The story with EXTENSIVE hyper links (and larger text)can be found here:
http://www.vdare.com/malkin/hysterical_women.htm
October 19, 2004
Hysterical Women For Kerry
By Michelle Malkin
Rosie the Riveter has given way to Sally the Sniveler.
During World War II, young Rose Will Monroe was the face of American women in adversity: strong, supportive, and resolute against the enemy forces that threatened our existence. Tens of thousands like Rosie rolled up their sleeves, gritted their teeth, and flexed their muscles in factories and shipyards and arsenals across the country.
They made rockets and rifles and bombs and boats. They painted and drilled and welded. When they got home to their kids, they cooked and cleaned and collapsed in bed after praying for their husbands and brothers and uncles on the battlefield.
Rosie and her sisters in arms didn’t have the luxury of complaining about their lack of "me time." There was a war to be won. And so, as this presidential campaign season has constantly reminded us, there is today.
But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are self-absorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers’ union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their air-conditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream Jets and custom Escalades.)
They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they’re apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his Star Wars light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones in Afghanistan).
In battleground states, the Kerry campaign has dispatched such incoherent nervous nellies to scare the pantyhose of off young women and moms.
Kerry’s sister, Peggy, landed in Ohio at a Women for Kerry rally to scare up female votes to oppose President Bush’s "war against women." At a time when Islamofascists are chopping off heads and kidnapping aid workers and plotting to kill schoolchildren, and at a time when untold numbers of malefactors are crossing into our borders, Peggy Kerry chose to whine about the alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries. "That is not fair," she said. "Let me tell you what my brother is going to fight for—pay equity." Kerry's sister blasts Bush at Sawyer Point rally, Cincinnati Post, Oct 18, 2004
Meanwhile, a teacher for Kerry complained: "If we lose the White House again, it is very possible we will lose public education." In Michigan, actress/legal observer Christine Lahti rallied Kerry women by warning: "Listen up. If (Bush) is re-elected, he will appoint a (Justice) Clarence Thomas clone and reverse Roe versus Wade." The Kerry campaign has also sent actress Sharon Stone—who recently blamed President Bush for preventing her from kissing fellow actress Halle Berry in the awful movie Catwoman— to drum up female votes in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
But if Hollywood had to crown a poster girl for the new Sally the Sniveler campaign, it would be Cameron Diaz. Rosie the Riveter delivered a unifying message to her fellow American women with simple, rousing clarity: "We can do it!" In stark contrast, here’s a painful partial transcript of Diaz’s vote-beseeching appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show last month:
Diaz: "We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo—if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...
Winfrey: "It's your voice."
Diaz: "It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right."
We’ve come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war.
Michelle Malkin [email her] is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Hysterical Women For Kerry
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Hysterical Women For Kerry
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
blackcrown
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 316
- Joined: 23 Apr 2003 13:09
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Re: Hysterical Women For Kerry
So speaking about issues that you are worried about is whining now? Why shouldn't women be concerned about there rights? Why is it sniveling to encourage people to vote? Why is she talking like Rosie the Riviter was a real person and not the tool of propaganda it was?
Eric
Eric
Eric Palmer
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
celebrities and musicians are also citizens, they have a right just like anyone else to express their opinions. Why not use the advantage they have of being able to reach a large audiences 
its nice to see celebrities talk about things that matter instead of showing off their cribs.
and cameron diaz is HOT
its nice to see celebrities talk about things that matter instead of showing off their cribs.and cameron diaz is HOT
Reginald VelJohnson
about celebritys useing being a celebrity to get to alot of people to listen to them:
i watched the oprah show you are talking about, and the show didnt say vote kerry, or vote bush, it said VOTE. and im not saying that at some point cameron hasent said vote kerry or vote bush, but not on the Oprah show. and i think (for example) Oprah using her power to reach the 122 million people that watch her show every day is powerfull. if she wasnt a celebrity with her show, and able to voice things that help women, then alot of people would be in a worse off place. so it really really matters about who your are talking about. not every celebrity takes advantage of the people who watch them. ( or intend to, because some sick people who cant have their own opinion rely on what Camerion Diaz or Dave Mattews thinks)
i watched the oprah show you are talking about, and the show didnt say vote kerry, or vote bush, it said VOTE. and im not saying that at some point cameron hasent said vote kerry or vote bush, but not on the Oprah show. and i think (for example) Oprah using her power to reach the 122 million people that watch her show every day is powerfull. if she wasnt a celebrity with her show, and able to voice things that help women, then alot of people would be in a worse off place. so it really really matters about who your are talking about. not every celebrity takes advantage of the people who watch them. ( or intend to, because some sick people who cant have their own opinion rely on what Camerion Diaz or Dave Mattews thinks)
Ashley Danowski
"As a well spent day brings happy sleep, so life well spent brings happy death."
"As a well spent day brings happy sleep, so life well spent brings happy death."
I understand the concern for those who can't determine A from B. But the audience of the Opray show is mostly women, who can make up their mind for themselves.
I will always take issue with any celebrity who without prior or current political knowledge, picks a stance and brings his/her followers to that decision. It is not logical for the celebrity to claim any kind of authority on the matter.
This is just as bad as Michael Jordan selling underwear or Grant Hill drinking sprite. And I wouldn't buy jack from either one of them unless it's a basketball.
I will always take issue with any celebrity who without prior or current political knowledge, picks a stance and brings his/her followers to that decision. It is not logical for the celebrity to claim any kind of authority on the matter.
This is just as bad as Michael Jordan selling underwear or Grant Hill drinking sprite. And I wouldn't buy jack from either one of them unless it's a basketball.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
I think in society with have a definite problem with the way celebrities are treated. The most important thing to remember is that they are just people - as normal as anybody else.
I have no real political qualifications - I barely studied politics at school and although I've been involved with a number of political parties - I've never been a member. But because I've done a lot of research in my own time - I like to think that politics is one of the things I know a lot about.
I think it's important to allow everybody to express their views. The fact that more people care about what a celebrity says than what a professor in that field says - is not the fault of either person speaking - you can only be responsible for your own actions - it's the fault of society.
If we take into account that they are just "normal" people with views expressed by many "normal" people - the fact that they are a celebrity doesn't make them right or wrong. The fact that people are swung to a particular view because their favourite actor has that same view is the choice of the person changing their view - not the celebrity.
Personally I thought that article was a load of shit - but that didn't surprise me at all.
I have no real political qualifications - I barely studied politics at school and although I've been involved with a number of political parties - I've never been a member. But because I've done a lot of research in my own time - I like to think that politics is one of the things I know a lot about.
I think it's important to allow everybody to express their views. The fact that more people care about what a celebrity says than what a professor in that field says - is not the fault of either person speaking - you can only be responsible for your own actions - it's the fault of society.
If we take into account that they are just "normal" people with views expressed by many "normal" people - the fact that they are a celebrity doesn't make them right or wrong. The fact that people are swung to a particular view because their favourite actor has that same view is the choice of the person changing their view - not the celebrity.
Personally I thought that article was a load of shit - but that didn't surprise me at all.
I agree Jeremy, it is an opinion from a person, not a fact from a well known person.
While it may be societies fault that they cannot figure A from B, I must place some blame on the celebrity for exploiting his or her opinion in turning out numbers on an issue.
[quick everyone look left cause that's what Cameron did]
While it may be societies fault that they cannot figure A from B, I must place some blame on the celebrity for exploiting his or her opinion in turning out numbers on an issue.
[quick everyone look left cause that's what Cameron did]
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Wow, didn't think i'd get all this response.
Sure, Diaz has a right to her opinion.
The part about, "If you want rape legalized, then don't vote", is laughable.
I don't know if she was implying "If Bush is re-elected, rape will be legalized."
People who watch Oprah are probably brain dead sheep anyhow, so who knows what effect some hollywood idiot will have.
Actors ARE people just like everyone else. But when your career is reading lines that someone else wrote, pretending to be someone else, and the kilos of cocaine.....that clouds their judgement.
Celebs like to flaunt their wealth, then support policies to make sure YOU never see any wealth.
They live near crime-infested cities, protected by armed guards, and tall gates, but deny you the same weapons.
-n
Sure, Diaz has a right to her opinion.
The part about, "If you want rape legalized, then don't vote", is laughable.
I don't know if she was implying "If Bush is re-elected, rape will be legalized."
People who watch Oprah are probably brain dead sheep anyhow, so who knows what effect some hollywood idiot will have.
Actors ARE people just like everyone else. But when your career is reading lines that someone else wrote, pretending to be someone else, and the kilos of cocaine.....that clouds their judgement.
Celebs like to flaunt their wealth, then support policies to make sure YOU never see any wealth.
They live near crime-infested cities, protected by armed guards, and tall gates, but deny you the same weapons.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
canadian girl
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 11 Jan 2004 05:38
- Location: Ontario Canada
That article tried to make every left wing belief seem laughable, by being completely biased. That article made me mad, becasue the person who wrote it is obviously biased towards the complete opposite end of the political spectrum that she is accusing everone ELSE of being biased towards!! She is being just as biassed as she is claiming every left-wing, democratic person to be. It makes me angry, because how is someone who knows nothing about politics supposed to get a valid, unbiased, intelligent answer from reading a pathetic article like that one?
The author had problems with people who:
"support banning all guns" -- just because the USA seems to have a tendancy to be more violent than they ever need to be does not mean that violence is a good thing for humankind. Has anyone else ever been disturbed by little children walking around shopping malls with toy guns? Is it normal to think that is OKAY? It breeds violent thoughts and behaviour because it doesn't enforce the idea that peace is a good thing, and that violence kills, maims, and hurts people. I for one don't think that is a good ideal to support.
"support keeping all children hostage in public schools" -- keeping them hostage???? You mean as opposed to the private schools that cost more than going to university in some places and cost an inheritance to go to, or an extremely well off salary? You mean the public schools that make a good education available to anyone in the country who is willing to accept it? You mean the public schools that give opportunities to people who would otherwise have none????
People deserve to be given the choice and the oppourtunity to have education, healthcare and a safe place to live. And this statement says that a system that offers the oppourtunity for an education is wrong. I disagree completely.
are "sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption" -- despite the exaggerated counterattack the author used for this one, anyone who knows anything about the degeneration of the environment, and the future that scientists have estimated is going to follow, would agree that our world is becoming more and more polluted due to the use of fossil fuels, factories etc... and so to this statement all I can say is, "Yeah, SO? Our earth is thanking the 'santimonious environmentalists'"
"are antiwar activists" -- see my beef regarding peace
"ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women" -- at least someone does. One homophobic, pro-life, MALE country leader should NOT have the right to choose what a woman does with her body, or regardin ganyone's sexuality, or sexual decisions. With the advancement in women's rights since the Women's Rights Movement, women are finally allowing themselves to believe that their bodies are THEIRS, and no one but her can make choices regarding what she does to it, or who she lets touch it. That is the same for men. Your body is YOUR BODY. And everyone should have the right to choose what they do to their bodies.
I agree that I am not 100% sure that I feel that abortion is different from murder...I don't know about that. But what I do know is that abortion is not a decision that is made lightly, it is not a spiffy alternative to using a condom. No woman could live easily knowing that she had a potential child living inside her and had to choose not to keep her baby.
If abortion is murder, then it is a heart-wrenching and life-altering decision that a woman would have to live with the rest of her life, and she would never EVER feel good about it. But there are so many instances that a woman should be allowed to say, "No, I cannot have a baby" She can't afford to give the baby a good life, she was raped at 14, every single one of her oppourtunities would be lost if she were to have a baby...etc...
Maybe abortion is killing the unborn lives, but it would be a decision made that would affect a woman for the rest of her life, and if she has to give up her baby, then that is a choice she should be able to make for herself and for the sake of her child, and one that she would have to live with her whole life. Not a decision that should be made by a political party.
"alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries" -- it's not bloody alleged. and it is just as important for human rights as the author's statement that "Islamofascists are chopping off heads and kidnapping aid workers and plotting to kill schoolchildren, and at a time when untold numbers of malefactors are crossing into our borders". One may be more grusome and horrible and terrifying, but women's rights and human equality matter too.
"We’ve come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war."
Get a grip on what? Violence? Supremacy of the rich, and the poor losing oppourtunites? Smog, a ruined ozone layer, and the extinction of human beings and nature and living organisms? 14 year olds having children, or having unsafe abortions and dying? Or maybe getting a grip on embracing women's return to existing only in the kitchen and the bedroom (on her knees of course)?
Perhaps my statement was just as biassed as the author's, but I make my point.
At I least provide the other extreme point of view. I am a big fan of not making decisions until they are informed, so at least anyone who knows nothing will be on there way to being more informed of both sides.
And for the record, those ideals are not something I will get a grip on, not while I value the ideas of peace, human rights, and equality. NO WAY.
The author had problems with people who:
"support banning all guns" -- just because the USA seems to have a tendancy to be more violent than they ever need to be does not mean that violence is a good thing for humankind. Has anyone else ever been disturbed by little children walking around shopping malls with toy guns? Is it normal to think that is OKAY? It breeds violent thoughts and behaviour because it doesn't enforce the idea that peace is a good thing, and that violence kills, maims, and hurts people. I for one don't think that is a good ideal to support.
"support keeping all children hostage in public schools" -- keeping them hostage???? You mean as opposed to the private schools that cost more than going to university in some places and cost an inheritance to go to, or an extremely well off salary? You mean the public schools that make a good education available to anyone in the country who is willing to accept it? You mean the public schools that give opportunities to people who would otherwise have none????
People deserve to be given the choice and the oppourtunity to have education, healthcare and a safe place to live. And this statement says that a system that offers the oppourtunity for an education is wrong. I disagree completely.
are "sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption" -- despite the exaggerated counterattack the author used for this one, anyone who knows anything about the degeneration of the environment, and the future that scientists have estimated is going to follow, would agree that our world is becoming more and more polluted due to the use of fossil fuels, factories etc... and so to this statement all I can say is, "Yeah, SO? Our earth is thanking the 'santimonious environmentalists'"
"are antiwar activists" -- see my beef regarding peace
"ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women" -- at least someone does. One homophobic, pro-life, MALE country leader should NOT have the right to choose what a woman does with her body, or regardin ganyone's sexuality, or sexual decisions. With the advancement in women's rights since the Women's Rights Movement, women are finally allowing themselves to believe that their bodies are THEIRS, and no one but her can make choices regarding what she does to it, or who she lets touch it. That is the same for men. Your body is YOUR BODY. And everyone should have the right to choose what they do to their bodies.
I agree that I am not 100% sure that I feel that abortion is different from murder...I don't know about that. But what I do know is that abortion is not a decision that is made lightly, it is not a spiffy alternative to using a condom. No woman could live easily knowing that she had a potential child living inside her and had to choose not to keep her baby.
If abortion is murder, then it is a heart-wrenching and life-altering decision that a woman would have to live with the rest of her life, and she would never EVER feel good about it. But there are so many instances that a woman should be allowed to say, "No, I cannot have a baby" She can't afford to give the baby a good life, she was raped at 14, every single one of her oppourtunities would be lost if she were to have a baby...etc...
Maybe abortion is killing the unborn lives, but it would be a decision made that would affect a woman for the rest of her life, and if she has to give up her baby, then that is a choice she should be able to make for herself and for the sake of her child, and one that she would have to live with her whole life. Not a decision that should be made by a political party.
"alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries" -- it's not bloody alleged. and it is just as important for human rights as the author's statement that "Islamofascists are chopping off heads and kidnapping aid workers and plotting to kill schoolchildren, and at a time when untold numbers of malefactors are crossing into our borders". One may be more grusome and horrible and terrifying, but women's rights and human equality matter too.
"We’ve come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war."
Get a grip on what? Violence? Supremacy of the rich, and the poor losing oppourtunites? Smog, a ruined ozone layer, and the extinction of human beings and nature and living organisms? 14 year olds having children, or having unsafe abortions and dying? Or maybe getting a grip on embracing women's return to existing only in the kitchen and the bedroom (on her knees of course)?
Perhaps my statement was just as biassed as the author's, but I make my point.
At I least provide the other extreme point of view. I am a big fan of not making decisions until they are informed, so at least anyone who knows nothing will be on there way to being more informed of both sides.
And for the record, those ideals are not something I will get a grip on, not while I value the ideas of peace, human rights, and equality. NO WAY.
Marita Obst
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Canadian girl wrote:
---------------------------------------------
"ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women" -- at least someone does(.....)
----------------------------------------------
No, just a fragment of American women, except trailer park trash who get in the way of their political agenda.
Ultrafeminists are silent about REAL slavery and murder around the globe.
Millions of slave women, and millions oppressed,having no more status than a donkey, are happily ignored as they pursue other agendas.
Canadian girl wrote:
---------------------------------------------
"alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries" -- it's not bloody alleged. and it is just as important for human rights as the author's statement that "Islamofascists are chopping off heads ......"
One may be more grusome and horrible and terrifying, but women's rights and human equality matter too
----------------------------------------
No, beheadings and elementary school massacres "coming to a town near you" are more important than a salary gap amongst high income women.
Getting paid slightly less for the same job pales in comparison to having your head cut off.
I don't think Malkin, nor would I, ask you to get a grip on the ideals of peace, human rights, and equality.
Get a grip on the worrying about toy guns, and supporting gun confiscation. It's naive and deadly in a world filled with genocide and religious hatred.
I'd rather teach kids how to shoot, than teach them how to kneel like a good hostage before beheading.
The following paragraph has been moderated and edited to eliminate seemingly personal and hurtful language
Worry more about the islamofacists, who would beat women for showing a little skin, Cut out their clits so they can't orgasm, then make them have sex whenever THEY want. And then get stuck with the babies cuz abortion is forbidden.
Oh yeah, and if women get raped, then they could be executed for adultery, while the man gets a high-five from his friends for being such a stud.
Or you can keep worrying about the "gender-pay gap".
-n
---------------------------------------------
"ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women" -- at least someone does(.....)
----------------------------------------------
No, just a fragment of American women, except trailer park trash who get in the way of their political agenda.
Ultrafeminists are silent about REAL slavery and murder around the globe.
Millions of slave women, and millions oppressed,having no more status than a donkey, are happily ignored as they pursue other agendas.
Canadian girl wrote:
---------------------------------------------
"alleged gender gap in white-collar salaries" -- it's not bloody alleged. and it is just as important for human rights as the author's statement that "Islamofascists are chopping off heads ......"
One may be more grusome and horrible and terrifying, but women's rights and human equality matter too
----------------------------------------
No, beheadings and elementary school massacres "coming to a town near you" are more important than a salary gap amongst high income women.
Getting paid slightly less for the same job pales in comparison to having your head cut off.
I don't think Malkin, nor would I, ask you to get a grip on the ideals of peace, human rights, and equality.
Get a grip on the worrying about toy guns, and supporting gun confiscation. It's naive and deadly in a world filled with genocide and religious hatred.
I'd rather teach kids how to shoot, than teach them how to kneel like a good hostage before beheading.
The following paragraph has been moderated and edited to eliminate seemingly personal and hurtful language
Worry more about the islamofacists, who would beat women for showing a little skin, Cut out their clits so they can't orgasm, then make them have sex whenever THEY want. And then get stuck with the babies cuz abortion is forbidden.
Oh yeah, and if women get raped, then they could be executed for adultery, while the man gets a high-five from his friends for being such a stud.
Or you can keep worrying about the "gender-pay gap".
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
I`m sorry, but if we`re going to ban the word `fag` or `gay` from these forums, than how does inflammatory racist garbage like this make it through? This doesn`t hold up to the terms of service agreement.HighDemonslayer wrote: Worry more about the islamofacists, who would beat you for showing a little skin, Cut out your clit so you can't orgasm, then make you have sex whenever THEY want. And then get stuck with the babies cuz abortion is forbidden.
Oh yeah, and if you get raped, then YOU could be executed for adultery, while the man gets a high-five from his friends for being such a stud.
-n
Poor showing Nathan. I don`t doubt you view the world in the way you do, but I figured you`d have the sense or intelligence not to phrase it in this low fashion.
Maybe if you took up a hobby, you could work through your aggression better. I personally like to kick around a beanbag myself.
Just for the record, (and so ken doesn't think that no action is taking place) the mods and admins are discussing this topic and actions to follow. PM's have been sent.
Nathan - Expressing opinions = no big deal. Expressing them in a way that offends people = very big deal. If you are going to be expressing opinions like this, try to do it in a manner that doesn't directly point at someone (in this case canadian girl). Even if it was just intended to prove a point, it makes it seem much more like an attack.
bob glasser
Nathan - Expressing opinions = no big deal. Expressing them in a way that offends people = very big deal. If you are going to be expressing opinions like this, try to do it in a manner that doesn't directly point at someone (in this case canadian girl). Even if it was just intended to prove a point, it makes it seem much more like an attack.
bob glasser
Bob Glasser
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
My post was seen by some as to graphic and pointed, so I apologize to canadian girl for any offense.
This apology is for canadian girl only, for my un-gentleman-like conduct.
the rest of you have to learn that you will be offended sometimes in life. Until you have thought police to come and re-educate me.
Frenzal said:
-------------------------
Why should canadian girl have to worry about any of that? She's not living in a fundamentalist Islamic state and, because her government knows what the fuck its upto
-------------------------
You are correct in that Canada is not an Islamic state now, but it is has this creeping trend of implementing Islamic law, if both parties agree of course, or are coerced.
http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Cana ... sputes.htm
And people outside of these muslim communties should not be affected, for now.
C-fan wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I`m sorry, but if we`re going to ban the word `fag` or `gay` from these forums, than how does inflammatory racist garbage like this make it through? This doesn`t hold up to the terms of service agreement.
----------------------------------------------
Is "gay" a banned word now? Call the thought police!
Since when was discussing peoples sexuality racist?
More later... running late
-n
This apology is for canadian girl only, for my un-gentleman-like conduct.
the rest of you have to learn that you will be offended sometimes in life. Until you have thought police to come and re-educate me.
Frenzal said:
-------------------------
Why should canadian girl have to worry about any of that? She's not living in a fundamentalist Islamic state and, because her government knows what the fuck its upto
-------------------------
You are correct in that Canada is not an Islamic state now, but it is has this creeping trend of implementing Islamic law, if both parties agree of course, or are coerced.
http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Cana ... sputes.htm
And people outside of these muslim communties should not be affected, for now.
C-fan wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I`m sorry, but if we`re going to ban the word `fag` or `gay` from these forums, than how does inflammatory racist garbage like this make it through? This doesn`t hold up to the terms of service agreement.
----------------------------------------------
Is "gay" a banned word now? Call the thought police!
Since when was discussing peoples sexuality racist?
More later... running late
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
full nelson
- 8-Bit Ninja
- Posts: 884
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003 13:58
- Location: West Virginia
- Contact:
-
canadian girl
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 11 Jan 2004 05:38
- Location: Ontario Canada
I'm not going to (and wasn't trying to) attack you, I was just trying to state a point of view because Michelle Malkin's article offended me by being so ignorant, and now I feel offended by you.
Clearly if you are going to say "Ultrafeminists are silent about REAL slavery and murder around the globe. Millions of slave women, and millions oppressed,having no more status than a donkey, are happily ignored as they pursue other agendas." Then you have never met me, or the millions of other women who dream about living in a world where ALL women can have pride and control over their bodies, and walk the streets at night and feel safe, and feel like they are equally as important as all the men in the world, be it in the boardroom, or the bedroom.
But I don't believe that giving up that right in the USA (or any other country that has made advancements in equality), the control women have gained over their lives, is going to make women's lives better in any other part of the world. On the contrary, if women have gained some respect and equality in the Western nations, it gives them a better stance from which to fight for the rights of other women.
Even in Westernized countries women still have to fight for equality and safety, and those ideals are no different from the fights that women everywhere else have to face. Sexism is sexism, and taking away women's choices and opportunities in our area of the world just diminishes the strength they have to fight for the rights of women everywhere.
"No, beheadings and elementary school massacres "coming to a town near you" are more important than a salary gap amongst high income women. Getting paid slightly less for the same job pales in comparison to having your head cut off." I definetly agree that being killed is higher on the priority list than making the same amount of money as your co-workers. But my point wasn't that the women in North America don't need to "Worry more about the islamofacists, who would beat you for showing a little skin, Cut out your clit so you can't orgasm, then make you have sex whenever THEY want. And then get stuck with the babies cuz abortion is forbidden. Oh yeah, and if you get raped, then YOU could be executed for adultery, while the man gets a high-five from his friends for being such a stud." My point was that there would be no way to irradicate that behaviour if the women who already had fought for their rights, lost them, and then tried to convince the rest of the world that it was important for women and men to be equal. I can't even talk about this one...the way you phrased that offends me. And I think I would just rather not touch that one anymore.
"Get a grip on the worrying about toy guns, and supporting gun confiscation. It's naive and deadly in a world filled with genocide and religious hatred. I'd rather teach kids how to shoot, than teach them how to kneel like a good hostage before beheading." Lastly, you said this to me. Well. I do not agree. I don't agree that retaliating with violence sends out the right message. It sends out the message that violence is OKAY. And I would rather teach children about peace and the distances that love can take you, and work on spreading that message around the world, than teach little children to kill. I would rather try to promote the world to live in harmony than take an offensive tactic and end up having everyone killing off their own race.
Lastly, I don't believe that aggression, hatred, racism, sexism or any other kind of discrimination ever influenced anything good. I think that presenting an argument with facts, and doing it nicely, is a lot less hurtful.
Marita Obst
Clearly if you are going to say "Ultrafeminists are silent about REAL slavery and murder around the globe. Millions of slave women, and millions oppressed,having no more status than a donkey, are happily ignored as they pursue other agendas." Then you have never met me, or the millions of other women who dream about living in a world where ALL women can have pride and control over their bodies, and walk the streets at night and feel safe, and feel like they are equally as important as all the men in the world, be it in the boardroom, or the bedroom.
But I don't believe that giving up that right in the USA (or any other country that has made advancements in equality), the control women have gained over their lives, is going to make women's lives better in any other part of the world. On the contrary, if women have gained some respect and equality in the Western nations, it gives them a better stance from which to fight for the rights of other women.
Even in Westernized countries women still have to fight for equality and safety, and those ideals are no different from the fights that women everywhere else have to face. Sexism is sexism, and taking away women's choices and opportunities in our area of the world just diminishes the strength they have to fight for the rights of women everywhere.
"No, beheadings and elementary school massacres "coming to a town near you" are more important than a salary gap amongst high income women. Getting paid slightly less for the same job pales in comparison to having your head cut off." I definetly agree that being killed is higher on the priority list than making the same amount of money as your co-workers. But my point wasn't that the women in North America don't need to "Worry more about the islamofacists, who would beat you for showing a little skin, Cut out your clit so you can't orgasm, then make you have sex whenever THEY want. And then get stuck with the babies cuz abortion is forbidden. Oh yeah, and if you get raped, then YOU could be executed for adultery, while the man gets a high-five from his friends for being such a stud." My point was that there would be no way to irradicate that behaviour if the women who already had fought for their rights, lost them, and then tried to convince the rest of the world that it was important for women and men to be equal. I can't even talk about this one...the way you phrased that offends me. And I think I would just rather not touch that one anymore.
"Get a grip on the worrying about toy guns, and supporting gun confiscation. It's naive and deadly in a world filled with genocide and religious hatred. I'd rather teach kids how to shoot, than teach them how to kneel like a good hostage before beheading." Lastly, you said this to me. Well. I do not agree. I don't agree that retaliating with violence sends out the right message. It sends out the message that violence is OKAY. And I would rather teach children about peace and the distances that love can take you, and work on spreading that message around the world, than teach little children to kill. I would rather try to promote the world to live in harmony than take an offensive tactic and end up having everyone killing off their own race.
Lastly, I don't believe that aggression, hatred, racism, sexism or any other kind of discrimination ever influenced anything good. I think that presenting an argument with facts, and doing it nicely, is a lot less hurtful.
Marita Obst
Marita Obst
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
By "ultrafeminists", I am thinking of hard line political operatives who's value to women's issues I question.
Athough not a perfect example, lets take NOW vs. the League of Women Voters.
The "League" is much bigger and mainstream, yet the radical NOW will be quoted or mentioned in the media 100 to 1 over the "League.
---------------------------------------------------
I'll mention Clinton's tie in to "ultrafeminists" briefly. (5 sentences)
Even with all the alleged degrading sexual acts, and possible coersions, feminist mouthpieces went to the podium everyday to defend his actions.
Perhaps Clinton's abortion stand influenced this. Sexual harrassment was acceptable if the man would be useful later politically.
Sexual issues became political tools, to attack those on the right, and further their power, dilluting the real damage that those "indiscretions" cause.
How many elementary school boys learned that they should expect blowjobs at school?
How many elementary school girls learned that they would be expected to perform?
----------------------------------------------
canadian girl said:
----------------------------
I don't agree that retaliating with violence sends out the right message. It sends out the message that violence is OKAY. And I would rather teach children about peace and the distances that love can take you, and work on spreading that message around the world, than teach little children to kill. I would rather try to promote the world to live in harmony than take an offensive tactic and end up having everyone killing off their own race.
Lastly, I don't believe that aggression, hatred, racism, sexism or any other kind of discrimination ever influenced anything good. I think that presenting an argument with facts, and doing it nicely, is a lot less hurtful.
-----------------------------
"having everyone killing off their own race" --is not quite the genocide I was worrying about.
Usually it's one race trying to eliminate a different race.
Having the means to protect your family (in any country) from rampaging racist mobs on a local level is what I want.
"Standing up to a bully" is the concept that kids should learn. Not that the world is ruled at the end of a gun. (Even though it may....they can learn that later)
Violence is NOT o.k. in most situations, but only takes one side to fail at the "peace and love" stuff. Then the persecuted population needs a plan "B".
Just a little preparation can go a long way.
-n
Athough not a perfect example, lets take NOW vs. the League of Women Voters.
The "League" is much bigger and mainstream, yet the radical NOW will be quoted or mentioned in the media 100 to 1 over the "League.
---------------------------------------------------
I'll mention Clinton's tie in to "ultrafeminists" briefly. (5 sentences)
Even with all the alleged degrading sexual acts, and possible coersions, feminist mouthpieces went to the podium everyday to defend his actions.
Perhaps Clinton's abortion stand influenced this. Sexual harrassment was acceptable if the man would be useful later politically.
Sexual issues became political tools, to attack those on the right, and further their power, dilluting the real damage that those "indiscretions" cause.
How many elementary school boys learned that they should expect blowjobs at school?
How many elementary school girls learned that they would be expected to perform?
----------------------------------------------
canadian girl said:
----------------------------
I don't agree that retaliating with violence sends out the right message. It sends out the message that violence is OKAY. And I would rather teach children about peace and the distances that love can take you, and work on spreading that message around the world, than teach little children to kill. I would rather try to promote the world to live in harmony than take an offensive tactic and end up having everyone killing off their own race.
Lastly, I don't believe that aggression, hatred, racism, sexism or any other kind of discrimination ever influenced anything good. I think that presenting an argument with facts, and doing it nicely, is a lot less hurtful.
-----------------------------
"having everyone killing off their own race" --is not quite the genocide I was worrying about.
Usually it's one race trying to eliminate a different race.
Having the means to protect your family (in any country) from rampaging racist mobs on a local level is what I want.
"Standing up to a bully" is the concept that kids should learn. Not that the world is ruled at the end of a gun. (Even though it may....they can learn that later)
Violence is NOT o.k. in most situations, but only takes one side to fail at the "peace and love" stuff. Then the persecuted population needs a plan "B".
Just a little preparation can go a long way.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Do you know the difference between sexual harassment, say like what Bill Oreilly from fox news did to his co worker, and consentual adult activity; say a blow job from an intern in the oval office ?HighDemonslayer wrote: Perhaps Clinton's abortion stand influenced this. Sexual harrassment was acceptable if the man would be useful later politically.
Canada allows islamic courts to rule when both parties agree to it, it also allows jews to mangle their sons' genitals; something which the boy has no say in. I'd say it's a step closer to becoming a fundamentalist Jewish state than an islamic one.
But, really, it's not going to become either so canadian doesn't have to worry about any of the imaginary threats that seem to be eating you up.
But, really, it's not going to become either so canadian doesn't have to worry about any of the imaginary threats that seem to be eating you up.
-Dale Jury