky. Relatively "high" abuse rates for women have later been proved to be false (see IWF or CH Sommers's book) so I just don't believe that it's an epidemic and it's happening to tons and tons and tons of women and nobody cares. I think that kind of things happens on a much lesser level than people suspect, not on a a much higher level.
I also have known women who concocted 'abuse' stories to make the reputations of their ex husbands/boyfriends look worse than was the actuality. How many couples have you known, following the breakup of a relationship, where both partners stretch the truth relentlessly, sometimes outright lying? Spend any time with someone who's newly divorced and you catch on.
Women are not suppossed to doubt other women when they say something bad was going on. But women aren't immune from lying or spreading nasty rumours for revenge. Not that it always works.
The insinuation that there's this hidden 'epidemic' is something I don't buy. As always when something like that happens it is wrong but you have to know how those kinds of things sound to my ears. "Hidden" epidemics of "many many many" abused women sounds, well . . . fishy to me.
Maybe it's been too many years at college, surrounded by angry young women who truly do make up "epidemics" out of the back of their heads. But I just don't accept that there is this hidden domestic abuse episdemic going on that nobody pays attention to. In spite of all the flighty women and angry feminists I know and the doctored numbers of domestic violence that are out there, I have, well, trouble swallowing that.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 23:11:16 (EST) from spider-tp022.proxy.aol.com
Naomi Wolf is pro life? Hardly. I think there'd be a lot more to be said about if she was - modern feminism would DISOWN her and never say anything else about it.
Yes, she wrote a piece in The New Republic a couple of years ago that is embraced by the pro-life movement. But specifically within that piece she declares that she isn't pro-life, just that abortion is a bad thing and unborn babies have merit. I'm paraphrasing here, but she basically says that even though respect should be given to the unborn baby, the mother should still have the right "to decide if the baby, in its full humanity, must die". Doesn't sound very pro-life to me. What if she were to say that about born infants?
Of course, if evidence can be documented to prove to me that she actually changed her mind and is more than just ambivalent about the whole thing, I'll retract my words.
As for mandatory sterilization: not a good thing, but the risk of Andrea Yates getting out and murdering more children frightens me even more. I think people who have been as violent and sadistic as her should not be given the chance to go out in society and live like the rest of us. Better she is a) executed or b) lives the rest of her life in a prison or a mental instituion because it is unsafe to let her out. If she gets pregnant while in prison, the child should be taken away from her and raised by someone else, and her rights should be terminated, because she would be a danger to that child.
Frankly, if people like Yates got what they deserved, we wouldn't have to owrry about them doing such things again, because they wouldn't have the opportunity. They'd be either dead or locked up and unable to hurt a child.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 22:48:13 (EST) from spider-tp022.proxy.aol.com
"I'm sure people there are aware of the laws and they make sure not to break them." BWWAAAAAAAAAAaHAHAHAHAHhahahahAHAHAHAHHAhhahahahAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Snicker.... Oh my... now THAT is funny... Uh huh Monica...
So, you won't answer direct questions... you have twice accused me of lying when it was you who lied... Ahhhhhhhhhhh... now I see why you like the democrats... You accused someone of being a bigot, when CLEARLY you were the one being the bigot. And... YOU WON'T ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS.
Sheeeeesh... getting answers as opposed to whining out of liberals is like trying to get aliens to abduct someone who doesn't live in a trailer park.
**disclaimer** To all of you out there in cyber-land who live in trailer parks and HAVEN'T been abducted by aliens... my comment does not pertain to you. Thank you.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 21:13:14 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Monica, this is exactly what you said.
"KPFA is financed by LISTENERS' subscriptions and donations, NOT Gov'T $.
Joy was lying when she said we wanted free airtime and that it was financed by tax dollars. She also lied When she said we "rioted" and that we "tried to take over the station by force"."
I don't care how small of a portion it is. If it's that small than they'd have no problem returning it and not accepting any future government money, right?? The amount is not what matters here. What matters is that they are pushing an agenda while being financed partially by government money. Let them push their leftist agenda on their own dime.
CO USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 19:54:27 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
Monica, it is quite obvious that they DO push a political agenda and they do it on MY TAX DOLLARS. You are showing how screwed up your thinking is when you say that we are against free speech simply because we don't want to pay for leftists to go off on tirades. There is a HUGE difference between censoring someone and not paying for them to air their views. Learn that difference, Monica. By advocating the federal funding of this left wing station, you are infringing on MY freedoms by making me pay for this.
I have no problem with diverse opinions. But let them do it on THEIR dollar and NOT mine. THAT is true freedom, not what you advocate.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 19:51:29 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
Joy and Aaron, you are showing how committed you are to free speech and how tolerant you are of the expression of diverse opinions.
KPFA does not "push a political agenda". They present news, opinions and culture from diverse groups. I'm sure people there are aware of the laws and they make sure not to break them.
Monica Luz <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 19:08:54 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
"Monica - Neither Matt nor I said what you are saying we said. The only thing I can think of that came close to that was agreeing with Vlad's post about the issue of free speech in general. His post was not singaling out KPFA or Pacifica. So please find the quote that makes us liars.
Apparently we are going to post everything on both boards now...
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 18:58:39 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
So Monica, are you going to make KPFA give up it's tax-exempt status due to the rules of the 501 (C)(3)? Also, are you aware that due to the fact that KPFA DOES attempt to influence public policy, and they have a political agenda, that legally they need to forfit their status and pay back taxes on all funds collected? Are you going to push for this as well? In the name of freedom?
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 18:57:46 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Sorry Hilary, I didn't read your post carefully enough, that you are NOT a mother. Better, at age 18. God bless you and good for you for speaking on the issues.
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 18:56:39 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
JOy's and Matt's lie was not in saying that Pacifica and KPFA got some government funds. It was in saying we wanted the station provided free when we're supporting it with our own donations.
The link itself shows that the government funding is only a small percentage of the budget and the majority of the money comes from listener donation.
AS a listener I will campaign for KPFA and Pacifica to not take government funding and only take listener donations or grants from private foundations, and that limited, so they maintain their independence.
I think the issue of whether to accept Federal money from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting was one of the disagreements between KPFA and the Pacifica Found. Governing Board in the 1990's. The original intent of the Pacifica Foundation was not to take money from big corporations or the government, and to rely on listener donations so it would be independent of the influence of the government or big businesses.
There were no riots in 1999, only peaceful protests.
Joy, thank you for one good thing, telling me how to make spaces and paragraph breaks. Blocks of print that are too big are hard to read, and I tend to stop reading.
Freaks R'Us <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 18:46:28 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
As a 501(c)(3) contractual entity there are three strings attached to this federal "contract" (and ask your attorney if you don't believe me). They are: 1) a limit on the amount of contributions that the tax-exempt entity may make to a political action committee, 2) no ability to try and influence the outcome of elections from the pulpit and 3) no ability to try and influence matters of "public policy" either.
This is why many churches set up as a Corporation Sole State statutory entity. Those rules do not apply to those.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 16:47:56 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
On a side note, KPFA is a charitable, 501(c)3 organization. These types of organizations are not allowed to push a political agenda. It is a violation of the Internal Revenue Code. They should have their 501(c)3 status yanked and lose their federal funding. That way they'd be fre eto say whatever they want, but not on my dime and they'd have to pay taxes like the rest of us.
CO USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 15:36:08 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
Joy posted this link on the other GB. I think it is relevant here, not only to show that she was telling the truth about KPFA receiving federal funding, but that Monica was lying when she said that they didn't.
A word to the wise: check your facts before spouting off.
CO USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 15:31:51 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
Careful everybody, Joy is a Gov't agent (according to Monica) who can't be trusted to tell the truth!
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 15:27:13 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
"And in 1998 KPFA received $257,172 of Government funds." That was the year before the RIOTS... as described by the LIBERALS and the liberal press.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 14:53:44 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Hilary, may God bless you and your child. I wish you happiness whether you choose to raise your child or give it up for adoption.
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 13:53:19 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
" It is not incumbent on society, at large, to provide free airtime or print-space."
As long as ANY of my tax dollars are being spent, they do not have the right to spew forth liberal garbage. "
KPFA is financed by LISTENERS' subscriptions and donations, NOT Gov'T $.
Joy was lying when she said we wanted free airtime and that it was financed by tax dollars. She also lied When she said we "rioted" and that we "tried to take over the station by force". The truth is that when some members of the Pacifica Foundation Board of Directors who didn't share Pacifica ideals took over and shut down KPFA by force, listeners in the community responded with a peaceful protest during the summer of 1999. Since then we used peaceful protests and legal means. We have had some victories.
I think Joy's lies were deliberate. They remind me of dirty tricks used by the FBI's Cointelpro program to undermine political movements in the US and the CIA to undermine movements and governments in other countries the US
Government didn't like. I think she may be working for the US political police.
Monica Luz <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 13:43:05 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
sorry for not reply but i was away; i'm not a mother i'm only 18 and i'm doing a speech where i have to try and get in to the head of the person who has been treated this way. i must have been pretty convincing.
why don't you ever talk about the next step here; you go on about abortion being bad, but even though you talk about parenthood you never talk about adoption; have you guys ever heard of the white flower assoication.
UK - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 13:20:33 (EST) from host62-7-57-35.btinternet.com
" Now I just wish someone could get NPR to read the Constitution once in a while...."
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 12:29:58 (EST) from 209-145-163-10.dsl.accessus.net
"High-Five" to Joy!
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 11:26:43 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
"leftist or liberal "freaks" don't deserve free speech." Now you are just flat out lying. Read what Matt posted with my quote and Vlad's. And read it several times to see if maybe you can comprehend it.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 11:00:39 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
This is what Joy actually said.
"Monica, you only call it free-speech because what they aired was the extreme left view of people such as Louis Farrakhan. Now, I will fight to have even people like him able to voice their disgusting views, but not on my dollar!
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:05:18 (EST)
That hardly sounds like Joy is against Freedon, now does it, Monica?
Vlad's comment is very appropriate, so I'll quote it here:
"Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly only guarantee the opportunity to express a viewpoint, not a free medium to broadcast or print opinions. It is not incumbent on society, at large, to provide free airtime or print-space."
As long as ANY of my tax dollars are being spent, they do not have the right to spew forth liberal garbage. End of story. Now I just wish someone could get NPR to read the Constitution once in a while....
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 09:06:07 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
Andrea Yates is a "prime candidate for forced sterilization" because dead people can't breed.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 08:43:48 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
Melissa, Naomi Wolf wrote an article saying she had turned against abortion after having her daughter and criticising the left/liberal/feminist support of it. I think this was a few years ago.
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 04:19:59 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
Joy, when you suggest Andrea Yates is a "prime candidate for forced sterilization" are you seriously suggesting the government should have the power to coercively sterilize people?
I admit that when I read or hear about parents committing murder or horrendous child abuse against their own offspring, I have the thought that people inclined to commit these acts shouldn't be allowed to have children.
But I worry about giving the government the power to decide who should reproduce. I think someone who killed their children wouldn't be hard to convince to forego having more children voluntarily and use effective methods to prevent pregnancy.
You say people shouldn't question the President's actions and policies, and leftist or liberal "freaks" don't deserve free speech. Now you're advocating giving the government the power to coerce sterilization. You say you're for freedom?
Freaks 'R Us <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 03:48:15 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
We should get VRWC tee-shirts.
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 00:44:50 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Aaron - I bask in it! :o]
USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 00:41:09 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Joy - Isn't it a great thing to find out you have just become part of the infamous Vast RIght Wing Conspiracy??
CO USA - Sunday, January 13, 2002 at 00:11:00 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
I hear a very high-pitched whiny sound... is that what you guys hear? Sounds like the faint wailing of a Perennial Victim... those are particularly nasty little bugs. And leave an icky, smelly brown substance wherever they land... PU!
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 22:29:24 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"Wait a minute -- just thought of something --does that mean I'm becoming . . . a . . . CONSERVATIVE? Arghhhhh!"
YOU SHALL BE ABSORBED! Welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy! :o]
You'll love it here! You're FREE, you're FREE!
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 22:11:08 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
It must have been something.
I think that if we just ignore it, it may eventually just go away.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 20:58:08 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Did somebody say something? I thought I heard a weak, whining sound.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 18:22:10 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
Boy, Melissa, I'd have dropped a class like that, too.
CA USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 17:32:01 (EST) from dial-161.arc-01.lodinet.com
I continue to find it incredible a Gender Class even exists as a subject to be taught. Of course, "gender" always means female.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 16:48:41 (EST) from adsl-156-181-77.gsp.bellsouth.net
Matt, just because one remains silent on a particular issue or point does not indicate agreement. Were that so, all those in here who do not deny my claims about women must be in agreement.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 16:46:17 (EST) from adsl-156-181-77.gsp.bellsouth.net
Well, at least Femichael didn't deny being a hypocrite.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 16:17:45 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Hope that wasn't a required class, Melissa!
While I can see your point in dropping the class, it coulda been kinda fun. I took Political Science from a socialist professor last year. We argued like crazy, to the point of being at each others throats(not literally, of course)! I was able to change a few minds in the class, and at least make some others think about the right-wing in a new light (even if they didn't agree).
And by the way, I got an A. :-)
L.G., WI USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 16:06:09 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Well folks, I guess I am a certified wimp. Why? Because I dropped my Gender (Sociology 122) class. I took one look at the syllabus and decided I did not want to hear that women-as-victims-pro-abort-the-only-good-men-are-gay nonsense, plus I did not wish to buy the required books by women like Naomi Wolf, thus adding to their already hefty bank accounts. I'm sorry, I just don't feel like paying to be annoyed by this stuff. Wait a minute -- just thought of something --does that mean I'm becoming . . . a . . . CONSERVATIVE? Arghhhhh!
Philly, PA USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 15:49:46 (EST) from 0-1pool157-190.nas1.philadelphia1.pa.us.da.qwest.net
What you are doing femepsycho/michael is the equivelent of an anti-semitic bigot invading a Jewish web-site. Spewing hatred for Jews all over their message board and then expecting them to engage in 'respectful' conversation with you. It ain't gonna happen.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 13:28:24 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
And that "name here," EXCUSES anything anyone else posts to me. They are not responsible for THEIR vile comments. I made them say those things. Nope, doesn't wash. Just as I am responsible for my posts so too are they. Regardless of what I say, it is their CHOICE to be as they are. Shifting the blame to me is just shifting responsibility away from them. Now and then, however, I am pleasantly surprised as in Sue's response on the Freud thing. It was neither disrespectful nor hateful, proving IS possible.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 12:53:30 (EST) from adsl-20-146-139.gsp.bellsouth.net
< br > to go to the next line. < p > to skip a line. Only leave out the spaces between the < and the br, etc. :o]
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 11:41:08 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"...I realize it's probably a waste of time to respond to either Sue or Joy, as they are pretty much incapable of giving a calm, respectful response, but ..." Sorry Fem, you don't deserve any respect. It's really quite comical when you reveal just how hypocritical you are, whining about lack of respect while you continually diss half of the world'd population! How do I get this text to show breaks for paragraphs, anyway?
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 07:52:27 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
My condolences, Vlad.
My grandma died last Thurs., and I went to the funeral Tues. She lived to be a youngish 92. She was in relatively good health until about a year or so ago, when she broke her hip, then her femur, then had two strokes. She also had battled congestive heart failure for years, so it all caught up with her.
CA USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 02:29:25 (EST) from dial-190.arc-01.lodinet.com
What excellent timing that I have.
I've been gone for a couple of days and check the guestbook right now while being mentioned.
I had to unexpected travel to Galveston.
My Grandma died, so I went to the funeral. She lived to be 103 years old.
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 02:23:21 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Hey Vlad! You snubbing us??? Sheeeesh... You better not be snubbing us! :oD
USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 01:25:18 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I just saw him over @ Lucianne.com (he's Junior Sample @ BR549). They don't allow chatting over there, though.
CA USA - Saturday, January 12, 2002 at 01:10:52 (EST) from dial-190.arc-01.lodinet.com
Hey Vlad? You out there? Where have ya been? How's it going? **waving**
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 23:32:01 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Who is Ani DiFranco?
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 23:08:03 (EST) from dial-219.arc-01.lodinet.com
I'm not queer, and I listen to some of Ani DiFranco's older stuff.
L.G., WI USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 22:32:51 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Ouside of the queer community, who listens to Ani DiFreako anyway?
- Friday, January 11, 2002 at 22:29:39 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Melissa, I grew up in New York, the Empire State (which deserves that nickname now that Hillary was elected), I eagerly left and will never move back. Even the Republicans are liberals. I was sick and tired of being swamped by the-sky-is-falling
environmentalists, abortion industry workers, bilingualists, illegal
immigrants, ideolgically homeless ex-communists, communists, felons, convicted felons, pornographers posing as artists,propagandists posing as journalists, food stamp junkies, anti-american multiculturalists, hard core
feminists, abused and abusable women, the venereally diseased,antitabacco facists, antireligeous bigots, pro-gay
clergy, gay clergy, government employees, union bosses, government
contractors, the sexually disoriented, educrats, trial lawyers, drug addicts, race hustlers, professional victims and NAMBLA members. Guiliani was one of the first to consider what was the right thing to do over what was politically popular and he is a brave man for doing so. But don't expect Bloomberg to have the guts to follow in his footsteps.
CO USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 22:19:58 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Denver1.Level3.net
I have two words for a "mother" like that: spay her.
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 22:02:43 (EST) from dial-219.arc-01.lodinet.com
Speaking of women and violence, recently in Philly a woman gave birth in the restroom of her workplace, threw the baby headfirst in the garbage, and then went back to the break room, bleeding. The cops and firefighters were called, and found the poor kid (still alive), in the garbage, with his little legs sticking out. The firefighter interviewed on television seemed pretty disgusted by the whole thing. And the woman denies that the baby is hers, and even that she was ever pregnant! The woman was charged with attempted manslaughter, and now I'm just waiting for the chorus of feminist apologists, explaining that the poor dear was 1) under stress; 2) couldn't speak English 3) was only thirty-four and didn't know better. Hopefully this story will have a happy ending, because the news reports that dozens of people have called wanting to adopt the baby. I just hope he's never told how he came into the world . . .
Philly, PA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 21:54:16 (EST) from 0-1pool157-254.nas1.philadelphia1.pa.us.da.qwest.net
Well, mysogynists usually have problems rooted in their relationship with their mothers, and Freud seemed to address them best. Freudians might actually help mysogynists get over their mom problems.
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 21:51:06 (EST) from dial-219.arc-01.lodinet.com
Some sickening news from the Empire State: Michael Bloomberg, rich-boy-turned-mayor, wants to mandate abortion training at NYC hospitals (seems with all the carnage that just happened there a few months back, he'd have other things to do)! And Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is issuing subpoenas to dozens of CPC's in the city and across the state, accusing them of misleading women, false advertising, etc., ad nauseum. If there's anybody here from the People's Republic of New York, you have my condolences!
Philly, PA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 21:45:14 (EST) from 0-1pool157-254.nas1.philadelphia1.pa.us.da.qwest.net
Sorry, Chuck, I realize it's probably a waste of time to respond to either Sue or Joy, as they are pretty much incapable of giving a calm, respectful response, but ...
Lets see, Joy, if I go to someone who blames everything on a woman (Mom) and I already dislike women, exactly how would I "benefit" from this as Sue intimates?
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 21:00:14 (EST) from adsl-20-146-139.gsp.bellsouth.net
For god's sake femepsycho, that's what she meant! Jeeeeeeez...
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 18:45:09 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I'm still waiting on my four fried chickens and a coke. At least we're back onto some intelligent conversation here :-D
Ron (the poster formally known as Ron) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Left Coast, CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 18:32:09 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
*sigh* Here we go again,,,,,,
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 18:17:51 (EST) from A020-0400.CLMB.splitrock.net
Didn't Freud blame everything on dear old Mom?
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 17:56:47 (EST) from adsl-20-146-139.gsp.bellsouth.net
Given your attitude about mothers, you'd probably benefit from seeing a Freudian shrink.
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 17:54:15 (EST) from dial-189.arc-01.lodinet.com
Mmmm, fried chicken....
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 17:52:38 (EST) from dial-189.arc-01.lodinet.com
PLM, I can understand why you think as you do about my post, given my stance on women. I was, however, referring to "Mothers" as a class. Of course it is only SOME women. That's obvious. In a similar manner I could refer to "Mothers" as being THE cause of all births. Not just the leading cause. Also I could say Fathers are THE leading cause of Mothers. Not the only cause what with artificial insemination of anonymous donors. Or Dogs are the leading cause of childhood animal bites. Doesn't mean all dogs bite children. It's true, I WILL vilify women ... often (someone's gotta do it). I'll make no apologies for it. This can be construed as one of those cases if you wish, but then so could Katie's remarks.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 17:21:01 (EST) from adsl-20-146-139.gsp.bellsouth.net
There you go again, Poultricide, like everyone else, twisting my words!!
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 16:57:18 (EST) from dial-192.arc-01.lodinet.com
Of course, Sue, you don't differentiate...are you referring to chicken as I, or to monkey like Femenerd?
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 16:45:37 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I thought I was bad...Sue, you need to seek some help!
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 16:40:37 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I believe that makes mothers the third or fourth leading cause of childhood mortality If one counts
abortion as the killing of infants, then mothers are THE leading cause of infant mortality.
*sigh* SOME mothers, Mich...-I mean Femicide, etc. Most mothers would not dream of hurting their own kid or killing as such. If we looked at generalizations, not SPECIFICS in cases, we could argue for 100% sole father custody, but that would be discrimination. Abortion SHOULD be counted, its larceny its often NOT, this is agreeable. If men could choose, many of THEM would also choose abortion. Thats why so many single mother boards online are littered with dumped females who termed when he wanted "it" gone who moan over his absence or failure to willingly pay child support. Behavior, NOT gender is the key to understanding wrong and right and describing blame. Its amazing how EVERY chance you get to "prove" the evil of women you take! Women are as susceptable to social conditioning as men are, just as many women read Glamour magazine in the stores and BELIEVE abortion is "about women's rights" as did MEN of "owning" their wives in the 1800's, its not about innate evil of the species called female! Should we, Femicide, establish as many motherless homes as possible to rectify the situation you describe, so we can ape the current unhealthy fatherless ones in reverse? I cant imagine how THAT would help kids any more than the current mess, if thats what you are wishing for. The solution is stemming the violence or abuse, not bashing mothers for their sex. As a general rule, I dont like fatherless homes, I also dont care for motherless ones as a general rule-unless in SPECIFIC cases the parent is abusive and unreformable. You make it sound like motherhood is dangerous to children, it is NOT. If you condemned behavior, not gender, you wouldnt tick so many off. If women said "look who does MOST of the raping of the opposite sex" you could find SOME women that may have raped a man, but probably much more men that raped women, so should they claim most men are innate raper tendencied, due to the stats (like mothers and child abuse) instead of merely opposing ALL rape?
Austin, TX USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 16:40:27 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
Carolyn: Can we expect some new Rightgrrl articles soon? Will we have to wait until the big move is finished? (I understand if we do) Miss ya ;P
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 16:20:03 (EST) from A010-0848.CLMB.splitrock.net
"Strike three is undocumented research I wish I could dig up, which indicated that 55% of murders committed by parents are committed by the mother. I believe there was something along the line of higher child abuse rates committed by women as well."
Here you go ... http://familymatters.org/dvca_glr.htm
I believe that makes mothers the third or fourth leading cause of childhood mortality If one counts abortion as the killing of infants, then mothers are THE leading cause of infant mortality.
"You think Andrea Yates was the last woman to murder her child (her born child, that is)? Hardly. Though the others haven't gotten sympathetic press coverage, celebrities speak up for them, or feminist organizations setting up defense funds. "
Yes, I know women kill their children all the time, I just was not aware of any others even approaching the magnitude of horror in what Yates did since those killings.
Glad to see you sold your records instead of burning them like some. Never saw the point of that. The performer already has the money. At least you can get some of it back.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 16:16:14 (EST) from adsl-20-146-156.gsp.bellsouth.net
P.S., You can use a switchblade to cut the pieces if you like, but it will probably be awkward.
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 15:39:45 (EST) from dial-192.arc-01.lodinet.com
Try cutting up what's known as a "fryer". Dredge the pieces in a mixture of flour, dry ranch dressing mix, a little cayenne pepper, and a little cornmeal. Dip them in a mixture of milk, garlic powder, onion powder, salt and pepper. Then, after they drain a bit, dredge them in the flour mixture again. If you want to drive the tastebuds wild, try dredging again and sprinkling with a little more cayenne, salt and black pepper.
Then, when it's least expected, plunge the pieces in bubbling oil.
Don't you dare infer that I've actually ever done this, though, or that no consent was given on anyone's part.
CA USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 15:38:16 (EST) from dial-192.arc-01.lodinet.com
It's just like you, Feme, to distort facts and change the subject. Who wants to talk about the loathing of monkeys as opposed to the loathing of chickens? I thought we were buds. Or do you loathe monkeys to? Oh, I get it...I brought up "Howard the Duck", and you are bringing up "Planet of the Apes".
Col. Sanders, the poster and antagonist formerly known as Poultricide
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 15:09:24 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Monkey see monkey do.
Michael ... The artist formerly known as Femecide
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 15:05:42 (EST) from adsl-20-146-156.gsp.bellsouth.net
And if you think it's far fetched...you've never seen "Howard the Duck"!
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 15:03:44 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
No, my movie would take quite a different cluck. It would not include any slaughter of men by women, but chickens. For example, using the "Post Raisin Bran" theme so popular in recent decades:
Salomanilla would wipe out 99.9% of the population, leaving, as a lasting consequence, a weakening of the Y chromosome. This would result in fewer humans being born alive, eventually, after hundreds of years, also resulting in a population ration of, say, 10,000 chickens to 1 human. The few humans, while happy and well treated, would be required to give sperm for artificial insemination on a regular basis to keep the worlds population up and get it to grow again. After the population reached about 5 million or so, of which only about 500 would be human, the bulk of the movie would begin. From there it would dramatize that chickens, once faced with the same pressures and forces with which humans have had to contend forever, will make much the same choices, leading to a world "chickstory" not much different today's history, which would be the main point of it. This, as opposed to the current thinking the world would be soooo much more peaceful were chickens running it.
Col. Sanders, poster and antagonist formerly known as Poultricide
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 15:02:01 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
No, my movie would take quite a different track. It would not include any slaughter of men by women, or vice versa. For example, using the "Post Apocalyptic" theme so popular in recent decades:
A plague would wipe out 99.9% of the population, leaving, as a lasting consequence, a weakening of the Y chromosome. This would result in fewer males being born alive, eventually, after hundreds of years, also resulting in a population ration of, say, 10,000 to 1. The few males, while happy and well treated, would be required to give sperm for artificial insemination on a regular basis to keep the worlds population up and get it to grow again. After the population reached about 5 million or so, of which only about 500 would be male, the bulk of the movie would begin. From there it would dramatize that women, once faced with the same pressures and forces with which men have had to contend forever, will make much the same choices, leading to a world "herstory" not much different today's history, which would be the main point of it. This, as opposed to the current thinking the world would be soooo much more peaceful were women running it.
Michael ... The artist formerly known as Femecide
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 14:37:17 (EST) from adsl-20-146-156.gsp.bellsouth.net
PLM says there is a double standard, but there really isn't. Why not? *Because men very rarely kill
newborn children*. That's strike one in the theory that women are less violent than men.
This is true. The least likely killer of a child is her biological father. We see alot *stepfathers*, in father absent homes with a father substitute doing the maimings, too. When women raise children alone, in poverty, is when we see the higher rates of mothers abusing, because the stress is too much and this speaks loudly for two parent homes. THIS is why we need biological fathers in the home at all times if possible. We as a society focus on .000000126 % of men who beat women into a miscarriage, pass "unborn victims of Violence acts" and BOTH sides of the abortion debate call such men evil and say it abuses female reproductive choice if she cant choose to TERM all WHILE abortion is "legal" and the lawsfor penalties proposed EXEMPT FEMALES (not only "on table" abortions but if SHE hits herself with a baseball bat) while ignoring the forced abortions over the objections of the father, which happen ALOT more often beyond any doubt whatsoever in abortions, daily. I have personally dealt and known men who had their kids killed in utero against their will, but the "laws" excused the woman who did it, their own mother. Soltys, by logic, IF he'd been a woman would have been noted as a poor mental case, but he's male, so he cant be released and gets no sympathy. Yate's kills even MORE of her babies than Mr Soltys did, and gets sympathy and passes from both liberals AND some conservatives AND the media. The tv crucifies Soltys! Both were wrong. The fact that women get passes SHOWS us, as Katie alludes, WHY abortion is STILL "legal" and defended. As long as WOMEN are the one's getting pregnant, that is. Society refsuses to assign the same LEVEL of moral cuplability and responsibility on FEMALES that is does on MALES. In murders, violence, OR child support. Speaking of child support monies-if a man "runs" he's a deadbeat dad-if a woman aborts, she's a champion of female reproductive choice! Since several women who dont want to pay support abort, these correspond to the men who run and refuse to pay support, and have to drug to court and DNA tested to pay up. So, since ALL women can abort if they feel they dont want a child, of COURSE you never "see" those women in the courts, because they stopped the baby from exiting their body except in a body BAG. Since men cant abort, the baby simply terms biologically and he tries to avoid paying child support. Both sexes have irresponsible clods, but just one (women) has the ability to control outcome as a protected "Constitutional" "right" to avoifd paying child support by FORCE. What society needs to ban abortion is an ethic, a Constitutional gaurantee of EQUAL AND IDENTICAL treatment of men and women in these matters. Pure biology like impregation and gestation, should be "givens" and NEITHER GENDER should be able by law and society to twist those to their advantage to harm others. So, women shoudl be barred from using the gestation excuse, and men from the "multiple impregnation" assymetry argument, etc. IOW,*BOTH* SEXES CHOICES UNILATERALLY MUST END AT EACH SEX ACT. Problem solved...
Austin, TX USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 13:57:01 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
Like I said, Joy, Matt, There are certain other individuals I couldn't give a rats rear end if they agree or not.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 13:53:58 (EST) from adsl-20-146-156.gsp.bellsouth.net
What do you think of "SatanCreatedWomen"
Femicide's movie if HE would direct one. Plot: Woman (whose soul is possessed by Satan) schemes to destroy men using sexual attractiveness to induce permanent "blue b@lls" condition on all men she meets, thereby causing so much agony they die in various ways like pain induced car accidents, etc. At the end of the film the woman all make their own planet, kill off or send to Mars the males, (where they can make war because its the war planet) while the woman set up a poison apple garden with snakes on luscious Earth, and stop using their Medusa head attachments because no men exist to turn to stone...
Austin, TX USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:45:42 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
or that many, many, many women are abused
like Carolyn claims (I don't know if she realized exactly how anti-male her post was).
I have NEVER known Carolyn Gargaro to be "antimale" in the least as far as I know! Pointing out the facts doesnt make one antimale or antiwoman, etc. As she noted, alot of female on male violence is ignored, and exists, and is unacceptable. That means she argued with the notion that such abuse is ok because a male is the target and or a woman is the perp. DV on women exists AND is highly media publicized. It isnt LESS wrong due to its more "political correctness" nor does it not exist because 20/20 talks about it more. BOTH and ALL violence (men on women, women on men women on women and men on men) is equally wrong and inhumane. In what way does that make her post or the poster antimale??? One error alot of persons, even well meaning ones make, is to get too caught up in their gender shell and assume the other gender is ill willed or has it easy and so forth, instead of practicing gender equity and preaching it as well. This is a common knock on feminists of today, who SAY they want equality but want special rules and laws and exemptions for women only instead of equal protection and treatment. I dont think you can stick Gargaro here so easily, because her approach seems based on equal rights without catches...
Austin, TX USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:36:18 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
What Nick? Who do you think you are? No one here made you rooster of this guestbook. Nor you, Matt. And your little cheering section of hens, high winging each other in the hen house. I vote Femecide stay!! I enjoy getting pointers on how to treat them hens like a hen wants to be treated!!
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:32:17 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Like it would do any good, but here it is: yea.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:30:26 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Here here Matt! I concur!
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:22:51 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
A femecide by any other name would smell as rotten.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:21:48 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I personally wish you would find somewhere else to spend your time, regardless of what you call yourself.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:21:14 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
What do you think of "SatanCreatedWomen
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:14:40 (EST) from carolyn.interstat.net
I've been thinking of changing my nickname out of deference to certain individuals in here (certain other individuals I couldn't give a rats patotie if they like it or not).
What do you think of "SatanCreatedWomen"? If not, how about "Michael," my middle name (since I can't use my first name, Adam)?
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:12:12 (EST) from adsl-20-146-156.gsp.bellsouth.net
"with a fetus holding court in my gut"
How have we allowed "fetus" to replace "baby" in the abortion vocabulary? This will always piss me off - They are Babies, and calling them something different will not change that fact.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 12:11:01 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
I don't think women are naturally
less violent than men, or that many, many, many women are abused like Carolyn claims (I don't know if she realized exactly how
anti-male her post was).
Anti-male? How on earth is my post saying how abuse against men is sometimes ignored and shouldn't be an anit-male post? Both men AND women are abused - it's amazing that I am now anti-male because I say that both sexes are abused. I guess the women I know who have had the living hell beat out of them are figments of my imagination? (and saying I know of women who have been abused in no way implies that men are not abused also).
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 11:40:14 (EST) from carolyn.interstat.net
Well isn't that just sick... :o\
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 11:37:52 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Just so everyone knows what Katie's talking about when she mentions DiFranco's poem Tiptoe, here it is:
tiptoeing through the used condoms
strewn on the piers off the west side highway
sunset behind the skyline of jersey
walking towards the water
with a fetus holding court in my gut
my body highjacked
my tits swollen and sore
the river has more colors at sunset than my sock drawer
ever dreamed of
i could wake up screaming sometimes but
i could step off the end of this pier
but i've got sh*t to do
and i've an appointment on tuesday
to shed uninvited blood and tissue
i'll miss you
i say to the river
to the water
to the son or daughter i thought better of
i could fall in love with jersey at sunset
but i leave
to the rats
and tiptoe back
L.G., WI USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 11:28:43 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Andrea Yates is a prime candidate for forced sterilization.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 11:27:37 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"Carolyn claims (I don't know if she realized exactly how anti-male her post was)." Carolyn is not anti-male, nor is she anti-female. She's anti-bullshit. :oD
Katie - It's common practice here to copy and paste the portion of a person's post you are responding to. I wouldn't have any idea which of Carolyn's words you are commenting about, nor do I have time to look.
Also, I don't know where you get your 'statistics' from... You need to reference a source. :o]
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 11:25:16 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"They both had rights... her to keep her knees shut, and his to keep his freakin pants zipped! When they chose to have sex they gave up their 'rights".
Amen, Sister Joy, you preach it, girl! This would solve the whole abortion, STD, adultry, issue.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 10:07:18 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Still looking farther down:
This may sound naive or anti-woman or un-PC (like *I* care), but I have to agree with PLM somewhat. I don't think women are naturally less violent than men, or that many, many, many women are abused like Carolyn claims (I don't know if she realized exactly how anti-male her post was).
It's pretty well documented that the murder of infants does carry a heavy punishment, 2-3 years at most. PLM says there is a double standard, but there really isn't. Why not? *Because men very rarely kill newborn children*. That's strike one in the theory that women are less violent than men. Strike two is the very high abortion rate, which involves women voluntarily doing violence to their own children. Strike three is undocumented research I wish I could dig up, which indicated that 55% of murders committed by parents are committed by the mother. I beleive there was something along the line of higher child abuse rates committed by women as well. Strike four is the afterword of a book called The Angel of Darkness by Caleb Carr, during which the author wrote that according to his research, while men engage in violence agaisnt people they don't know, women engage in it againt people they do know.
And I don't care if it's anti-woman or naive -- I simply do not believe that the majority of men out there are beating and torturing their partners or that the majority of women are being beat by men and not saying anything. Bear it to say I know more men that are naturally chilvalrous than I know women who are apt to spreading rumours about people they don't like.
People don't like to admit it. But women can be sadistic, violent, manipulative, cruel. They are not morally superior to men, no matter what EC Stanton said, and they can (and do) do pretty awful things.
Women get more leeway in this world when they commit acts of violence: for instance, Andrea Yates is a victim, Soltys is a predator. Yet if Yates is released, she is a danger to her future children and possibly to the rest of us.
Soltys killed several members of nis family, including his wife and his two-year-old son. It's not safe to release *him* either. Yates isn't any less dangerous cuz she's female.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 01:43:27 (EST) from AC8FD512.ipt.aol.com
Looking a little bit farther down:
Actually, I think Ani Difranco's "Tiptoe" is a celebration of abortion. She pretty much ruthlessly celebrates 'shedding scar and tissue' and makes other pretty graphic and insesnitive references to the situation. The live recording of several young women CHEERING to hear her recite this is pretty disturbing.
Then again, knowing many of the types of people who make up her core audience, I'm not surprised. These women are pretty much people who fit every stereotype of the militant lesbian feminist imaginable.
I used to listen to Difranco, but it was on the strength of "Tiptoe" and that "Hello Birmingham" song that I sold all my CDs. Sometimes you can ignore those kinds of things, and sometimes you jsut can't put up with it any more.
I suppose the fact that I live in Birmingham didn't help any.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 01:08:56 (EST) from AC8FD512.ipt.aol.com
You think Andrea Yates was the last woman to murder her child (her born child, that is)? Hardly. Though the others haven't gotten sympathatic press coverage, celebirties spekig up for them, or feminist organizations setting up defense funds.
USA - Friday, January 11, 2002 at 00:25:36 (EST) from spider-wk021.proxy.aol.com
"Femecide - the 50s were great; they gave us Ike, Lucy, and Elvis."
Among others. I guess, having grown up during that time, I'm prejudiced, but they were the golden age of this country. After WW2, the 50s seemed like a new beginning for everyone. We, as a nation have gotten richer and bigger, becoming the "baddest" kids on the block, but not necessarily better. Everything's crowded. Job security is a thing of the past. Companies are cutthroat to the point of ruthlessness. For the first time, wages are down. The middle class is eroding. The law is insane and out of control. I guess it all gets down to the survival of the fittest. It's God's greatest joke on humanity. He puts us down on a planet in which every species eats each other. Kill or be killed all around us, extreme violence on a daily basis, yet expects us NOT to do likewise. I don't think it's working out. Sometimes I am grateful I probably won't be around long enough to have to suffer the final collapse. Forgive me, for rambling.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 22:47:57 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
"And last but not least, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (okay, that's probably the wrong name) which asks that when an unborn child dies as the result of a violent act, that charges may be pressed for murder."
I thought NOW was also against that thinking because it would lead to the conclusion the "fetus" IS a human being BEFORE birth. As I understand it, they have opposed any such laws because it would lead to a direct line to banning abortion. Of course with the law being as obfuscated as it is these days, I guess someone can come up with a "reasoning" as to why one is murder, but abortion is not.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 22:12:07 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
"Katie, I agree totally with your last post. Especially regarding the Yates monster (and the others since her). "
There have been others since her?
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 21:35:34 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
Well, that's one of the reasons I stear clear of the male vs female debate where 'rights' are concerned. Because I say the BABY should have the 'rights' not the infanticidal parents of either gender! They both had rights... her to keep her knees shut, and his to keep his freakin pants zipped! When they chose to have sex they gave up their 'rights.'
And if what you're describing is on those sites, thanks but no thanks. I'd be kicked off in two posts... maybe one. :o]
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 19:49:42 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Joy, check out some of the pro-life clubs on Yahoo! I have gotten myself kicked out of three of them now. Go to the Feminists For Life website (www.feministsforlife.org) and read some of their literature. Speeches by most of the major pro-life organizations tend to touch on these themes, about the the poor, poor women.
I'd like to add as a sidenote that most pro-life organizations make it a point to say "we care about unborn babies and their mothers". I'm sorry, but the mother is the one doing violence to the child: in my mind, she is ALWAYS secondary. And why not unborn babies and their parents?
And last but not least, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (okay, that's probably the wrong name) which asks that
when an unborn child dies as the result of a violent act, that charges may be pressed for murder. But wait! Women doing violence get exempted. Why is it only a crime when someone other than the mother attacks the child? I say if you;re going to pursue these things, go after *everyone* who does harm to the child, including the mother. American Life League ws the only pro-life organization that opposed this act: every other pro-life organization endorsed an act that would excuse a mother from being punished for doing violence to her child, while anyone else would be sent to jail. If that isn't a bias towards women, I don't know what is.
Many pro-life columnists wrote of pro-choice organizations that opposed this act as "extremists". But are they? I for one though they were just being consistent.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 19:37:11 (EST) from spider-we011.proxy.aol.com
Katie, I agree totally with your last post. Especially regarding the Yates monster (and the others since her).
L.G., WI USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 19:19:10 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
My point wasn't to argue whether single motherhood/fatherhood was good/bad, simply that a woman has other options besides the man. The idea that a woman is "forced" to have an abortion when her partner threatens to leave her if she doesn't get one leads to a whole bunch of ridiculous assumptions, that a woman cannot survive without a man, that a woman needs a man to guide all of her decisions, that a woman's entire livelihood is gone when she loses her man. Oh, please.
The way this whole Yates thing is going I really fear new laws being drafted that excuse women from killing their children, because motherhood is just such an awesome burden. That may be out-there, but I've gotten flak from people for even criticizing the woman, and national celebirties and newscasters see her as a worthy cause. Maybe it's not so far-out after all. ut such a thing is a disaster, because a woman ruthless and violent enough to kill her own children (and especially one who did so in the manner that Yates did - premeditated, systematically, with her own bare hands) is possibly a danger to everyone.
I'm not sure if pro-lifers going out of their way not to criticize anyone is even a PR thing anymore. So many of them seem to believe it, that a woman cannot make decisions on her own and that she is not responsible for the ones she does make. aybe that amkes me anti-woman, or criticizing people of the female gender for the things they do: I don't really care. It seems more anti-woman to me to deny that womena re rational beings responsible for the bad things they do. Not to mention ouright STUPID. But that' jsut me.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 19:16:46 (EST) from spider-we011.proxy.aol.com
Femecide - the 50s were great; they gave us Ike, Lucy, and Elvis.
Left Coast, CA USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 19:05:30 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
One more thing Katie... many pro-lifers used to be pro-aborts. And for many, having an abortion is what changed their minds.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 18:56:28 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"Pro-lifers bend over backwards not to offend the women..." Whoa! I have not seen this. Then why do pro-aborts hate me so much??? lol
I have not had the same experiences with pro-lifers that you have Katie. I don't doubt that you have known ones like this... but I have never met one like you describe.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 18:53:00 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"In my experience, pro-lifers think the majority of abortions occur because people won't face their responsibilities, and decide instead to get rid of the "inconvenience" in their womb." Exactly... my experience too.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 18:50:26 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Repubican Pook, wher are these pro-lifers? I would like to meet them!
I think lay people are a bit different than those leading the organizations or thsoe that are politically active. Just as the majority of people wo identify themselves as pro-choice don't agree with NOW's agenda, the majority of people who identify as pro-life won't agree with the common line that women who have abortions are not in control of their behavior.
I think a lot of it has to with PR. Pro-lifers get a bad rap in the media, so they tend over backwards to prove how accomodating of women they are. The result of this is that the modern pro-life movement has more to do with women and how bad off *they* are than about fathers or children.
Think about it. A great deal is made about post-abortive "healing" for women.
I for one thinkthe issue is ireveant and most people I've met in my real life do not give a rat's arse about what they did so I tend to stay away from that area. But I've notice I've been sharply criticized for wanting to hold the woman accountable or her actions because it makes her feel bad, but they don't seem to have any bad feelings about saying bad stuff about men who pressure women to have abortions. I'm not saying they shouldn't criticize these men (they should!), but why is there a double standard here? After all, don't the men have just a great a potential for grief and guilt after these things are over and done with? Pro-lifers bend over backwards not to offend the women, but the men don't get te same benefit of the doubt. Neither do abortionists, coercive parents, or men who beat up their girlfriends to try to induce a miscarriage, though they all have the same potential to feel guilty over what they've done.
You see, I don't buy into the idea that women are weaker than everybody else and people should bend over backwards to avoid offending them. I don't buy into the idea that one should avoid critcizing women because they've had a hard time with what they've done. I guess I'm a bit unusual in that everybody should be held accountable for their actions, no matter how many sob stories they can come up with.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 18:39:09 (EST) from spider-we011.proxy.aol.com
Hi rightgrrls, et al.
This article isn't new, I guess, (5-01) but it sure made me LAFF.
It's a commentary on that dork, Peter Singer.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 18:26:44 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Cincinnati1.Level3.net
"We had it right back in the 50's we just got stupid and forgot! "
Ah yes, the 50s. Everything seemed possible back then. Just put a few instruments and air into a rocket and we could go to Mars. We were supposed to have jet packs and flying cars by now. I don't know if you could say we grew up, or just faced reality. We found it was REALLY difficult to build a flying car, and going to Mars was even more difficult. The reality concerning marriage, kids, and the "good life" we seemed to have in the fifties ran smack into social unrest. Unpopular war, the acknowledgment there was poverty in this country, the widening gap between social classes and races. We found we could not fund everything but still tried to fix everything with money nonetheless. The scene was ripe for the NOW gang and they took advantage of the crack in the social structure. It's been downhill ever since. We try to accommodate everyone, and offend no one. We are at gridlock, plain and simple. The government has intruded into every aspect of our lives. The laws of the land are being made by 12 people on the Supreme Court, as opposed to the legislature. What laws the legislative branch DOES pass are usurped by the court system to promote the social cause du jour. We have created a tower of Babel with our legal system which is destroying this country every day. Insane abortion laws are just one symptom of the disease infecting the country's social body. Face it, the inmates are running the asylum and there isn't a damn thing we can really do to stop it. It WILL fall down around our ears one day soon. I think that is what it will take for this country to turn around.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 17:53:39 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
Pro-lifers think the majority of abortions occur because of helpless young women tortured and coerced by their evil male partners.
In my experience, pro-lifers think the majority of abortions occur because people won't face their responsibilities, and decide instead to get rid of the "inconvenience" in their womb.
L.G., WI USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 17:29:38 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
I don't care what political persuasion one is, if they abuse women or men or abuse kids, I will speak out against them. I don't like Clarence Thomas, Bob Packwood or Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton and Gary Condit (too many to mention). And Andrea Yates can get the death penalty. She drowned all of her children and chased down the 7 year-old, caught him and brought him struggling to the bathroom to drown him too.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 11:12:54 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Single motherhood is a failure too often katie, the solution is BOTH partners taking reponsibility. And that cant happen entirely when abortion is legal at all, and its WORSE when women decide unilaterally, which is the current state-the most unfriendly setup of all for society being healthy. Kids dont fare well ordinarily in single mother homes. Its just that simple. Today, we say stupidly "if they dont love each other dont get married!". Cart before horse. If society expected marriage, casual sex would happen alot less because people would be choosier about who theyt sleep with. When women settle for single momdom, they let men off the hook needlessly and shortchange their kids. Fatherless America is almost as bad as abortion America. In the past the town made the guy pay, NOW they argue its her choice, her responsibility, so nobody takes responsibility because women werent meant to take all childcare on their backs. The social order doesnt go after the guy, because its all about her choice, not THEIRS. Its her kid, not theirs. "Her body", not their co-conception. It pits women against men and vice versa and doesnt encourage dialogue. Since women CAN abort without even informing the father, it encourages them to think they dont matter, and the GOVERNMENT and welfare will replace the father, instead of the biological father himself, which is the only correct plan. If women could NOT abort without the father agreeing, the WHOLE abortion debate would change for the good. Because then all eyes would leap to the man, not the woman, which is how it must be because the woman is already doing the gestating. The society wouldnt glorify choice, it would insist he pay, not agree to abort at her expense! He would be expected to take options that stress responsibility, if he HAD THEM. Since he doesnt, and NOW wants it that way, the traditional family is doomed. If his approval was needed, women couldnt be oneway railroaded by Planned Parenthood when upset. Requiring that signature would put the brakes on fast decisions. I have personally met many women who aborted freely, THEN told him, and they told me they regretted aborting and wouldnt have if he had rights, because they felt he wouldnt have agreed if he had a choice, and would have overridden it had he known and had legal power. Telling women to adopt or raise alone isnt the answer. Banning abortion is the best and only good final solution, in the meantime a approach that stresses TWO PARENT homes is best, the expectation of that, and inclusion of male partners in ALL decision making. The Supreme Court claimed the forced male involvement was bad because of the very reason it is good-the dialogue CAN START if its disconnected-it cant if it cant start before it begins and the woman aborts unchecked. Our thinking that marriage must have love and a baby is no reason to marry encourages us all to allow ourselves *TO* have unwedded sex wirh people we dont love, a mistake itself because of pregnancy outcomes which leads to unhealthy malajusted kids living in broken homes. If people viewed sex more seriously, and knew if you got pg, you HAD to marry the guy (or girl) we'd see fewer abortions and all the other evils. We had it right back in the 50's we just got stupid and forgot!
Austin, TX USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 11:05:58 (EST) from 0-1pool114-154.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
I've heard NOW say conservatives should defend Andrea Yates and set up
defense funds for her because she was supossedly a conservative
Well, NOW excuses a woman killing like 5-6-7 kids, and jumps on the "motherhood is just too hard and stressful" bandwagon (a hidden plug for abortion rights for women ie if they can abort they wont be drowned by a woman who isnt "cut out" for motherhood later so keep it legal) but everyone, conservative and liberal NOWr alike, does this alot in infanticide cases, look at the courts and decisions. And only for women. Thats one big reason abortion is legal. NOW gals quip "abortion would be holy sacrement if MEN got pregnant!" Actually, abortion would be illegal and carry a prison sentence for men violators if everything else was the same about how society viewed men and responsibility vs women in MHO. There'd be no men on all the talk shows talking of how men need reproductive choice, etc. because society doesnt tolerate excuses from men about why the rubber broke, was old and had holes, forgot, he was drunk, he didnt love or know her well, etc. If men would wake up and as politicians and on shows would hold women to the same boos they do for men, and on paternity shows on Maury or Montell, etc. abortion would be seen differently and we wouldnt have make everyone agree with US that the baby is a human life that should have personhood legality. Lifers feel they are afraid of being painted antiwoman, katie, but the fallacy is if society thinks that, that SHOWS why abortion IS legal-they dont view women as culpable moral agents with EQUAL responsiblities and obligations to men as men do to women. If a man must risk a child outright when he has a girlfriend, and cant make the woman lose her "share" how a woman to a man and then make him pay child support to boot in any case if she decides to NOT abort? The idiocy of this whole argument as its being framed is amazing and stupid. There's more than one way to ban abortion, and and a multipronged approach is better than the sole argument we tend to use...
Austin, TX USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 10:42:28 (EST) from 0-1pool114-154.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
By the way Monica... station managers always have the authority to choose programming, viewer support notwithstanding. Viewers support because they like what they hear or see (in the case of Public TV) so if you didn't like the changes, stop sending money.
When our local PBS station started airing more and more leftist, atheist drivel, I simply stopped sending checks. I had no right and still don't to demand they air certain programming.
And in 1998 KPFA received $257,172 of Government funds. Oh, and the personnel were quite aware of what changes were scheduled while conducting their pledge drives.
Again, free speech does not entail taking over a radio station by force and making them air your agenda, regardless of whether you sent a donation or not. Just stop supporting them if you don't like the changes.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 10:34:33 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
It's amazing to see the number of hoops pro-lifes will jump through to absolve the woman
of any responsiblity.
As ive said many times Katie, this is part of the problem. How many of anyone, pl or even pc, would do so of a man if he tried to run from a pregnancy by telling people how the bay inconveinenced him and prevented his college degree? Would the response be sympathy, or anger if the person was *male* saying the same stuff? The whole ##@@ abortion debate is all wrong because its overly "packaged" to be womancentric. You mentioned over half of men not knowing. As ive said, the laws not requiring knowledge of abortion, unlike that of adoptions regarding the male partner, are HUGE in determing the FRAMING of the debate and abortion's continued LEGALITY. If fathers had rights, few abortions would occur, and this is true because then society would EXPECT them to exercise responsibility if they can CHOOSE, like they once did of men when women couldnt "choose" because the social conditioning that has existed for millenia forces men to comply with obligations WHEN the woman is left with unrefutable pregnancy because it drains on the society surrounding her, so abortion's legality makes it easy for irresponsible males to impregnate and run, and prevents responsible men from controlling their fate. The social order surrounding that pregnant female CEASES to be about making HIM pay and becomes HER CHOICE, not what THEY are going to do to, but what SHE is going to do ALONE. Abortion cannot thrive UNLESS the debate is all about the woman vs the baby instead of the triangle it is, involving loss of responsibility for women directly and indirectly for males. Lifers make the supreme ERROR of assuming, because of their natural life loss centricism, the DEGREE of importance of the framing of the argument. Choicists ENSURED abortion being with us for the long haul NOT in Roe vs Wade, *BUT* by the Danforth and Casey rulings, and its amazing how few lifers realize why. Once abortion is defined as a womans issue part and parcel, ignoring the rights of fathers, its SURE to stay legal. When men who favor MALE ABORTION on paper "c4m" they are met in debate boards by FEMALES who argue men dont have a right to dump babies on females, and MUST PAY. Most of the nay sayers are women in those discussions who dont argue men have a "right to choose" or "reproductive destiny rights" no matter HOW "casual" the sex supposedly was! Abortion debates, OTOH, are nearly all women, and the debate is "her body vs the babies/fetus right to live/exist". Its a THREE WAY argument at minumum, and the framing of it like it is favors BORTS. As for your stats, they are, in MY humble opinion, having dealt PERSONALLY with many of these men, fairly accurate. The system practically ensures no defense for them until its too late. Ironic the woman is painted by well meaning types to be helpless against HIS pressure! It isnt that women have too FEW choices-its that they have too MANY! Adoptinhg a more realistic and responsibility affirming approach is what is needed. Doing otherwise validates to fencers the bort's case for "hard cases" because women "just cant cope with motherhood" etc. We dont treat men who complain of "what a burdon kids are" with anything but grow up, pay support and be a REAL man! The abortion issue as its deadly EFFECT, *IS* in good part about the life lost in each abortion, the DYNAMICS involved are about HOW society and the pc and pl camps view WOMEN and their responsibility, esp. in relation and or comparison to MEN. Once you realize this, you see what path needs to be taken...
Austin, TX USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 10:29:15 (EST) from 0-1pool114-154.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
On Tuesday, Dave Thomas, the founder of Wendy's, passed away.
He was an adopted child who never finished high school. So when he became famous and successful, he used that to promote the causes of adoption and staying in school.
He created the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and lobbied Congress to get laws changed so adoption could become more available to thhousands of kids and parents. He also lobbied corporate boardrooms to get adoption benefits placed alongside traditional materity/paterity benefits.
When high school kids asked him why he didn't stay in school, he went back to school and earned his GED at the age of 60. He said he didn't think it was right asking them to do something that he hadn't done. He went to his senior prom with his wife when he got his GED. His class voted him most likely to succeed.
He did many other wonderful things, and said he was happiest when he help someone else succeed. Thank you Dave, and may God Bless.
What if he had been aborted? The world never would have knoen this truly wonderful person.
USA - Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 10:07:27 (EST) from A010-0095.CLMB.splitrock.net
Hey Monica! Want to know where the Centers for Disease Control are spending the AIDS prevention money???
Hint... Conservatives would NEVER choose these things... Go Here to read.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 23:50:48 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
“When she mentions some art exhibit with offensive material, I hear her saying, this is what happens when you allow people too much freedom.”
NO… what I am saying is those disgusting ‘art’ exhibits are what LIBERALS do with GOVERNMENT money!!!!
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 22:41:44 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Ah, there is the difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Pro-choicers think "hard case scenarios" (rape, incest, life of the mother, abusive husbands, deformed babies, etc) are the norm. Pro-lifers think the majority of abortions occur because of helpless young women tortured and coerced by their evil male partners. It's amazing to see the number of hoops pro-lifes will jump through to absolve the woman of any responsiblity.
Of course, someone who is corced by a male partner can still have the baby or give it up for adoption. Single motherhood is possible and occurs every day. Women can survive without a man. Women aren't so feeble-minded that they need a man to guide all their decisions
Pro-choicers/Pro-aborts actually highly resist the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions or are incapable of making them by themselves.
And why shouldn't they? The pro-life view that women aren't responsible for their own decisions is very insulting.
I'd like to see some research on the number of fathers who actually are aware of the pregnancy/abortion. I once read something on the HLI website that said that almst hal of all fathers didn't even know. I have no idea if it was accurate or legit. But it's the only time I've ever seen something eve remotely focusing on that kind of thing.
I guess with a lot of people if someone
is of your social class/race/gender/etc you should immediately not crticize anything they do. I've heard NOW say conservatives should defend Andrea Yates and set up defense funds for her because she was supossedly a conservative, Republicans should go along with whatever Dubya says or does, etc. It's all baloney to me.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 22:20:50 (EST) from spider-we033.proxy.aol.com
I did NOT say conservatives wanted a police state. I see many conservatives who share the what used to mainly the left's concern about government intrusion on civil rights. I was addressing Joy's statements specifically, smearing anyone left-leaning or liberal in a manner remiscent of cold-war redbaiting and implying they didn't deserve freedom of speech, and an earlier post that seemed an attempt to silence expressed opposition to Bush's order for military trials for terrorists by accusing anyone who expressed concerns about the possible denials of civil rights was on the side of the enemy. She mentions some art exhibits she found offensive in order to condemn "liberals" even though only a few were involved and not all would approve of those exhibits. When she mentions some art exhibit with offensive material, I hear her saying, this is what happens when you allow people too much freedom. What I've learned is that the reason the US hasn't had the excesses of socialist or fascist police states is because this country is populated by refugees from persecution and many people who are not willing to put up with such abuses. Unfortunately the US has supported police states which repress and torture people in other countries. If people who think like Joy had their way we would have a totalitarian state.
Monica Luz <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 22:10:59 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
KPFA is a LISTENER-SPONSORED station, NOT primarily government funded, so we listeners pay for it with our money and when the national Pacifica foundation board wanted to dictate changes in funding we had a right to oppose them because we paid for it. Also 17% of our donations go to the national Pacifica foundation so we pay for it too. I think there was a small percentage of funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Accepting it was a big mistake in my opinion. Perhaps the Pacifica Board based the changes they wanted to make on being eligible for the CPB funds. OF course when the government provided some funding they wanted to influence programming, which is why I think its better to rely exclusively on listener subscriptions and donations and maintain our independence. For more information you can check www.savepacifica.net and www.cfdp.org and www.pacificacampaign.org, also www.kpfa.org. The Pacifica Foundation also has a website.
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 21:41:36 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
Poultricide & Co.: You guys are cracking me up!!
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 19:24:40 (EST) from A010-0647.CLMB.splitrock.net
I have always said the main reason for abortions is simply convenience... or inconvenience as the case usually is. There are few pressured ones although they do exist... just as there are few to save the life of the mother, or from rape or incest. But the pro-aborts like to act like those are the norm.
Good point Melissa about the drive-bys. I advocate responsiblity for all. Men, women, blacks, whites, etc... everyone... ALL...
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 18:34:43 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Katie, I agree with you about the "E-vell Boyfriend" thing and pro-lifers. That's one reason why I became disenchanted with Feminists For Life. Sure, there are some women who are coerced into having abortions, but they are in the minority.
The same thing goes on in the African American community. In New Jersey, not far from you, a young black man beat, strangled, and stabbed his teenage girlfriend to death. Needless to say, this innocent young woman whose only crime was to want to break off with this person, died a horrible death, and she wasn't yet 18. They showed a "community activist" on television, who said that "youth" didn't have enough activities to engage themselves in! So, if you have idle time on your hands, you're compelled to brutally murder someone? This guy (the murderer) was just a no-good, jealous, violent ba$tard. Sure, there's racism in the world -- I have experienced it -- but I don't see the Republicans going by and committing drive-by shootings, murders, and thefts in the African American community. When are people going to learn to take responsibility for their actions?
Philly, USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 18:17:50 (EST) from hhcampuslink4.OSIS.UPENN.EDU
I thought the party was in the cornfield . . . I guess I better stay out.
Vlad - 1 John 1:7
And no, I don't hate Monica. I should say, though, I didn't understand her comment about how conservatives would love a police state like China. It seems the Reds oppressed their people much worse than anyone in America gets oppressed, and I know no conservative in favor of oppression. (Any comment from our liberal friends?)
Left Coast, CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 18:15:28 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
I figure any radio station that could make Mary Francis Berry sound right-wing is completely off the charts to the left!
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 17:58:47 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I'm about 80 miles from Berserkley, and we don't get KPFA here. Lots of people don't take kindly to the sort who listen to it, either!
CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 17:30:47 (EST) from dial-185.arc-01.lodinet.com
I was just playing along with the Blues Brothers' thing. I like obscure dialogue from old movies and enjoy working it in to daily conversation to see if anyone notices.
The cornfield is for the undesirables; dungbeatle, Moanica, and Feminerd. We don't even plant corn out there anymore.
We like you Ron, just walk towards the light...walk towards the light....walk towards the light.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 17:18:23 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Ron - I thought I gave you a pass out of the cornfield permanently?? Whatcha doing back there?
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 17:09:47 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Does ANYONE outside of Berzerkeley listen to KPFA?????? If you answer the way I think you will, then let them say whatever they want about us. I just hope they don't try to disable my car stereo if I blast Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, etc. while driving through that town.
(And yes, I'm very aware that Jake ordered four fried chickens and a Coke, and Elwood ordered two pieces of dry white toast. But because Vlad/Poultrycide was writing about chickens, and elwoodblues is my email address, I put the two together and voila. Care to join me in the cornfield?)
Left Coast, CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 17:04:06 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
We got two honkies out there that look like Hasidic diamond jewelers . . .
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:57:39 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
"It is not incumbent on society, at large, to provide free airtime or print-space." PerZactly! Hmmm... who did I get that word from? ;o]
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:42:11 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Yes, and a Coke.
And for me...one loaf of white bread toasted...dry.
Joliette, IL USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:38:52 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
There is no shortage of Radio stations in this country. So, there is no need for government funding of same. NPR is practically a propaganda organ for the liberal demonratic party. If the hippie-freaks want to talk on the radio, they can buy themselves a radio station and try to sell airtime to sponsors. Good luck. (I guess headshops and organic foodstores are possibilites.)
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly only guarantee the opportunity to express a viewpoint, not a free medium to broadcast or print opinions. It is not incumbent on society, at large, to provide free airtime or print-space.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:37:20 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Ron - Four WHOLE fried chickens??? Wow...
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:06:10 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
First, let me correct something I said: After rereading my prior post, it reads as if the station IS privately owned. It is not so I am correcting what I said. It was in the process of being privatized. And in the process they were attempting to make the station more diverse since they receive GOVERNMENT FUNDS while heading toward privatization. Understand if I had my way, no radio station would receive Government funds! But since this one was, it should not cater to EITHER side. So a new board was elected and new programming ordered to present more balanced programming.
The staffers refused to comply with the new programming and were fired. They were subsequently locked out and the station shut down for I believe it was 23 days. The peace-niks rioted and even shot into the stations admin offices so armed guards were hired. More riots, lawsuits, etc. that are still going on today.
Monica, you only call it free-speech because what they aired was the extreme left view of people such as Louis Farrakhan. Now, I will fight to have even people like him able to voice their disgusting views, but not on my dollar!
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 16:05:18 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
And one loaf of white bread...toasted...dry...
Joliette, IL USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 15:36:07 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Hey . . . I'd like four fried chickens and a Coke.
Cornfield, USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 15:11:49 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
I am not very familiar with KPFU or what anyone was "fighting" for, in that regard. But, too many leftists confuse freedom of speech and freedom of assembly with entitlement to a medium of broadcast or dissemination of their views.
Yes, you have freedom to voice dissenting political views, but you are not entitled to free space in a newspaper or airtime on the radio or TV.
If KPFU decided to change their format, the only influence that an outside individual has is to not listen to their station, anymore.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 14:57:20 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Monica - And I say if it's up to people like YOU and your ilk, we won't have to go to Afghanistan to experience the Taliban, they will simply take over here since your peace-loving comrades won't fight, you want to remove guns and free all the murderers. America would become the next Afghanistan.
And fighting for KPFA was not fighting for free speech, it was attempting to take over a company by force and dictate their policies, ignoring the fact that THEY paid the bills and had the RIGHT to dictate whatever programming they saw fit. It was the exact OPPOSITE of free speech!
When I don't like the liberal slant of a station, I simply don't watch/listen to that station. I don't attempt a hostile takeover and force them to air ideas that are contrary to what they believe.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 13:29:49 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Gimme the whole chicken!
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 12:25:39 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Hey,...they kinda taste like chicken!
Milwaukee, WI USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 12:18:38 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Are you into breasts or are you a drumstick man?
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:28:03 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Oh, how could you???
Don't you realize that those chickens could have been somebody's mother? How dare you paint all Chickens with a broad basting brush...some are not into that ruff stuff (getting eaten), each one is an individual with feelings. Some of them can be gay, lesbian, transgendered, and chickens of color.
Rio Linda, CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:26:30 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Sorry, Vlad...gotta go "tend" to the chickens. Talk at ya later.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:23:58 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I shouldn't say that I hate extra crispy, I'd say loathe might be a better word. As I watch the chicken run around after cutting it's head off, I don't feel anything, I just watch her go. I can separate the loathing of the chicken with the love and need for BBQ.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:22:59 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Vlad...you are skipping the best part. First, you pull out your switchblade, run it up and down the chicken's leg. Then hold it to their neck as you....
Then, the hatchet is preferred for removal of the head.
Then I prefer original. I hate extra crispy. BBQ is the most preferred.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:18:36 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
what is your preferred method for disposing of the corpses? Origional recipe or extra crispy?
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:12:12 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
"Poultricide's Final Solution" was the first idea that I had to name my restaurant...but those pesky marketing people said that it would adversly affect sales.
From the Grave, KY USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:10:38 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
No rum for me, thanks...I gotta drive.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:07:03 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Hey guys, whaddaya think of my new name?
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:06:39 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Vlad's Cheering Section
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 11:05:48 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
How do I get the coyotes to adopt a strict vegan diet. They already ate the few guinea hens that I had around here.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 10:57:04 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Poultry rights? O.K., but what about the rights of the insects they eat? Who will stick up for them?
CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 10:50:56 (EST) from dial-041.arc-01.lodinet.com
Just check this out:
See, it doesn't rise to the level of being banned. Ridiculing it is much more fun.
KFC = Gestapo
Thanksgiving = Holocaust
They are almost as kooky as any of the satirical fictional items that I just made up.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 09:52:23 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
"...and anyone else who you classify as a freak should be banned."
No, not banned, Monica...the correct term is "ridiculed". You and your kind are free to express any idiotic viewpoint that you desire (equal rights for gay whales, legal defense fund for Lesbian crack-mothers, terrorists are people too, save the chickens, etc.)
But freedom of speech also extends to mainstream folks who have the natural urge to riducle stupid ideas.
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 09:45:42 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Off to the cornfield with you!
You'll probably like it, because your boyfriend (Dungbeatle) is out there.
Vlad the Thought Policeman
USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 08:31:10 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Joy, neither I nor anyone I know has heard of the controversies over art exhibits you mention. I do not agree with or am responsible for everything every leftist or liberal has done or said. We don't all subscribe to your code of conformity or unanimity. What does that have to do with the right of "hippie/pacifist/socialist/leftist/more liberal than Barbara Boxer/freakRus" to have a radio station expressing our views? You seem to think "hippies, pacifists, socialists and leftists and anyone else you classify as a freak should be banned. No one should be allowed to publicly question or debate new government "anti-terrorist measures" like substituting military "commissions" for trials because to even question them makes you the "enemy". It's a shame you didn't live in the old Soviet Union, China or Afghanistan under the Taliban because you would feel very happy and comfortable. You'd fit right in. I think having a police officer who thinks the way you do in the US is more of a threat to Americans' freedom than any soldier in China's army.
hippie/feminist/socialist/leftist/more liberal than Barbara Boxer/freak <email@example.com>
Berzerkeley, CA USA - Wednesday, January 09, 2002 at 02:53:13 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
Resistance IS Futile...
You shall be assimilated....
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 18:28:06 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Allright! Who has been agreeing with Feminerd, again.
Come-on...Confess now, because I will find out sooner or later. Vee Haff Vays to make you talk...Then, you shall be banished to the cornfield...forever!
Then, I shall have my little cheering section make disparaging remarks about you in your absence. Hahahahahahahahaaaa!
Vlad the Thought Policeman
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 18:14:48 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Well, Nick, you said you did not want a response to your posting, so I did not address you, specifically in my response other than to say your post was the exception. I appreciated your reasoned response and said so. The other things I said were clearly directed to those who cannot restrain themselves, even for a moment, from the same old dirt shoveling. .
I cannot foresee what everyone will say, just certain members. I have gotten normal responses. There are others who are capable of giving considered responses, without senselessly dredging up other things. Just because I point out certain persons inability to respond in any other way does not mean I am not willing to respond sensibly to anyone who can post in a like manner. I have carried on discussions with some individuals via email rather than on open forum because they knew, as soon as they agreed with anything I said, or tried to respond in a considered manner, the local "thought police" would come out of the woodwork to belittle and chide them. Even if they disagreed with me, they would not say so publicly for fear of the same thing simply by addressing me. I'm not the only one they go on endlessly about. As those who have discussed things via email with me have said, there is a definite air of bullying on this, and the other board which keeps them from discussing anything publicly. They know, as soon as they say anything that could be construed as the least bit "liberal" they will become another target of personal attacks. It's much like the liberals they always decry for "booing" someone down who espouses conservative values.
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 18:05:17 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
"The Irony! The Irony!" lol Matt! Ditto...
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 15:44:22 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"Yeah, yeah. Of course CrapperJohn and Joyless are incapable of actually addressing anything said".
Feme, I don't think you will probably ever get a normal response from anyone around here.
How is that you can foresee what people are going to say and wonder when it is going to happen (off the top of my head: the prostitute thing, the patriot thing, etc)? Yet you came onto this website spewing your hate (I know, loathing) and did not forsee the unfriendly response you would get? I responded to you there because you sounded logical for a change, then you come back with the quote above. Fooled me.
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 15:29:32 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
The Irony! The Irony!
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 15:26:03 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
I dunno, John. I can't imagine my wife ever fearing me. I can't imagine wanting her to fear me. I have a good feeling that maybe she reacts better to the security I give her than she would a knife I put to her garments. I dunno. Then again, I've only been married for 9 years....what do I know?
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 15:23:33 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Yeah, yeah. Of course CrapperJohn and Joyless are incapable of actually addressing anything said. I expected the usual non-response form them and their ilk. Just distort and twist anything to suit their own ends. Figures. At least Nick actually addressed the point made, I'll give him credit for that.
If you don''t want to appear to lump everyone in, at least have the courtesy to say you are not referring specifically to them when going on endlessly about what liberals do and are.. It has been pointed out to me, after the fact as usual, a response to a post of mine was only partly addressed to me. If one does not bother to differentiate, it is only natural to assume the entire post is directed to the individual in question.
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 15:17:01 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
Damn, I've been doing it wrong all these years...Is there any room for us people who want true love...
Houston, Texas USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 15:02:58 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
No no no John, (sarcasm on)Like femepsycho said, woman WANT to be ‘taken’ by men who are virtual strangers with switchblades… it’s BIOLOGICAL… When women fear for their lives, they immediately want to breed like rabbits… don’t you know nuffin?(sarcasm off)
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 14:29:17 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I don't think that we lump anyone here. We make fun of liberals in general. But we pick apart liberals who post here fow what they say. I could be wrong, but am not looking for reply.
Vlad's Cheering Section
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 14:18:32 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Yeah, femecrap the problem here is that when you let everyone know you're a raper (or you wanna be, or whatever you're doing) then people tend to not want anything to do with you, paint brushes or not.
Houston, Texas USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 13:35:32 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
The real problem here is the broad brush with which liberals here tend to be painted. Yeah, I know, I paint all women with a broad brush (pun, for the humor impaired). Still, once anyone in here espouses any idea thought to originate from the "liberal" side, they are instantly painted with the same brush. They are lumped in with every wacko liberal who has ever walked the earth. I have seen it said the people who post in here, while largely conservative, are not all the same. They do not all hold to every conservative idea or ideal. How they are different from one another in many ways. I don't believe any of them like being lumped in with every idea labeled "conservative" either. It is neither fair nor right to continue to group someone who espouses what is considered a liberal view on a given topic in with all the rest. Nor is it productive to bring up every crackpot leftist/liberal thing going on out there EVERY time.
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 13:13:08 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
I never said Monica shouldn't speak her mind. I simply reserve my right to call what she says idiotic when it is.
It is not the conservatives who are trying to control speech and dictate through laws and rules on college campuses across the nation what can be said and what can't be said.
Liberals throughout this country are fighting for the 'right' to display putrid 'art' (see the link I posted last night at the other guestbook) while restricting the 'right' to display the American Flag!! And fighting for their 'right' to string models of multi-colored severed penises across a library in a anti violence against women campaign... ??? While restricting this same library from displaying the flag! It's disgusting! And yet the conservatives are the first to defend their 'right' to protest, and their right to free speech. All we are asking is that they allow the same to us!
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 12:36:42 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Ron, I believe that is what Joy was referring to...that liberals tend not to let conservative views even to exist in their presence. Although this goes against the very definition of liberal. Isn't a liberal supposed to be accepting of all positions?
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 12:28:16 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
In defense of Monica, free speech does mean speech you disagree with. In the Bay Area, we allow both lefties KPFA and right-wingers KSFO to broadcast. And I, for one, am not about to keep a liberal from speaking her/his mind.
I do think it will be a hot day in Antarctica before we hear The Savage Nation on KPFA, though . . .
Left Coast, CA USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 12:15:18 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
Joy, I suggest you start drinking coffee BEFORE you log on....
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 11:12:07 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
"The irony, the irony!" I KNOW! LOL Aaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhh!!! And all this before my coffee! Oh the cruelty, the brutality of it all! 'Save the Joy's, send coffee!'
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 10:49:10 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Free the murderers, kill the babies and save the whales! <-----Liberalism in all it's glory!
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 10:45:03 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Monica - What Matt said! lol You liberals will only allow 'free speech' if it agrees with you and is 'Politically correct.'
Think about what PC means Monica... It means that you can't say anything about women, black people or people of any other ethnicity... but those ethnicity’s can say whatever they wish about white people or men no matter how bigoted or nasty.
PC means there are only white 'bigots', male ‘misogynists’ and heterosexual 'homophobes.' I have known plenty of ‘bigoted’ black people and NOW is chock FULL of male-hating women (is there even an equivalent word?), and there are plenty of homosexual 'heterophobes’ (and that’s not even a word, but homophobe is!). But you'll never hear those terms on KPFA. You will hear about all the white bigots... misogynists and homophobes... free speech? GET REAL!
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 10:40:11 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
By all means.....please....you leftist just keep on displaying your "freedom of speech". The more ludicrous the displays, the better to remind normal people of how intellectually bankrupt and far-removed from the mainstream that most liberals are. So please continue with your hippie-dippie "peace" marches and chant "free-Mumia" to your heart's content. Even throw in a few violent anti-WTO riots in Europe, they deserve it. The rest of us will be laughing at you.
Just because you have the "right" to exercise free speech, does not insulate you from critisism when that speech is clearly idiotic.
Vlad the Impeacher
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 09:37:27 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Ladies I beg you, I implore you, for you are the keepers of life, the caregivers, the advancers of society, every potential blonde haired, blue eyed girl that is destroyed in the womb, destroys the potential brown haired, brown eyed boy that could be her son. Hope is life, let your body fulfill its potential, let your baby fulfill its destiny, let life, precious life go on, allow yourself to be greater than the whole. Thank you.
Houston, Texas USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 09:24:31 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
""Free Speech my butt". Well there's a "freedom loving American" for you. So Joy, you dont think Liberals or Leftists should have freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is only for those you agree with?"
An example of the typical liberal response to a conservative exercising their "free speech" rights. The irony, the irony!
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 08:41:39 (EST) from 220.127.116.11
I don't think the number of pro-lifers is increasing
And I can tell you why.
There's a real mythology at work in the pro-life movement. It's that the *only* people who ever have abortions are innocent young women pressured by Evil Boyfriends. And of course, if the Evil Boyfriends threaten to leave the woman in question, then she has "no choice" but to abort, because apparently only a male partner can give a woman her own willpower (of course adoption and single motherhood never enter into this scenario).
Now, I am sure this happens sometimes, and it is bad when it does, but it is not an excuse for abortion. The pro-life movement refuses to hold women accountable for their own decisions. They refuse to criticize the behavior of the women or judge them in any way.
In short, this is why abortion has gone on so long. the arguments of the pro-lifers are weak, weak, weak, weak, in that they don't think abortion is bad enough to wholly condemn outright, because they might actually say something negative about the person who does it. The worst they're willing to admit is that it's a bad outcome of a bad situation, but "understandable" when it happens. They're willing to tolerate it because they sympathize with the women, but they're not willing to outlaw it outright because that might put too much of a burden on the poor yittle woman. And it is at this point that pro-lifers lost the argument, because they don't regard the unborn child seriously enough to criticize the mother for aborting it.
I know it might be hard for some people to admit, but women *do have free will* and are capable of making their own decisions and being responsible for the consequences.
What about the women who have abortions because babies get in the way of their sex lives, or they don't know who the father is, or they don't want to be tied down to one man? These situations exist. But it's not a favorable stereotype.
www.wronggrrl.com = www.atforumz.com. I'm there a lot but only to discuss pop culture. If they knew what I really thought they'd ban me.
Law and Order: oh, dear. That idea is so recycled. I've never seen Criminal Intent, but there's been at least two psychotic prolifer episodes on the original TV show.
One of them, shown in '91 or '92, actually had a cop sympathizing with the killer, saying something the equivalent of he didn't approve of what he did but he could understand how they felt. Can you imagine a character on a national TV show saying that nowadays? that kind of thinking is prohibited even among prolifers!
The second one was around '95. What disgusted me was the suspect was held up as this evil, evil man because he somehow got in the clinic and tried to stop his wife from having an abortion. *How dare he*, you know. Maybe it's not PC but I could totally sympathize with someone who did that kind of thing. What else was he going to do? I can't imagine it's never happened.
USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 05:15:38 (EST) from spider-wa014.proxy.aol.com
"Free Speech my butt". Well there's a "freedom loving American" for you. So Joy, you dont think Liberals or Leftists should have freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is only for those you agree with?
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Tuesday, January 08, 2002 at 02:50:33 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
KPFA is a hippie/pacifist/socialist/leftist/more liberal than Barbara Boxer/freakRus radio station in Berserkly. Free speech my butt.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 19:32:53 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Can someone please enlighten me as to what is "KPFU"??? Is it some kind of avante guarde radio station?
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 19:27:12 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
I'm more mid-Missouri, Joy. It's going to be a trip to remember! Seven states, less than 10 days......
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:51:17 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
Gore lost so many time it isn't even funny... Oh wait... yes it is! :oD
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:41:11 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
North of Crescent City... little bitty town called Ft. Dick. Home of Pelican Bay Prison.
Where in Missourri Matt? I went to college in Springfield, MO.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:37:22 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I'm going to be in California - briefly - Feb. 1-2. I'm flying in to Ontario and picking up a car to drive home, slowly, to Missouri....
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:35:22 (EST) from 220.127.116.11
Oh yes, I do put homemade messages in my rear window such as "Bush is President. He won. Get over it." Goes over well with those who still think Gore won . . .
I will never participate in, support, or agree with, a violent antiabortion protest . . .
How far north? If you're moving to the Eureka area, the town to check out is Arcata. Huge cultural war between the loggers who earn a living cutting down redwood trees, and environmentalists who believe you wreck the earth just by driving a car. Been there only once, looks like a great place to get into a debate just for the fun of it . . .
Monica Luz - you have my email address.
Left Coast, CA USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:32:22 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
Pook - I like the new beetles. They're cute. I am a truck woman however. And *I* have a Sheriff Joe Arpaio Bobble-head right here on my desk!!! I bet you are jealous! :op
Oh, and the third bumper sticker was for Monica's Van...
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:18:45 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Oh, and the third bumper sticker would say, "Save the Whales."
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:16:47 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
You know, I wanted one of those multi-colored VWs they made a few years back. It wasn't a bug....I don't remember what model it was.
I still wouldn't mind having one. But mine would have a Rush bobbing head on the dash, and the "Pro-Woman, Pro-Child, Pro-Life" bumper sticker that I currently have on my 1984 Buick Electra.
L.G., WI USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:14:55 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Wow Ron - As far as I'm concerned that buys you a permanent ticket out of the cornfield! :o]
I visited San Fransisco once. Hated it! lol Yikes... one thing I noticed about the cars is they were ALL dented on all four corners... new, old, didn't matter... and the people... well... hmmmmmmm... they are... different... lol
I'll be quite a bit north of you, and my best friend/neighbor assures me there are other Christian Conservatives there.
I bet you have quite a time as an evangelical Christian in San Fransisco... HEY! Look up Monica Luz! Wow! This'll be great!
Monica... meet Ron... Ron... Monica. She's our resident weed-wacked hippie. I bet SHE has a muticolored VW with a Mumia Bobble-Head on the dash... and a bumper sticker that says "I Brake for Murderers" and "Support Your Local Abortion Clinic, Kill a Baby Today!"
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 18:07:24 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
The heat is only unbearable for three months out of the year (2 months during a mild summer). Besides, after a few years you get used to it.
The coldest that I have ever been in my life was in West Lafayette, Indiana during January. That is the kind of cold that knocks your breath out. I'll take the heat, anyday.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 17:28:10 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Stop the press!!!
You can't be a Californian!
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 17:05:42 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
"Texas is great. Joy, Sue, Nick, Carolyn, Adam, Lem, Ted...you sure wouldn't ever regret moving here".
Actually Vlad, when I left New Jersey, I was either moving to here or Longview, TX. The heat there was a small factor in not going. The cost of living almost brought me there.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 17:03:33 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
Ode to Joy:
I live a few miles from San Francisco. I do not own a multicolored VW Bug or an electric car. I do not listen to KPFA. I did not vote for Billary Clinton, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, or Gary Doofus. I do not smoke weed. I am not a homosexual.
I am an evangelical Christian. I eat lots of red meat. I've participated in a nonviolent antiabortion protest. I listen to Rush Limbaugh when I can. I love football, and I look forward to Al Davis retiring from the Raiders so they can actually start winning again. And I am a lifelong Californian.
So if you have trouble finding like-minded people, you got a friend here.
Left Coast, CA USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 17:03:16 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
Hilary...I vote bond is more important than biological, generally. Of course, abstinence until marriage solves this and most scenerios like it. Obviously, if you are in this situation, that does you no good, though. Just a thought for later. I'm like Vlad, I know my kids are mine.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 16:59:29 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I get the impression that hilary is meaning that the biological parents showed up after many years of her raising their kids as her own.
Did you adopt them hilary? Legally? If so, I can't imagine they would have a leg to stand on.
If they are foster kids... I dunno... I think biology rules although I wouldn't agree. Your senarios are too vague. Maybe get more specific and we can answer better.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 16:08:58 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"...what if someone who you didn't know turned up and said that your kids, were actually there's biologically..."
I hope that they are prepared to get laughed-off of our property. The family resemblence is jus too uncanny.
Yes, the biological bond is very strong. I had baby-sat for nieces, nephews, and neighbor kids and that did not come close to the experience of having our own. I was there during the delivery and have been with him since.
There is a perceptable parental instinct: I used to be a heavy sleeper, but now I wake up when the child just coughs. It is inconceivable to me how parents can abandon their children or leave them with strangers.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 15:38:16 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
hey monica your a litte late with ur new years resolutions its 2002
UK - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 15:19:10 (EST) from host62-7-3-138.btinternet.com
Outside the large metropolitan areas and University Cities of California, most people are quite normal. The Cities that are home to colleges and Universities really seem to have more than their fair share of nutty leftists.
Sue (mom in No Ca) really sounds like good people to me. Who knows, if enough folks like Joy move there, and Gov. Gray Doofis continues to alienate voters, it might go back to being a Reagan state.
When I lived in Alameda, Ca back in the 80's...my house had a gas fireplace with artificial logs in it. I never even considered burning real wood in it because firewood was unbelievably expensive. Now that I live in a free country, I can just walk across my pasture and cut all the firewood that I want for free. Texas is great. Joy, Sue, Nick, Carolyn, Adam, Lem, Ted...you sure wouldn't ever regret moving here.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 15:13:42 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
ok, i see at the moment that your kids are driving you mad but most of you seem to be parents, what what if someone who you didn't know turned up and said that your kids, were actually thiers biologically, does anyone think that bioloical parenthood actually matters, thier your own home grown pains even if they aren't yours genecially they have more in common with you than others; does anyone have any views on this, or know the legal standing anywhere in the world.
UK - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 15:10:03 (EST) from host62-7-3-138.btinternet.com
Ps to any non-nuts that live in Calif... like Sue... I mean no offense to YOU! :o] :o] :o]
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 13:22:55 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
I am going to try to claim residency in AZ and keep my AZ plates... lol
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 12:56:30 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Joy, just promise me one thing....when you cross the border into Oregon, if someone is behind you, move into the right lane. We hated CA drivers. Of course I realize you are not one. How was your weekend?
Vlad, yes, it is always the childless that know best how to rear children. And the parents with kids a couple years older than yours that give you all the advice in the world. ZIP IT!! You don't know if what you are doing will be a success or not. All you can do is your best.
Who was it that said, "Unsought advice is seldom heeded and likely resented"?
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 12:44:04 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
When I move to Calif... I have to keep an address here... I refuse to be called a... a... a... CALIFORNIAN!! ACK!
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 12:40:06 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Sgt 1/C Nathan Ross Chapman (San Antonio, Texas)
Johnny Walker (a.k.a. Ahkmed Hahbib) (Marin County, California)
Anymore questions, Monica?
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 12:35:41 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
I am building a house here in Apache Junction and was informed the fireplace may not get approved because a ban was approved and the builder isn't sure when it goes into effect.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 12:33:26 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
An article that was posted on Lucianne.com, indicated that the Berkeley City Council has just banned the use of Fireplaces and wood burning stoves. Freedom loving??? Hah!!!
Next, they plan on banning dry martinis, meerschaum pipes, reclining lounge chairs, and leather-bound books.
(pipes used for smoking marijuana or crack are exempted from the ban)
Vlad (I am NOT Joe Lieberman)
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 12:21:24 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
"I think the thousands of Bay Area residents, including many from Berkeley, who showed up to defend free speech when KPFA was shut down two years ago were "freedom loving Americans.""
Freedom of speech according to KPFA isn't free at all. Just a bunch of leftist drivel. Wherever the PC Police reign there is no freedom of speech.
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 11:50:52 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
USA - Monday, January 07, 2002 at 00:31:16 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Uuuuuuugh...I think that I saw it in a Doonesbury cartoon or something.
Ghost Planet, - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 23:20:03 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
"I do see a difference between RED Chinese babies and American babies. A RED Chinese baby one day grows to become a Red Chinese soldier and is a threat to our freedom, while an American baby grows-up in most cases to be a freedom loving American. (Except in Marin Cty, Berkeley CA, or Rio Linda)."
I think the thousands of Bay Area residents, including many from Berkeley, who showed up to defend free speech when KPFA was shut down two years ago were "freedom loving Americans." Likewise the ones who march for freedom for Mumia Abu Jamal.
"If the Communist Chinese choose to kill and eat their own offspring, then our Government has no legal or moral obligation to try and prevent it."
Do they actually eat their own babies in China? What are your sources for this.
Monica Luz <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 20:59:07 (EST) from dialup-188.8.131.52.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
I've babysat friends and relatives and work in childcare centers and schools. With the children of people I knew it usually went pretty well. I can't say that for the childcare centers. It's not easy. I myself, at age 12 or 13, used some copper tubing my father had bought to fix his car (I didn't know this or I wouldn't have done it) for $6 (at 1969) prices to make a ring. My dad took it pretty well.
Monica Luz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 20:27:32 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
That's a good one, Sue.
Did you ever notice that people who don't have kids are usually the first to offer child-rearing advice? (The advice usually sounds like Simon & Garfunkel lyrics)
USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 18:18:41 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
My sons like loud music, teasing each other (of course, not all the time!) and computer games. They used to put foreign objects in the vcr when they were little, but they outgrew that, and we helped them with discipline and moving the vcr out of their reach. Now, their main challenge is organization and responsibility. Sometimes, I shudder to think how they'll turn out as adults, other times, they make me proud. I guess those feelings just come with the territory.
Vlad, my fourteen y.o. did something at age three that my hubby and I still talk about to this day.
Hubby was repairing our '85 Dodge Shelby Charger, and had to go somewhere for a part. The car was in the driveway, and I was watering some flowers in the front yard with the hose. I went in the house very briefly, and came out to find my son putting water in the gas tank! I don't know how my son got the gas cap off, because even though it wasn't a locking cap, it was hard to turn. My hubby swears he didn't have the cap off.
It's just one of those mysteries.
The car was fixed and the gas tank was flushed, and we let out a big "whew" at having survived a trial of parenthood.
CA USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 18:07:07 (EST) from dial-134.arc-01.lodinet.com
Oh Boy...It would be fun to have Monica as a baby-sitter. I bet she would last about 15 minutes.
Sabine County, TX USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 14:56:17 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Insanity is genetic...you get it from your kids.
Los Angeles , CA USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 14:52:46 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Geez Monica, get a sense of humor.
USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 14:48:48 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Vlad, if you get "mentally unstable" over your son/daughter having a messy room or putting the waffle in the VCR god help you and your son/daughter. Children will be children. You need to try to keep calm, remember children don't emerge from the womb with all t he knowledge of adults, and teach and guide your children. Remember that the person who is 100% perfect with no flaws, who never makes a mistake, does not exist, People of all ages
ages have messy rooms. I know one who is 45 years old, who at age 11 was haranged by her father over her messy room and still can't clean it up. Its one of my resolutions for 2001. Teach the child where to cook the waffle and the proper use and treatment of a VCR. Remember that a VCR is easier to fix or replace than a child. When the son/daughter is 23 and living in his/her own apartment you'll miss him/her and look back on this time with nostalgia, so enjoy it now.
Monica Luz <email@example.com>
San Francisco, CA USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 13:47:16 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.SanFrancisco1.Level3.net
I just caught my kid trying to put an eggo waffle in the VCR. I am now a mentally unstable parent, again. Go ahead, Hilary, ask me any question that you wish.
Vlad the Mental
USA - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 10:36:22 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
thanks, i've had i look at some sites but thier all about US or Canadian law
UK - Sunday, January 06, 2002 at 07:20:45 (EST) from host62-7-75-85.btinternet.com
Have you checked websites having to do with legal issues? Also, keep in mind that British law will be a bit different from U.S. or Canadian law.
CA USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 20:45:28 (EST) from dial-106.arc-01.lodinet.com
Ooops, gotta proofread...
I meant "his" laundry. I was thinking about what hubby and I tell our 12 and 14 y.o. sons.
USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 20:33:55 (EST) from dial-106.arc-01.lodinet.com
Keep lots of ibuprofen handy, and tell them if he wants clean clothes, he better put them in the hamper, or Mrs. Vlad isn't doing their laundry, and ... oh, never mind, you'll find out ... I'm getting a headache just thinking about it!
CA USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 20:32:10 (EST) from dial-106.arc-01.lodinet.com
I'll probably need something stronger than coffee?
USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 20:13:53 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
You think your son's room's awful now, wait 'til he's a teenager!
CA USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 19:27:21 (EST) from dial-106.arc-01.lodinet.com
How's your little one? I hope he's doing well. Have a wonderful day!
CA USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 19:19:46 (EST) from dial-106.arc-01.lodinet.com
"You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
"Well, that all depends on what your definition of is...is."
(I'm sure most soccerr-moms would have voted for Clinton over Lincoln)
Vlad the Impeacher
USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 15:45:04 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
"HE who owns the media, owns the minds of the public. "
Probably all too true, and isn't that a sad comment on our society?
USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 15:32:37 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
After seeing my son's room this morning, I could be catagorized as "a mentally unstable parent", but after some coffee I have gotten better.
USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 13:09:44 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
if anyone knows of any information that could help me please would you post it here or e-mail the link thanks
USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 12:03:12 (EST) from host213-122-238-17.btinternet.com
hello i'm called hilary and i'm new to this site i am eager to talk about biological parenthood concering abortion and also adoption and if biological parents who have given away thier child shown me able to visit them and also mentally unstable parents and what happens when without knowledge you aren't the biological parent of someone; but you have been their parent figure, does some one have any right to take them away morally and legally
berkhamsted, herts uk - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 11:06:21 (EST) from host62-7-103-215.btinternet.com
Sue, other "abortable offenses" I've heard of include albinism and drawfism -- sickening!
Philly, USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 10:54:07 (EST) from 0-1pool159-175.nas1.philadelphia1.pa.us.da.qwest.net
Sometimes I visit pro-abort sites, and one such site is even critiqued in an article linked on rightgrrls. It's called A Paen to Eugenics.
This article mentions two websites for women who "had to" abort their babies because of "poor prenatal diagnonses". Some of these "poor prenatal diagnoses" are conditions such as Down syndrome (very survivable), and spina bifida (also very survivable), and a host of other non-fatal conditions.
Anyway, one such website, A Heartbreaking Choice, I found to be very offensive when I first visited it. It actually had a page for parents who "interrupted a t-21 pregnancy", or in non-p.c. speak, parents who aborted babies because they had (gasp!) Down syndrome. One such part of this page "helped" parents address how they felt when "those people" (people with Downs) dared show themselves in public. After all, these women were the only ones with rights, it implied. And since they had done the "right" thing and aborted their babies, those people who happened to have Down's had no right to invade their little corners of reality by being among people on the streets or other places. In other words, seeing Down's people in public was the fault of the inconsiderate Down's people, and not the personal problem of the women who aborted. Of course, the women coped with this indignity by saying how "icky" these people were (o.k., I'm paraphrasing!), and how glad they didn't have "one of those people" in their families.
I complained about this off and on, and, eventually, it looks like they changed the page. Thank goodness. It's still pretty negative about people with Down syndrome (well, it would have to be...), though.
Now the "for parents who interrupted t-21 pregnancies" page purports to be a little more objective, but it's still got just a touch of misinformation (well, ok, more than just a touch).
A "personal story" had been on the original t-21 page by a woman who really considered all aspects of raising a kid with Down's, but concluded that high functioning Down's individuals were rare. She implied in her original post that only 1% of Down's kids (kids with mosaic Down syndrome) were mildly retarded.
The newer page says much the same thing. However, according to the National Down syndrome society, about a third of people with Down's are mildly retarded. Some people with mosaic Down syndrome are not significantly mentally retarded, and even go to college. If 1% of the Down's population has mosaic Down syndrome, and about a third of the Down's population is mildly retarded, then of course, that means that a majority of the Down's population with mild retardation has full trisomy 21! And there's more -- people in the moderately retarded range can be taught personal care/vocational skills, and in the higher range, can learn literacy skills.
Of course, it'll be a freezing day in July before AHC will mention that fact, or certainly before they educate people about the myths and truths of Down syndrome. The sad thing is, many women with prenatal diagnoses of Down's might happen upon this page, and conclude that these children are better off not being born. The misleading statistics about mild retardation and high functioning people certainly wouldn't give anyone hope.
And one more thing -- AHC says that these aborted babies were "much wanted"? Is conditionally wanted the same thing as "much wanted"? How do they define this? And if they only wanted a healthy child, then why didn't they put energy and time into researching the condition and therapies for it (such as piracetam, vitamins, even future gene therapy, etc.)? No matter what these women say, the "much wanted" part of their "much wanted babies" had lots of strings attached!
Oh, I know I sound "judgemental", but, like the author of A Paen to Eugenics, I get testy when these people judge my kid!
CA USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 03:41:08 (EST) from dial-030.arc-01.lodinet.com
Because its been "legal" (actually its not "legal" and thats ALSO part of the problem but another story) for so long,
PLM, could you expand on that?
L.G., WI USA - Saturday, January 05, 2002 at 00:46:56 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
PLM, I've read some polls that say the percentage of people opposed to abortion is actually increasing.
Not likely. The constant reminder of it being "right" is the law, which is a powerful teacher. Glamour magazine constantly goes after young female minds, prez candidates and others talk of "women rights to choose i defend always" when years ago, people argued for abortion only in "hard cases" now with TOMA, its for any reason. Because its been "legal" (actually its not "legal" and thats ALSO part of the problem but another story) for so long, the shere acceptance of it by authority figures impacts the public perception of its rightness or wrongness. Defining deviancy down-dan pat monyihan. The GOP avoids prolife stands in their offices, and claims to be "prolife" and is now Liddy Dole "agree to disagree"-ish. The dems dont take that view in reverse!
So maybe we're doing something right!
I think choicists are doing MUCH more with their arguments in scope and tactics and strategy than lifers are, and it shows. We arent winning. In fact, Montel Williams, a talk show host bort,had a show on SCR and the audience called the LONE lifer "cruel" and "fanatical" because the lifer failed, as most lifers do, to take the issue and make it unidimensional, for public consumption.
As for the media being on our side -- dude, what planet are you
Well, as long as those networks plug aborton, it is going to get worse. The media's influence, by what they show and DONT show on abortion makes it stay solvent. If its true the media is hopelessly proabort, we have to find a way to establish a network which isnt-or we lose forever. HE who owns the media, owns the minds of the public.
Austin, TX USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 22:53:35 (EST) from 0-1pool115-136.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
Celadon City, Japan - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 21:50:57 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
PLM, I've read some polls that say the percentage of people opposed to abortion is actually increasing. So maybe we're doing something right! As for the media being on our side -- dude, what planet are you from??
Philly, PA USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 20:15:29 (EST) from 0-1pool158-190.nas1.philadelphia1.pa.us.da.qwest.net
Pook, a better question is WHY NBC, CBS, etc. will never assume anything but the worst about people opposed to abortion and the best about those who arent. When show after tv show occurs painting lifers a kooks, it must tell in the long run. I dont see any way for lifers to win unless we find a way to get at least balance in the media, much less superiority...
Austin, TX USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 19:19:25 (EST) from 0-1pool115-136.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
I am back, but not for long, and not to invalidate.
I read your post Vic, and I do appreciate your concern, but I don't know as of yet if I'll be able to write as often. Nick, don't worry, I'm not mad at Vic, because she is concerned. Beneath the postings, we're all human beings with hearts and souls and feelings.
My husband finally bought a black and white used Dell monitor built in 1994. I'm hoping a black and white screen will be easier for me to tolerate, but from what I feel so far, I doubt it.
The test they did at NYU Medical Center, where I was enclosed for 30 minutes inside that HOUVA II machine while I was zapped with all that intense UVB light was extremely unusual as a procedure. Usually, the HOUVA is only used to treat vitiligo or psoriasis diseases, and not as a diagnostic tool. I already got the instruction manual from the National Biological Corporation (they manufacture the HOUVA II) explaining how the machine is used. If you want to see what I went through, log on to their site at: www.natbiocorp.com. There is a picture of the machine and a description of its uses.
I was in there for almost 30 minutes, with only a sheet covering my face and eye goggles for protection. Inside the chamber, it became extremely hot, my face and the insides of my ears were burning despite the sheet. I mentioned this to the technician during the test, and she stopped the machine for a moment and came in and turned on the floor fan. Like that really helped.
Since NYU performed that *test* on me on November 27 (pardon the expression - it's more like an experiment) my health has deteriorated. I have had severe migraine headaches daily, dizziness, and problems with blurred vision. Two weeks ago, I woke up totally deaf in one ear, having lost my hearing in my left ear for two days, but fortunately, most of it came back. I am extremely fatigued. I am basically an invalid, unable to go out because I can not tolerate sunlight without severely burning. I have to wear a special hat that blocks all light if I dare venture out before sundown, and a sunblock of SPF 65 indoors and out. I have not seen the light of day since September. Even my car windows had to be treated with a special tint, but it only helps minimally.
Since my ANA test came out positive in October, I found out that I've been seeing the wrong doctors. I have to see an immunologist, because a positive ANA indicates a potential auto-immune disease. It would have been nice if the wonderful team at NYU's dermatology division had the decency to refer me to the proper doctor, instead of conducting that horrible light tolerance experiment on me, but such is life. They basically run that department like a mill, and don't know you from a hole in the wall, nor do they really care. :(
As far as the cosmetics goes, my skin was nearly healed in mid-November and was looking good, but the HOUVA test made my hyperpigmentation worse, and I have what looks like a permanent greyish shadow on my right cheek, almost like a tatoo. However, it's not that bad, and it can be removed by laser, but not until the doctors know what is wrong with me. Unfortunately, I can't wear makeup anymore, because my skin has become so intolerant to chemicals as well as light.
Monday I go for an MRI (because of the constant headaches) and Thursday I am seeing an immunologist in New York.
I'll try to keep you posted, and thanks for your concerns for my health. If I write at all, it will have to be articles, not postings in the Guestbook, because my time on the computer is limited and articles are most important.
Enough ranting! Nick and Vic, stay in touch. I hope everyone had a happy and healthy New Year, and G-d Bless. Gee, I really miss this place!
Bonnie the former Invalidator <LOTEKCHOW@aol.com>
Brooklyn, NY USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 17:44:54 (EST) from spider-wo014.proxy.aol.com
It's Typhoid Victoria and her Viruses!!!
Head for the hills!
Senator Tom Dashhole
Washington, DC - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 16:20:42 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Nick.. what are you talking about?
Toronto, ON CA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 15:26:53 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
I am posting this again to urge you all to write to NBC and protest the episode of Law & Order set to air January 6th. A synopsis of the episode is available at the website given below (the hyperlink on my name).
The synopsis begins with the sentence, "When a pro-life loner (guest star Robert Stanton) stalks and shoots a doctor, Detectives Goren (Vincent D'Onofrio) and Eames (Kathryn Erbe) begin tracking him through his contacts and when they find a second gun, they reach a chilling conclusion -- their suspect has not acquired his final target."
Please write and let them know that a person who kills an abortionist is not pro-life, and shouldn't be called pro-life.
Email can go to: LawOrderCI@nbc.com
Snail mail can be sent to:
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
L.G., WI USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 15:15:54 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
"I hope Bonnie was well enough to write...".
Either that is not Vic, or I feel that you still owe Bonnie an apology.
USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 13:57:59 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
I can't wait to see those new articles! The same ones were up a couple of months ago (but holidays & jobs exist so..) I hope maybe Bonnie was well enough to write...
Canada - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 13:41:33 (EST) from HSE-Kingston-ppp194143.sympatico.ca
I just posted this at Carolyn's, but I thought I'd put it here, too...
I can't believe I'm still awake...
Anyhow, I don't know if you all have heard about Law & Order for Jan 6th. They're gonna call an abortion doctor killer a "pro-life loner." Full details available at website below. You can email them at LawOrderCI@nbc.com, or send snail mail to:
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
L.G., WI USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 04:12:50 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Do your parents know that you are up this late? I guess it isn't a school night.
USA - Friday, January 04, 2002 at 00:38:05 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
By the way, the plural of virus is virii...
but, really, who talks like that?
- Friday, January 04, 2002 at 00:00:54 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
GAL: "Knock knock." GUY: "Who's there?" GAL: "Dildo." GUY: "Dildo who?" GAL: "I'm gonna hit you in the head with a dildo!"
- Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 23:59:21 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Oh, here is one for the Vicster:
(she ought to just love that one)
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING!
That site is considered by many to be offensive, abusive, and obscene.
It contains many vulgar words that if read by young impressionable minds, could curl hair, infect minds, and lose the war for the Allies.
Consider yourself, forewarned.
Anyone under 35 years of age must be accompanied by a Police/National Guard Escort.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 22:42:13 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Oh WOW! Carolyn is here!!!
We are not worthy!
We are not worthy!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 22:36:41 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Oh well, how about www.leftist-skank.com ?
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 22:35:13 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
I just tried wronggrrl.com and nothing is there.
Hey Vic! That domain is just waitin' for ya!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 21:38:42 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
There actually was a wronggrrl site a few years ago, set up as a parody of this site. I don't know if it is still around.
PLEASE NOTE - THERE ARE MANY NEW ARTICLES THAT NEED POSTING. They should be up within a few days. I thought I would mention that since a lot of readers seem to "hang out" here.
Carolyn (only 200 more posts to go...)
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 21:34:03 (EST) from proxy2-external.adubn1.nj.home.com
"wronggrrl.com" rofl! That's funny...
But I think she would like being stalked by femenoodle. They're two peas in a pod.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 21:30:17 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
If the Vicster thinks that you have a "strange obsession", just wait until Femicide starts stalking her.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 21:05:39 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Isn't there a wronggrrl.com website for Victoria to go hangout on?
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 21:03:47 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Ps Vic... learn to READ... the anonymous post IP is Anonyizer.com. Geez you're stupid. So what on earth does your regular IP have to do with it?
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 20:47:14 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
rofl Vlad... Yup!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 20:39:21 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Hey Joy, did you notice that she hasn't posted a word on this guestbook in months and the first word that she posts is the word "Joy"?
And she has the gall to accuse YOU of being "obsessed"?
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 20:31:00 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
You shouldn't keep your feelings bottled-up inside like that. Let them flow and tell us what you really think. Don't be shy. Just let it out. Open up.
Vlad the Facilitator
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 20:27:49 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
"Joy I do hope that at some point in your life you are able to move on. I did not post as anyone else. It is quite flaterring though that you have such a strange obsession with me. I hope you enjoyed the holidays and may the next year bring better things then the last :) --- Cheers!"
Ah yes... move on... seems to me it's the person who tried to nuke everyone's computers who should 'move on'... and who would believe you after all your lies?
Care to share which part of the anonymous post you don't agree with?
Obsession... Hmmmmmm... Sounds to me like that's more of a symptom of someone who stoops to sending viruses... Oh, that was YOU wasn't it!
Last year brought excellent things and I know this year will as well. And as Vlad said, hopefully no more viruses from an immature, lying, dimwitted, malicious twit who feels the need to pose as a pro-life woman who's son made a pro-life movie called baby jesus... Oh.... YOU again! Yeah, that sounds like a 'heat-of-the-moment' accident.
And your remorse and desire to accept responsibility are typically liberal... i.e. - nonexistent. All the big, bad meanies made me do it! And I succumbed! Oh wow... You'll get along well with Femenoodle!
Get a conscience Vic.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 20:08:41 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Some of you might have heard about the sad plight of the animals in the Afghan zoo, particularly Marjan, the lion, who was blinded and injured by an idiot with a hand grenade. If you're interested in making a donation to help the animals there, check out this site: http://www.nczoo.com/kabul.html
Philly, PA USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 19:49:41 (EST) from 1Cust91.tnt7.phl1.da.uu.net
my domain says ottawa, and i've never even been there.
hamilton, on canada - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 19:29:02 (EST) from Ottawa-HSE-ppp243048.sympatico.ca
Right, hopefully this year Joy won't encounter any viruses. (virusses..viris...what is the proper plural?)
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 19:00:14 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Has anyone heard from Bonnie... I dropped in and saw her message I'm quite worried :(
Canada - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 18:50:05 (EST) from HSE-Kingston-ppp194143.sympatico.ca
but this might be suspicious Joy... my IP is from Bell Kingston? wow Kingston is about 4 hours away from Toronto.... hmmmmm how did that happen?!? LOL re-routing I suppose, don't get your panties in a knot :)
Toronto, Canada - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 18:20:34 (EST) from HSE-Kingston-ppp194143.sympatico.ca
Joy I do hope that at some point in your life you are able to move on. I did not post as anyone else. It is quite flaterring though that you have such a strange obsession with me. I hope you enjoyed the holidays and may the next year bring better things then the last :) --- Cheers!
Canada - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 18:14:26 (EST) from HSE-Kingston-ppp194143.sympatico.ca
Actually, Femicide you may not be all wet, I have seen alot of individual women where they say no kids, and then boom, but so have I even of men. The most incredible case was one I mentioned, where a proaobrt female super expremist did a 180 degree turn about to the amazement of her husband who expected she would abort if got pg, she said she would, didnt, and he was stuck, natch. But women innately wanting babies (save human repro instincts) is wrong, because abortion proves that, and many women have no desire to have children flat out. Its individual, again. You keep lumping women together into them being ran by universal laws that control their thoughts and actions it seems. Why I am unable to determine, because you dont seem to do that regards MALES. Do you?
Austin, TX USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 16:59:19 (EST) from 0-1pool114-238.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
Local Victory is the Republican Guide to Winning Local Elections. Free tools and information for local Republican activists. Check it out at http://www.localvictory.com
Local Victory <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Washington, DC USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 16:58:17 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Well, I'll be danged. You shore fooooooled me.
But I'm just a simple country boy.
Vlad the Decieved
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:32:46 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Vlad, go back and read that post again... and see if it doesn't have Vic written all over it.
Anyone can post from Anonymizer.com as I did below as "I won't tell if you don't" and get the same IP.
Seeya later! I'm going to LOTR again!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:24:28 (EST) from dialup-184.108.40.206.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Vlad -- usually when you start to make sense they get irritated and don't want to debate anymore. LOL
Case in point -- you know that feminist message board I've mentioned in here a couple times? I've posted (in here) a couple of the insanely outrageous things that leftover hippie crazy radical feminazi on there has said. Something that she does that cracks me up all the time --- If I (or my cousin, who she also hates) posts something rebutting a statement she's made (or arguing with an article she's posted) sometimes she'll debate, if she thinks she has an argument. More often than not, though, she makes a point to post, "As I've said before, I don't respond to the above poster because she has proven herself to be lying, manipulative, and hateful." But, she WILL respond if she thinks she can argue.
Methinks she simply has no rebuttal. LOL
Typical liberal --- falls apart at the seams when faced with common sense.
L.G., WI USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:19:36 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
That's me Vlad... "I won't tell if you don't"...
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:13:36 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
PLM, while your points are quite valid, I was not referring to women already pregnant when I mentioned hormones. I was talking about women who will say they don't want children, or don't want children yet, then do an about face when they their maternal and nesting instincts kick in. Often without informing the male involved. Wanting children seems to me to be inbred into most women. Am I wrong? Is it not something most women tend to yearn for at some point in their lives? Not just a longing to simply "have" children as in males, but a great desire to carry them inside the womb. I don't know, maybe that's just hogwash, but that is what I have experienced. I don't excuse the behavior. I simply protect myself from it in whatever ways are reasonable. I am not on some sort of crusade to get women to take responsibility or to get men to stop excusing them for it. If anything, I have given up on that aspect and would simply tell men to expect the worst from women and be prepared for it. I don't believe you're going to change men's attitudes towards women, nor are you going to change women's sense of responsibility. A few will listen, but by in large, it's shouting into a hurricane. Still, more power to you for trying.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:10:47 (EST) from adsl-156-180-71.gsp.bellsouth.net
Love your show!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:07:04 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
I wonder who this could be...
I won't tell if you don't
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 14:01:42 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
Your debating opponent actually said:
The mother's rights outweigh those of the child, so the mother has a "right" to kill it? Isn't that just a fine "how-do-you-dooooo?"
Let's just make up rights as we go along....and it can be justified by each and everyones' opinions instead of by laws. (flexible morals to fit every situation)
You might tell your debating opponent that you consider that "Your rights outweigh hers, and therefore you have a right to KILL her if you choose to." Wow that's choice isn't it? And it is based on someone's opinion. So much for "Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness." That's why liberals (algore) want us to have a "living Constitution".
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:55:28 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Another brainless inane left-wing quote is when Joycelyn Elders said; "Our goal is to have every chiiiiild a planned and wanted chiiiild."
The problem with that bogus sentiment is that it is unattainalble unless she plans to start killing lots of kids.
Hypothetical situatio: a couple plans to have a child...they have a child....but then decide that they do not want the child. Hence, that child was planned but not wanted. Joycelyn Elder's rememdy would have to be "kill the child", otherwise her noble goal will not ever be achieved. Another hypotetical couple has a child, but they did not plan to. However, they DO want the child. Well, this child is not planned, but IS wanted, and therefore stands in the way of Ms. Elders worldwide goal. So she must kill it, or else we will never have; "every chiiiild a planned and wanted chiiild."
This proves; liberals don't think about what they say, are completely emotion driven, and are easily fooled by bunk like that espoused by charletons such as Joycelyn Elders and Bill Clintoon.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:48:01 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
I was debating with a bort about that very statement, Vlad. She was saying, "Well, I'm not pro-abortion! I'm pro-life, but I'm pro-choice too! I mean, I'll admit that yes a fetus is alive, but I think the mother's rights outweigh the rights of that fetus. Of course I want abortions to be rare! I mean, it IS hard on the mother's body!"
Of course, most borts will never admit that abortion wreaks havoc on the mother's body (not to mention what it does to the unborn child, since we all know that). I just kept firing questions at her, shooting down each statement till she got irritated and left(this wasn't a friend of mine, just someone I got into debate with....I have a tendency to do that).
L.G., WI USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:47:02 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Did you notice that "Victoria" actually posted on Gargaro.com last night at approx 20:36 ?
She just said, "Happy New Year, Everyone."
Her IP says, "Canada" and "sympatico" on it. This Penelope's IP is very different and she listed her website as Amandaplease.com (It is about a show on Nickolodean). I don't think she is Vic, but only a misguided pre-teen, who's views have been twisted by a warped publik skool sistem (sic).
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:31:07 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
"If a human fetus is not "a person" but "an inviable tissue mass", why do they care about abortions being rare?" Exactamundo...
Hey Vlad, thanks for that previous post about the 3/5 of a person thing. I did not know that... Garth, did you know that? Doesn't it figure that's what they were trying to do...
Vlad the information man! :o]
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:23:52 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Vlad - She hates America first because she's from Canada... Don't you recognize her out of her camouflage and gas mask from blasting the other guestbook with viruses? America is hate-mongering, but sending an entire message board full of people to a virus site is peaceful and loving. But oh wait... SHE was just caught up in a moment that she had nothing to do with... I forgot.
Hey Vic - You go girl!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:20:27 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
One of the most tired, overused and banal cliches of the left is:
"I believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."
Algore was fond of saying this.
When you look closely at it, it is utter feel-good nonsense. If a human fetus is not "a person" but "an inviable tissue mass", why do they care about abortions being rare???
I don't hear them whining about apendectomies or tonsilectomies being rare, isn't that also just he removal of "an inviable tissue mass"? As usual, the liberals don't even believe their own garbage about a fetus only being a tissue mass. Since they don't consider a fetus to be "a life" they shouldn't care abour abortions being "rare". In fact, any Botonist will admit that crabgrass is a lifeform, but no liberals have ever bleated about every crabgrass being "planned and wanted". So liberals must believe that a human fetus is somehow morally below crabgrass (since it has life) but above that of a tonsil or fingernail. I wish one of these liberals would explain their bizarre beliefs to me, but that might involve them having to think and they might strain something.
As usual liberals intentionally delude themselves for the sake of their own convenience.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 13:09:47 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
the last description that you made in your post, fits the Phil Donahue/Alan Alda type pantywaists to a teee!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 12:02:36 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
As I have said a few times before, AMEN PLM!!
L.G., WI USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 12:00:14 (EST) from mke-160-231-56.wi.rr.com
Femicide, i have a post for you!
You of course blanketly lump all women (or nearly all) and this earns you scorn. What is fascinating is your attitude, typically modern male, is exactly what causes so much of what you find appalling in women. You state that "once the HORMONES kick in, NO WOMAN can be trusted in a pregnancy." Well, the opinion that women are virtual children, ran entirely by emotion and hormones, is exactly why Andrea Yates kills her kids and gets sympathy. If women are to be treated as equals, MEN have to STOP excusing behavior from women they wouldnt tolerate without anger as a response-if it were done by a male. Prochoice women KNOW they are abusers, they simply are too selfish to care. They know the same laws they call holy sacrament for women would be horror show for women. The problem isnt "hormones" its justice, fairness, morality and equality espousement or lack therof. Every time a man, even one that lumps women together and despises them, such as you, excuses or explains away abusive behavior when a woman is the perp, we get more legal abortion, infanticide, child murder, etc. Women are capable of seeing right and wrong, the ones that dont arent afflicted by "post partum depression" , "hormones" etc. they are afflicted by abusive tendencies spurred on be "enabling" men who exist in our society who, like you, oddly enough, excuse instead of dealing with it head on. Since I feel women are equals, and capable of knowing right and wrong, I dont treat them like children and excuse abortion or whatever because that is discrimination of the WORST KIND against women, because it assumes they arent capable of rational thought and just moral action with consistency. Ironically, also, the same men who excuse women who do act wrongly, are the same men who claim to be for women's rights, (and sadly often for abortion rights) who never seem to see that by treating women with special passes and exemptions they are preventing women from the very equality they claim to espouse...
Austin, TX USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 11:16:46 (EST) from 0-1pool114-238.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
Well, the anonymous poster, isn't really so anonymous. The IP is the same as an earlier post from "Penelope Taynt".
Penelope, you need to give up your unhealthy obsession with "Amanda" and do some actual historical research to counteract the PC propaganda-garbage that you are being force-fed in your urban public school by the "hate- Amerika-first" crowd. Scholarly pursuits could help you conquer your shoe-sniffing habit AND once you learn the truth, it is very fun to challenge your brain-washed drone teachers with it.
By the way, if you were to take-off that goofy-looking black wig and glasses, you would look very much like Amanda.
My little boy likes your site, especially the "Hillbilly moments".
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 11:14:59 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
I cannot let the anonymous poster (below) get away with his criticism of Thomas Jefferson. Indians were described as merciless savages, because THEY WERE!
Indians, back then, were primitive nomadic hunter/gatherers that lived in communal tribes. Yes, the Indians possessed many admirable qualities, but they were primitive and savage, none the less. They constantly egaged in brutal wars against each other, against white settlers, and they treated their women in a horrible fashion.
Besides, all of human History is the story of more advanced societies displacing or absorbing the less advanced. This occurrence was not unique to the American West. What is unique is the current crop of PC crybaby victim-whiners that feeeeeel the need to wring their hands and blubber about it. If you are so d@$#d concerned about Indians, why don't you sign over the deed to your house to the nearest Indian tribe? By your own definition, you are in possession of "stolen property".
Which would you rather have, the United States of American or a vast unsettled continent filled with warring nomadic tribes and buffalo? Quite frankly, I would probably be much happier living as a hunter/gather, but I doubt you even could make it even if you wanted to. Until you return YOUR property to its rightful "Native American" owners, then keep quiet about it until you decide to practice what you preach.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 10:55:14 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
The 3/5's compromise was actually done to prevent Southern slave states from increasing their representation in the U.S. Congress, therefore have more political power. Congressional seats are apportioned based on population and the Southern states wanted slaves to be counted in the census. Northern and Midwestern free states rightfully opposed this. (Remember, seats are apportioned based on "population", not "voting population" so technically slaves could be counted). The 3/5's compromise was the best solution that could be reached at the time. Too many people point to this as some kind of barbaric dehumanization of black people, when it was nothing of the sort. It was the slave-owners that wanted their slaves counted in the census.
I might also remind you that many of the founding fathers were opposed to slavery and referred to it as "the peculiar institution". It would have been impossible to found this Republic, gain Independence, AND fight a war for abolition of slavery all at the same time. So, fist things first slavery had to be tolerated, like it had been tolerated for thousands of years in all human civilizations. Colonial Americans did not invent slavery. It has existed throughout human history. Every civilization prior to ours has practiced slavery in some form. In fact, American and British Christians were the first people on earth to eradicate slavery and did it by force of arms. I would challenge you to name any other group of people in history that sacrificed so much to free another group of people.
I find it tiresome that the PC crowd see's the need to be judgmental of people who lived hundreds of years ago and judge them by contemporary standards. Many of Abraham Lincolns beliefs would be considered racist by today's standards. Yet, in the context of his time, Lincoln was a visionary with radical views.
The fact that contemporary society can delude itself into thinking that abortion is a "choice" instead of the killing of a helpless infant is more evidence on how human beings can intentionally delude themselves into believing convenient falsehoods. I shudder to think how future generations are going to judge this self-righteous narcacistic generation.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 10:36:25 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
"...is that the same "polite company" who regarded blacks as objects to be owned, rather than people? (Later, a court decision declared that a black could be counted as only 3/5 of a person.) Remember the Declaration Of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson referred to Native Americans as "merciless Indian savages"? In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that the fetus was not a "person", and therefore not entitled to Constitutional rights. What do you think of all this?"
All of this is irrelevant. Two or three or even four "wrong" beliefs (which have since been corrected, for the most part) do not have any thing to do with the basic abortion issue.
As far as Roe v Wade is concerned, that decision is just flat wrong - one of the more egregious examples of judicial activism, I might add!
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 09:06:53 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
The look on
her face when accusing me of fathership can be priceless. That and the fact no one really wants me to
reproduce in the first place.
Femicide, the reasons have been pointed out to you about THAT. Your point is, however, more or less correct-no woman has to trust a man at his word so no man should have to. Since any woman can 180, in theory, the idea a man can simply watch who he sleeps with is untenable, because nobody would expect women to have to trust the guy wont want an abortion by his word and give him total say regardless of his presex word, just as birthfathers have to have rights enforced in adoption to prevent a right he should never have to exercise to block an adoption he has no interest in permitting. If lifers would get some strategic brains, and start a campaign to SHOW men how BAD abortion laws are on them, in every possible direction because they get no choices in any manner, we might get abortion banned. No more would Al Gore types who defend abortion for women be able to spew their crap if each try led to angry men arguing the reverse, and abortion would be on the way out because we'd HAVE the votes, unlike the in vaccuum argument of life loss, which fails to take account of personalizing to the male voting block and building a coalition not based on believing US about the truth about abortion killing, but to preserve their own choices AND to defend life all in one-a one two punch borts cannot duplicate...
Austin, TX USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 01:48:07 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
At the time the Constitution was drafted, abortion was not an issue largely due to the high rate of infant and child death rate. People NEEDED children. They were not a luxury or an annoyance. Aborting a child was rarely an issue. Maybe among the very wealthy due to some sort of standing within their clique, but for most it was not a desired procedure. Heck, premarital sex was standard among the Puritans. For all their religious zeal, they were a practical people. Couples often married with the wife-to-be already pregnant. This was done to insure the union would be "fruitful" before actual joining in marriage. An immensely practical view. Just an example of how important children were in ages past. It would have been inconceivable to the Founders that abortion would ever become widespread.
USA - Thursday, January 03, 2002 at 00:12:06 (EST) from adsl-20-146-25.gsp.bellsouth.net
Vlad mentioned something to the effect that abortion was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution because the subject was unthinkable to those who wrote it. Well, it was going on back then, wasn't it? They had a chance to outlaw it. And as far as not being mentioned in "polite company" of colonial America...is that the same "polite company" who regarded blacks as objects to be owned, rather than people? (Later, a court decision declared that a black could be counted as only 3/5 of a person.) Remember the Declaration Of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson referred to Native Americans as "merciless Indian savages"? In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that the fetus was not a "person", and therefore not entitled to Constitutional rights. What do you think of all this?
- Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 23:41:28 (EST) from 220.127.116.11
Right, PLM. Where reproduction is concerned, never take a woman at her "word." The hormones kick in and everything flies out the window. Mind you I don't blame any woman for suddenly wanting a baby. It's, generally, part of the female nature. Had my vasectomy some time ago. It was worth it. The look on her face when accusing me of fathership can be priceless. That and the fact no one really wants me to reproduce in the first place.
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 18:44:15 (EST) from adsl-20-146-25.gsp.bellsouth.net
Trickster that Al is, he invented the common cold first so he'd have something to invent a cure for... typical liberal. :o]
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 18:00:21 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Were those dog vaccinations or Mother-In-Law vaccinations that algore invented???
Regardless, he believes that they should cost the same.
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 17:44:04 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
I thought I heard somewhere that algore invented vaccinations?
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 17:28:57 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
No, the snot thing started yesterday when Matt stated that he believed that a wad of snot in a tissue could be a better President than Algore could.
But, Algore is currently working on a cure for the common cold. Once that is done, no more wads of snot in tissues, so Algore can run again.
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 16:37:25 (EST) from hqfirepu2-ext.agedwards.com
Algore is snot a good leader.
(Did all these snot comments come up at the New Years gig in the cornfield Monday night?)
Another thought: Someone should put St. Hillary on a military defense subcommittee, which at that time would consist of only conservatives, 2/3 Republicans and 1/3 Democrats. She'd love it, I'm sure - or she'd get depressed that her hardball leftist ravings and character assassinations aren't gaining her any political capital in that environment.
Left Coast, CA USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 13:26:54 (EST) from 209-76-220-17.bankofthewest.com
"Many men who've ended up with unwanted abortions, men I personally have counseled, NEVER thought such would occur to them, usually because THEY never really assumed it would/could happen and they didn't even constantly fret over whether or not abortion was moral or fair or logical or murderous."
My problem is that, since I view the pro-abortion attitude so negatively, I often assume that people I come into contact with ARE pro-life! I am constantly surprised to discover otherwise.
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 12:56:14 (EST) from 126.96.36.199
Why is it that I have to get my wife's signature to have a visectomy yet she can have an abortion without my knowing about it?
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 11:51:54 (EST) from inetgate5.bp.com
And with the current laws, Matt, that is the principle recourse-HOPING her stance is consistent and remains so, regardless of presex claims, whether the woman is prolife or prochoice. I knew a woman who was 1000% proabortion, insisted she *would* abort if she ogt pg, her husband, a raving antichilder himself, agreed, she got pg, and she 180'd and decided to BEAR the child! He never thought she would 180, but she did, just in the reverse direction. Now, I dont claim her path was wrong, obviously, and gladly she saw the errors of her views, but it speaks an important problem with no recourse or rights based laws. Many men whove ended up with unwanted abortions, men I personally have counseled, NEVER thought such would occur to them, usually because THEY never really assumed it would/could happen and they didnt even constantly fret over whether or not abortion was moral or fair or logical or murderous. Nobody thinks it can happen to them and if so, the person (male or female) often assumes they will cross that bridge when they come to it (suicidal) ad solve it together, etc. Really, other than abstinence, ALL men should find this position out WAY before a single act of sex occurs, and act accordingly. You were smart to give her the boot, if we had many if not all men doing this, we'd have fewer abortions in totality and fewer one way decisions. I would NEVER even consider dating a "prochoice" female because of the reason you gave. For men this is absolute given the screwed up one way laws. No man thinks it will happen to him, or he naively doesnt think about it ever becoming a personal reality to begin with, but all men should. I make it a point, in public, to tell women to their faces abortion is wrong, sexual discrimination and intolerable and that I feel no remorse or guilt being male for "having an opinion on a woman's issue" etc. and that no men should ever consider having sex with any woman who is "prochoice" since that would be like women having sex with a man who in advance says he wont willingly support a child resulting from the sex or expects the woman to abort or keep only as HE desires! That usually gets their attention to the reality of their elitist sexism!
Austin, TX USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 10:53:12 (EST) from 0-1pool114-57.nas1.austin1.tx.us.da.qwest.net
"Of course forced abortions occur every day here in the USA as well, due to no due process/rights for the fathers of each aborted baby."
True, PLM, true. I'm just glad it never happened to me. There's a reason my ex is my ex - her stance on abortion being one near the top of the list.
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 09:17:21 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Not to worry - that tissue is long gone by now - it's just too bad the originals are still hanging around. No, wait, DC is pretty much a sewer....
I admit I am a results-oriented kind of guy, as well as a big believer in accepting personal responsibility for one's own actions. We'll just have to wait and see what tomorrow brings. I'm still not going to hold my breath, though!
USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 08:36:16 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
iving in to China on ANY issue will benefit us in
the future. It is viewed by them as a sign of weakness.
Precisely. As for Bush, wheher he does or does not have "americas interests" first is irrelevant, the effect is what counts, the results-which arent likely to be good as pursued. I cant understand why so many conservatives trust Bush when he gives sign after sign not to-maybe they will settle for anything after Clinton, but its a poverty mentality not demanding the BEST as a standard. Of course forced abortions occur every day here in the USA as well, due to no due process/rights for the fathers of each aborted baby. In *each* abortion, a child dies AND basic rights of the male partner in the pregnancy are violated. In SOME abortions the woman's are, as in China, though seldom true in the USA. Any toleration of laws that support such, whether here or there is equally foul and requires leadership to decry and stand firm against. One wonders if Bush is up to the task given his already shaky track record...
Austin, TX USA - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 at 00:17:12 (EST) from PPPa91-ResaleAustin1-1R7180.dialinx.net
And Matt - Funny analogy.. I have the same reaction to sore/loserman as I do to a tissue full of snot. EEEEewwwwwwwww...
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 20:05:50 (EST) from dialup-220.127.116.11.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Melissa - You are absolutely right about the silence concerning Finkle and the forced abortion in China. The silence from NOW is deafening. It's disgusting.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 20:03:26 (EST) from dialup-18.104.22.168.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
Oh and "PIAPS/Snot 2004" - roflmao!
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 19:49:49 (EST) from dialup-22.214.171.124.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
While I LOVE Dubya and think it's obvious he is WAY better than sore-loserman, I can't expect to agree with every decision he makes. And this one bothers me.
Vlad - You made some good points and I understand what you are saying... but I gotta say... I think it's a big mistake to place China in a position of getting tons more US dollars in trade than they already do considering they are selling arms to terrorists and they force abortion on women.
And I'll admit I'm more upset that they sell arms to the terrorists than that they eat their own babies. It sickens me that they force abortion... but selling arms to terrorists as far as I'm concerned proves them to be our enemy. But I also trust that Bush has our best interests at heart for the long run and it's America that he is putting first.
Bush is da man as far as I'm concerned... I just hope this decision doesn't bite us in the ass in the future.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 19:48:16 (EST) from dialup-126.96.36.199.Dial1.Phoenix1.Level3.net
"...I personnally think that the wad of snot that I left in a tissue this morning could do a better job than Sore/Loserman!"
I hope you flushed that wad of snot, Matt. I am afraid Hillary might get some ideas and nominate it as her running mate. PIAPS/Snot 2004
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 18:24:21 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Yes, that's true. Hypocrites all. It just goes to show how hollow their "beliefs" are.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 18:09:43 (EST) from 188.8.131.52
Matt, I don't think the NOW types give a damn about women being forced to have abortions in China -- the "right" to abortion is sacred. Have they said anything about Brian Finkel, the creep who sexually molested his patients? Nah, not that I know of. And any time an abortionist of accused of harming or even killing a woman, they come to his aid. Sickening.
Philly, PA USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 17:47:27 (EST) from 0-1pool157-170.nas1.philadelphia1.pa.us.da.qwest.net
"Can you agree that Bush is quite an improvement in this regard, even if we don't agree will all of he decisions?"
Certainly I can agree with that! I personally think that the wad of snot I left in a tissue this morning could do a better job than Sore/Loserman!
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 17:27:41 (EST) from 184.108.40.206
I fully agree with your interpretation of the Fifth amendment (Amen, brother!) and I am quite certain that the men who wrote the document would agree with you. They most likely felt no need to specifically mention "abortion" because the entire concept was probably unthinkable to them. In colonial America, I don't think such subjects were even broached in polite company and would have been considered obscene.
In our times, a significant number of people now have rather twisted ideas of what constitutes and does not constitute "life". That means, we have to ratify a Right to Life Amendment to make it clear to them.
I really do believe that George Bush's policies are better for this country then Algore's would be. Remember, Clintoon and Liar Gore used Federal dollars to fund "Planned "Parenthood", which promotes abortions worldwide.
Can you agree that Bush is quite an improvement in this regard, even if we don't agree will all of he decisions?
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 15:28:50 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
You're right, Matt. When a woman is forced to abort her child against her will, it makes it an even darker atrocity. I wish that there was something that could be done to change it, and I pray that President Bush does the right thing.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 14:34:36 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
Sorry, I seem to be having Tech. Difficulities here.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 14:28:25 (EST) from 220.127.116.11
"I have thought for quite a while about the Red China/abortion issue and have come to the conclusion that; we as a society have very little moral authority on that issue."
BS. I don't give a rat's ass about the position our "society" takes - I speak for myself. And two wrongs do not make a right. Abortions performed in the US are just as wrong as abortions performed elsewhere, but when they are performed on women who want to keep their babies, they are an unspeakable horror. Surely even "prochoice" women hate to see their "sisters" forced into a decision against their will - isn't that the antithesis of "choice?"
Much of what you say is true, Vlad, I just don't see how giving in to China on ANY issue will benefit us in the future. It is viewed by them as a sign of weakness.
"No person shall be.....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking "life" without due process, which to me speaks of innocent babies as well as criminals. Therefore abortion is covered by the Constitution.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 14:27:10 (EST) from 18.104.22.168
I respect your opinion and understand it, but our Bill Of Rights does not apply to people living in Red China.
I do not fully understand President Bush's reasoning on this decision; but, I am happy that he is now in Office instead of his predecessor. I am certain that he has honest advisors and deliberately weighs the issue before he makes his decision. That is quite a contrast to Clintoon or Liar Gore, who would just pander to liberal special interest groups, including their Red Chinese campaign contributors.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 14:18:18 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com
"I have thought for quite a while about the Red China/abortion issue and have come to the conclusion that; we as a society have very little moral authority on that issue."
BS. I don't give a rat's ass about the position our "society" takes - I speak for myself. And two wrongs do not make a right.
Much of what you say is true, Vlad, I just don't see how giving in to China on ANY issue will benefit us in the future. It is viewed by them as a sign of weakness.
No person shall be.....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking "life" without due process, which to me speaks of innocent babies as well as criminals.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 14:10:46 (EST) from 22.214.171.124
I have thought for quite a while about the Red China/abortion issue and have come to the conclusion that; we as a society have very little moral authority on that issue.
For us, as a country, to lecture the Chinese about the evils of abortion while abortions are commonplace in this country, would be hypocritical.
I know...I know...we don't have the government forcing women to have abortions against their will, but when an American woman exercises her "choice", the child is just as dead as if the government had mandated it. The difference is only where the authority to take the life is vested. Here in the United States, the individual is allowed to make the decision, while in Red China, a government bureaucrat decides. I consider both options to be evil. To assume a morally superior postition, we would have to believe that abortion decided on the individual level is right and abortions are only wrong when done by government force. I happen to believe that all abortions are wrong, except to save the Mother's life.(very rare instances)
I do see a difference between RED Chinese babies and American babies. A RED Chinese baby one day grows to become a Red Chinese soldier and is a threat to our freedom, while an American baby grows-up in most cases to be a freedom loving American. (Except in Marin Cty, Berkeley CA, or Rio Linda). If the Communist Chinese choose to kill and eat their own offspring, then our Government has no legal or moral obligation to try and prevent it. Especially when it is beyond our power and would cost the lives of good Americans.
I think that the political capital could be better spent here in this country changing the minds of Americans. There is currently a hard-core feminist minority that is VERY vocal. Their disinformatin and lies have skewed public opinion towards agreeing with the Roe Vs. Wade decision. There is a vast cadre of undecided people who do not feel strongly either way about abortion, and if their hearts are properly influenced, they would come over to our side.
My personal belief is that abortion is an atrocity. However, abortion was NEVER mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the Federal Government has NO authority on the issue. Roe Vs Wade was a clear case of judicial activism where a group of Justices decided that "the ends justify the means" and they "interpreted" something into the law that was not there.
One of the BIG LIES that is told by liberal feminsists is; "If Roe V Wade is overturned, then abortions will ALL be illegal and women will have to go to back alleys and DIE!"
This belief is a combination of ignorance of Constitutional law and deliberate disinformation (lying). If (when) Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, the authority over the abortion issue will reside with the State Governments on a individual state-by-state basis. The State governments more accurately reflect the views and values of the people who reside there, as opposed to a "one-size fits all" Federal remedy.
The only way that the Feds could rightfully have authority over the abortion issue is for the Constitution to be amended (in either direction: a Right to Life Amendment or A Right to Abort Children Amendment) The RVW decision was stealth-law that circumvented the Democratic process.
In the debate with feminoid on Carolyn's guestbook, the issue was the Death Penalty. Feminoid states that he is against it based on his personal opinion. I rightfully pointed-out that personal opinions have nothing at all to do with it, because Capital Punishment is provided for in the Constitution (Bill of Rights 5th Amend). This is a similar situation, but I am being consistent. Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, so the Federal government cannot prohibit or allow it without a new Amendment being ratified. By default the authority over this issue lies with the State Governments.
In conclusion; I think that we have much work to do HERE on the issue before we start tinkering with what they are doing in Red China.
USA - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 13:28:14 (EST) from cs24162100-65.hot.rr.com