Posted on 10/18/2001 6:41:57 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
The Russian effort to abolish marriage in 1920
Excellent suggestion! Remember all of the generals/admirals who resigned due to X42's bs. It would be real easy to activate everyone of them. I'm sure that their memories of who the pink panty wearers were/are are still valid. Many of the pinky panty its probably served under two or more of these flag retirees. If two of them pick the same pink pany it, send that pink panty it to Anartica to count paper clips on loan to the penguins!
Re the early retirement or buyout of other government pc its! I know of a company that formed a separate sales division in late 1993 and 1994. The managers who hired the new sales force were affirmative action PC driven idiots, the dates 1993 and 1994 are very important.
About 99% of this new sales force was a worthless affirmative action/diversity driven pc pack. They were terrible. When this company merged with another company, they used early retirement plans to help senior reps out and big buyouts for the junior reps of both companies.
A very wise VP suggested to buy out all of the new sales force, from sales managers and down. So all were laid off with a very generous buyout! A few months later a small % of them, the good people, were hired back!
The company's management decided that an expensive buyout was better than allowing these pc idiots to continue! That was a great investment on their part! We need to do that on all levels of government work. It could even be used in school systems to get rid of bad teachers! The good teachers could be hired back as independent consultants, no tenure, just employment based on results!
Nope, gjenkins. Just chillin' and lurkin'. best, bb.
We have not declared formal war against Afghanistan, therefore, the legal officer was correct, however we may not like it. He was operating within OUR LAWS of OUR NATION, the ones we CHOOSE to abide by in order to guarantee our way of life.
Now ... back to the regularly scheduled bitch session of why feminism is responsible for the fall of the American empire, male impotence, and the dirty grunge on your gym shower shoes.
p.s.: If you really want me to say something, however, it would be this: General Tommy R. Franks ought to be busted to a buck private. Maybe then our senior military leadership, these so-called warriors, would get the picture: This ain't tiddley-winks we're playing here. Aren't they paid for killing people and busting things? best wishes, bb.
You miss the point. Regardless whether the JAG was right or wrong, the so-called general abdicated his responsibility and gave the decision to an underling. For that, he deserves to lose his commision.
"Now ... back to the regularly scheduled bitch session of why feminism is responsible for the fall of the American empire, male impotence, and the dirty grunge on your gym shower shoes." the demoralization of our military, the undermining of education, the antipathy for fatherhood and even boyhood in educational and cultural institutions, the murder of about 20,000,000 babies, the co-opting and corruption of the legitimate civil rights movement in the name of "gender equity".... ad nauseum...
Starting with your last point first - all feminists are man-hating lesbians? Even the ones that are married? Perhaps "Feminism" is a soiled term. Would the Independent Women's Forum think of themselves as "feminists" if it weren't for the associations that word has? After all, some of the assertions of the IWF are correct - more women than men graduate from college every year and wages are quickly becoming equal. Could it all have something to do with "feminism" or is it in spite of it? I do think it's tyrannical to silence opposing viewpoints - I would not accept NOW's demonization of the IWF any more than I would the many false claims of "treason" attributed to views from the left on this site. And again, a part does not represent the whole.
I would certainly hope that any claim of gender bias is researched and documented. What if it ends up being true based on the evidence? Is it still "crying wolf"? How can you be sure there is no validity to some claims of bias?
Feminists who would discriminate against a woman who stays home are, in fact, quite foolish. But then you sound as if it is the woman's role to stay home. What about kids recognizing their father at the end of the day? Surely it is a decision to be made by both parents, with the man also having an option of staying home if that is what is decided. I think the aim of feminism is to allow women greater participation in "capitalism and free enterprise", hardly a Communist ideal. In many cases both parents work because it is the only way to make ends meet, not just so that they can live in a manner to which they have become accustomed? Demonizing families where both parents work is no better than demonizing a stay-at-home parent.
Do we agree on this: the author of this piece fails to connect feminism with either the failed taking out of Omar or the killing of Tom Wales?
I know you weren't asking me, but hey, it's an open forum! Anyway, if your question is genuine, it indicates that you're a little weak on some fundamentals, so I'll try to help you out.
(1) It's not your (the school district's) money, it's our (the taxpayers'/homeowners') money. (2) Education is not a right; it's a privilege. (3) Yes, if there's a market for it, more of these higher-quality schools will be formed, and the size of them will also be determined by the demands of the customers (parents/students). (4) If the local government monopoly on education is broken, the public schools _will_ respond by improving quality in an effort to retain students.
And (5), another favorable (for the parents/students) outcome, the NEA will not exist much longer. It's really all about money.
Likewise, the claim that gun control is primarily a byproduct of feminism is specious. Perhaps the author is not familiar with the Nazi efforts at gun control.
Feminism may have generated a host of societal problems, but fundamentally it is a symptom of much larger problems in our culture.
We'll go nowhere without a definition. Let's use the N.O.W. as the baseline "feminist" group... so the answer would be unequivocally, "Yes." The power they wield far outweighs their membership numbers. Coincidenatlly, their "married" former president, Barbara Ireland, admitted to having a lesbian lover. But I guess it's not good to overgeneralize.
"...I would not accept NOW's demonization of the IWF any more than I would the many false claims of "treason" attributed to views from the left on this site. And again, a part does not represent the whole.
As a liberal, that opinion puts you in the minority amongst your peers. No one on the left would recognize the IWF as espousing the viewpoints of women... any women. As for the treason reference, it's not the "views" of the left that we consider "treason," but the actions. You so consistently fail to grasp this that I suspect you do it deliberately.
"I would certainly hope that any claim of gender bias is researched and documented. What if it ends up being true based on the evidence? Is it still "crying wolf"? How can you be sure there is no validity to some claims of bias?"
Well, yes, one would certainly hope, wouldn't one? So the feminist steamroller prosecutes all instances of so-called "bias" regardless of how petty or ridiculous and then it's up to the guilty to prove innocence. It's a fact... whether real discrimination or bias is going on, false charges are rarely, if ever, prosecuted [In fact, I can't locate one single instance, can you?] Let's go to a higher plane - rape charges. Half of all rape trials result in "not guilty" verdicts. It also turns out that half of all convicted rapists seeking to have their cases turned around based on genetic testing of the evidence end up being set free. And in those cases, there are virtually no records of women being charged with filing false rape charges. Do you actually think any women would be afraid to lie about somebody "looking at them funny" given this legal environment and the potential six figure payoff?
"Demonizing families where both parents work is no better than demonizing a stay-at-home parent."
Nobody's demonizing anybody, and it's disingenuous to say that I did. Facts are facts. You talk about giving people "chances" to participate in free enterprise and capitalism at the expense of taxpayers is a good capitalistic thing to do. It's not capitalist, it's socialist xfer of wealth. It demeans the very people it's supposed to help by assuming that they aren't capable of success on their own. If somebody else's daycare is being paid for out of my pocket, I damned well have the right to opine on it. If I have to take up the slack while the women in my workplace take an extra month off each year, at full pay, to take care of their runny-nosed little urchins, I get to comment on that too. They do not get to comment on my lifestyle... as they are not shelling out one single cent to subsidize it.
As for my personal views on marriage and family, you come dangerously close to being as judgemental as you accuse us conservatives of being. People's choices are defended vigorously only when they are politically correct. And you make this case in your language. It's a fact... I am penalized through the "marriage penalty" because my wife does not produce a second income. The republican "compromise" on the issue was to allow the penalty to be maintained for dual filers with one income while lessening it for dual filers with two incomes. Holidays and postage stamps honor working women, but why not the working dad or the stay at home mom? Who cares. We're too busy taking care of our own responsibilities to worry about it. It's all propaganda in support of a socialist agenda anyway.
"Do we agree on this: the author of this piece fails to connect feminism with either the failed taking out of Omar or the killing of Tom Wales?"
Disagree on Franks. His PC cowardice will cost him his job. Agree on Wales. The author does conservatives a disservice by assuming that we will murder to further our cause.
I've heard this story many times since it was first reported. Does anyone know what happened to this officer? Was he reprimanded in any way? Did Rumsfeld fire his traitorous butt?
If this outrage goes unpunished then this war is lost before it gets started.
Actually, we're all subsidized in one way or another. It's just a matter of degree. I'm not advocating greater subsidies here, just caution about claiming perfect freedom from them.
Pithy generalizations and moral equivalence don't add anything to the discussion. The subject was how policical correctness, aided and abetted by feminism, has corrupted institutions necessary to our survival. If ya got nothing to say, don't say anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.