Catchme

The quotes are old which is why I posted links, that you apparently did not read, explaining the progression of feminist thought. You have not established anything, and even if you did establish anything, what bearing would it have on this discussion? Are you trying to label me as a "radical" feminist, thereby seeking to discredit my words? Stating that women are not equal treated in this society called Canada, and stating that those who do not believe in women's equality are misogynists, is not radical.

Exactly. In the US you have to go to an abortion clinic and pay for the abortion yourself. If you can't afford the pay I beleive that there are burseries funded by womens groups and private organizations that will pay the $300 to get it done. The tax payers aren't on the hook. Mike, you horrible awful mysogynist. Expressing concern over where your tax dollars go. How dare you? Ah but your using tax dollars as a cover for misogyny and sexism. My example of the 300k minimum quad by pass stands. It is after the fact care. But anyway I recognize you all will justify your misogyny how you will, and I need not participate. And ya notice all there are not a lot of women who post here, I wonder why?

It is quite simple really if you hate or disagree with women's equality you in fact hate women, or hate women being equal, and yes it is as simple as that.

No, its quite a bit more than that. That count only is for soldiers that die on the ground in Iraq. If they die inside helicopters or airplanes they don't get added to the official body count. There are also 100,000 mercenaries over there that are also being killed. There are also many people from poor countries who are being used as cannon fodder in return for US green cards if they survive. The ass that is being kicked is that of the American people. The war is just part of the grand plan to destroy the US economy. Those who have not died, body counts are now taken up by severe injuries based upon body armour coverage. As in suvivors having a high disability issues such as: 2 or more missing limbs, genetalia gone, faces missing etc. For petes sake they are not even out of Iraq and they have Iraq veterans living on the street. Plus, that Green Card cannon fodder is nasty business!

What about the rights of the unborn female? DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman? No that is not a strawman in the rights argument. You have pre-supposed an answer and then kicked it down, your own strawman actually. Pro-Choice means self determination on the part of the female, if the woman's personal choice is being manipulated by anyone, or any type of religious social desire/belief such as boys are more important than girls, then it is not free choice is it? It is imposed externally. However, what you talk about is more to the point of discussing whether or not the sex of the feotus should not be known until born. As opposed to woman's equal rights to self determine in ALL things. They are not the same thing. One can be discussed the other cannot. You are deliberately ignoring the fact the Pro-Life supporters believe that there is another "self" involved in what you call self-determination. That the woman choosing to abort is making a choice not only for herself but for an unborn child as well. While we dont agree on this issue can you at least concede that our intent is not to restrict women from choosing how to live, simply that we believe there is another life there. Abortion is legal and I am not out bombing clinics. But I dont support subsidization of abortion. This is what Mike is referring to. Why should he have to pay for it? Respectfully, I am not deliberatly ignoring anything, what they choose to believe is up to them, they are not my responsibility. It is their "choice". They have no right to impose their choice in beliefs upon me, and my person. I have already stated what would, will could happen to a feotus prior to birth is unknown and unknowable. But again Pro-choice cannot be discussed from that position, it is simply a right to self determine just as anyone else has. Why should I have to pay for a triple or quadruple bypass that some person needs because of their inability to eat right? Something that costs X100 more in fact. It cannot be discussed on those grounds either though, we have universal medical care access. It is our right as a Canadian! You take 1 universal access away you take them all.

Look this is NOT about men, and yes if it is a man thinking a feminist is wrong, then it is misogyny, as then the male has set himslf up to know more than the female, even though as male is quitye obviously not female, and thus could never know. And that is not saying some females can not be wrong, please keep in mind not all females are feminists, just as not all males are misogynists. In fact there are a good number of feminist males. For example Plato is considered on of the earliest. Feminisn, has progressed, or shall we say changed, over the years and centuries, fundamentals have remianed, such as no debate on the rights of self determination. wiki though not the best does address a broad range of info for those who seriously want to discuss feminism outside of the right to self determine should read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists

So you are saying he became addicted to opiates in Afghanistan? I read an article somewhere on line that the parents of one of the fellows,. said he was about to be treated or had been treated for PTSD. I am still looking for it. Anyway, all the best I hope and pray that he receives what he needs to help him recover, as I do all of them.

What about the rights of the unborn female? DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman? No that is not a strawman in the rights argument. You have pre-supposed an answer and then kicked it down, your own strawman actually. Pro-Choice means self determination on the part of the female, if the woman's personal choice is being manipulated by anyone, or any type of religious social desire/belief such as boys are more important than girls, then it is not free choice is it? It is imposed externally. However, what you talk about is more to the point of discussing whether or not the sex of the feotus should not be known until born. As opposed to woman's equal rights to self determine in ALL things. They are not the same thing. One can be discussed the other cannot.

How would I know and what does it have to do with feminists. That's not what I said. Only from a tormented mind would such nonsense as was in the original posters post come. One is either equal or they are not. Nor can they be made to be what they were not created to be. Perhaps that torments them. It has everything to do with feminists according to your commentary, as provided by a Biblical quote. No I think perhaps only a tormented mind would think that some are more equal than others. Saying that another human being was not created to be equal to all others or they would be, is quite the position. Many a "priviledged person" has stood there and said, "if they were equal they would be" all the while impossing tyranical states upon those others they deemed less equal than themselves. It was not correct when that phraseology was used for slavery, it was not correct with women being chattals of their husbands or fathers or legal guardians, it was not correct when women were deprived the vote, or when blacks and indians were deprived the right to vote and it is not correct now with a woman' right to self-determine.

Oh, is that right. Then why do feminists so torment. This has go no bearing on the questions asked, nor does it make sense, please clarify? Again what 20 million and what does money have to do with any of this? Explain why some "Christians" hold some Bible tenets to be true and to be followed, while not others? Feminists only torment those who do not want women to gain equality! And that is in a passive way, because those who do not want women to be equals torment themselves with their poor self esteem.

Yes, it is too bad as an old man he followed the path of greed as opposed to his former ideals. As Sociology is NOT about individuals and self direction, it is about social group dynamics roles within that group and the resulting consequences. Another look at Seymour Lispet That he should succumb in his 60's to the ideas of money tyranny, because he NOW has lots of it, suggests that greed and power became his motivators to support/justify his personal position, as opposed to truth and group dynamics. Having said that, bless Seymour, some of his works still stand as non-sell outs to coporatist hegemony

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems? Oh norman, those that frame their commentary by using "afraid of honest debate", are just throwing up straw men and kicking them down. They don't have a honest bone in their body let alone the desire to allow women to have equality. Perhaps they may not even understand what equality really means, and not just between the genders. You see the opposite of "honest debate" is "dishonest" so they have already framed what they want to talk about as anyone being opposed is dishonest, and thereby they have the default position of "honest". Not true. False premise, dishonest and closed position. Feminists and progressives quite "honestly" say there is NO debate on equality issues are just that equality rights for all. No one else has the right to debate substantive reasons for having my equality rights taken away, nor anyone else's. They stand as they are, equality always = equality. Needess to say behind all this, is the fact that once one decides to take away others equality rights their equality rights are equally up for grabs. The Rights of Equality stand not up for discussion from the position of taking away.

Why should someone believe the words of an atheist written today who likely doesn't have twenty million dollars to bet. The words written over two thousands years ago have proven correct. Whats 20 millions got to do with anything besides nothing. And the words have not been proven to be all correct, now have they?

Pro-choice as regards to abortion does represent the views of all women. Again what do you fail to see about what the word "choice" means? If a woman chooses to be "pro-life" for herself that is her "choice". It means she chooses not to have an abortion. It is her "choice". Please read this over a couple you will get it. Being pro-life does not give anyone the right to have rights over another person's body or life. Nor does it give the right to anyone to ascribe what they choose in life upon others. Whatever may or may not happen to that feotus is unknown and unknowable to anyone and cannot be brought into any discussion on rights to self determine. It is not up for debate, because it cannot be up for debate, if you take away 1 persons right to self determine, you take away all peoples rights to self determination, male or female. Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level. Those that throw up such straw man arguments, as an analogy situation, have not even bothered to research what it is they are speaking against to speak against it correctly from an informed position.

Nothing, except why should my taxdollars go to a pro-choice organization, when I am pro-life. We see the same thing with abortion, these group's will claim to represent all women, when even many women disagree with abortion. As for social and economic equality, sure. However what does that even mean. Well, it is nice that you think that, however, history and present day, has proven that social conservatism can be particularly extreme, especially as a political philosophy, after all we would not be in Afghanistan if this were not the case, now would we? It is only a manner of degree. What is this reasonable argument, you say that social conservatives have with regards to what morals and virtues a country should have? Furthermore, who are social conservatives to denote the morals and virtues in the first place? Why should my tax dollars go to fund military, and military organizations that I do not agree with, or indeed to any infrastructure or program I do not agree with by the same token? W Pro-Choice does represent ALL women, what do you not understand about the word choice? Choice is just that, choice to do/think whatever the woman chooses to do or think. Not what some other woman, or man, chooses for them. If a “woman” chooses to be pro-life, that is still her own choice, in the feminist mind. The difference is the impingement on rights. Pro-choice means absolute rights of choice/self determination by the woman but we do not allow others I.e. pro-lifers, neo-cons, the right to self determine ourselves, no one has that right. And this equality of mind and body, is not limited to abortion access, this covers all levels of society, in every situation. Now you said above: Well, then there can’t be many radials out there, as I have never met 1 woman, in my life, who believes that the only people capable of evil are males. In fact, I have never even heard 1 refer to males as evil in a generality. There are quite a few male feminists you know.

Personally, there is more to this topic than what has been discussed. To bad the original post did not link to the article. I followed this news and all the information provided inthe media, at all levels. My first and foremost thought was; "how many of these military personal just got back from activity duty?" followed by; "how many are self medicating to cover their PTSD that is not being addressed"? People use drugs for a reason, when people use drugs for a reason, from there becomes the need for sellers to those who feel the need to self medicate. Chicken egg scenario. Of note, the sellers were also users, and at least one has PTSD diagnosed. My suggestion is that, seeing as how prohibition and punishment do not work, while detox and treatment of the underlaying casual factor do, condemning the user/sellers who have causational factors is wrong.

Just an update on what the US Congress has to think about Bush's acts of terrorism in Iran and Somalia Congress is not happy

But you know of all the ones he did give authority for passing into law was the; PM, Cabinet Ministers and chief exective staff CANNOT be held accountable. After he said he was not going to put ALL Gomery's recommendation points into effect, because he wanted the PM's office to hold final responsibility for accountability. I guess what he meant was the PMO would decide who would and would not be held accountable no matter where the order originated from.

Harper backtrack? I thought he was a man of principle. Here's what he'll backtrack on next. In June, 2006, he raised the personal income tax rate by 1% (on the same day that he lowered the GST by 1%). In the next Conservative budget, he'll announce that's he's lowering the personal income tax rate hoping that Canadians are so stupid that they'll forget that he raised the rate in 2006. Well, he has proven strongly over the last year he is not, and of course he had already proved he was not when in opposition so really no surprises. Now that the provinces have stepped in because the millions of federal funds gutted from the programs mean the closures of: safe houses, work re-entry programs, and the stopping violence against women and children programs, plus plus plus. And yes, that 1% increase will come back to bite him too.

and, of course, this: My, my how I love all these glaring differences from one governing party to another. And Harper is throwing the doors of immigration open soon, wonder if he will make an order in council saying they are Canadian citizens immediately so they can vote for him?

Even the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan now states that no laws can be contrary to the laws of Islam. In other words, Islam trumps any human rights legislation. The government is a corrupt, Islamic sham and it's a mystery why Harper's party and a handful of Ignatieff-like Liberals would want to extend the ridiculous mission. Then again, both Ignatieff and Harper thought Canada should invade Iraq which says something about their mutual cognitive abilities. It is truly sad is not Norman, and the apologists out there trying to justify and parse to deflect what this means is mind boggling. They are extending the mission as private security forces for Oil Companies, we pay they gain.

It boggles the mind that in the face of all the evidence presented showing we were primarily peacekeepers, for the last 50 years is still being denied! Though one has to note the denial does not come with links proving their denial, just empty commentary and verbal put downs of posters. Says much perhaps of just what our military is today, or who it is controlled by, eh? However, I am not sure those who say they are in the military actually are, it seems to me they are more along the lines of Harper propagandists trying to build war support. Even to the point of saying it was Harper who bought the new equipment, when indeed it was the Liberals. Some more links denoting our primary role as peacekeepers, and any link that shows what missions we have been on also notes they were primarily peacekeeping. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=280 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=150 http://www.international.gc.ca/peacekeeping/menu-en.asp More peacekeeping primary focus proof Even more proof Again, I ask provide proof of your assertations that until now our primary military role was NOT peace keeping about 50 links should do, as I have provided about that many, even from the Peacekeeping Veterans site. http://www.peacekeeper.ca/pk1a.html Now back to what is going on in Afghanistan? Oh yes, thre is worries that USA is pulling its troops out. A NATO person was killed, what a waste for their families. And, and I think the activity on this board towards these ends is showing> G& M says Prime Minister's office carefully scripting Afghan propaganda Over half of Canadians oppose Afghanistan