kengs333

Prices adjust to household incomes. If house hold incomes increase because the majority have two members who are employed as opposed to one, then prices follow suit. This, again, is quite incorrect. There were a number of ways in which the number of children a family had in the olden days could be regulated, and these practices were commonly used. The primary consideration was the ability to feed the children; households that were less able to feed children tended to have fewer children. Go look at any census return from the 19th century and you'll see many families with only two or three children. In some cases this reflects higher infant mortality--a problem since rectified thanks to men--and the greater prevelance of childhood illnesses--again a problem largely rectified thanks to men--but in general it was the result of "natural" birth control--not feminism. The use of the term "breeding machine" really says a lot about how you value human life. You think it's a good thing that feminism has pumped such negative attitudes towards life into your mind, and that you in turn spread it to others? I never stated that you said anything to the effect; if you look at how I phrased the statement, that should be quite evident. It has nothing to do with control, but abiding by a universal standard that applies to both men and women. We have countless examples of how promiscuity leads to strifle, depression, discord, negativity, etc., etc., etc. Having the "right" to engage in self-destructive behaviour "when I want" is a pretty pathetic way of asserting one's independence. "Bedding" people reduces the person to a mere instrument for fulfilling one's sexual urges; I fail to see how engaging in superficial relationships makes one a better person; the fact that feminism has taught you this only serves to reinforce the notion that feminism is a problem. We're talking about under age sex. This is a direct result of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution in general has opened pandora's box, and what was once sexual deviance is now becoming normalized and socially acceptable. One can only wonder what will be going on in 50 years. Even worse. We've all seen what is becoming of men in an increasingly feminized world. It's interesting that you pride yourself in having taught him to wash dishes and clean toilets, yet mention noting of his intelligence or intellect. I guess that's just not a priority for you. Well, at least one day when scores of women have bedded him and fleeced for what he's worth, he can always fall back on janitorial work or washing dishes at a restaurant to make his child support payments... Again, what does this have to do with control? Do you think that because you're a woman you don't have to listen to the opinions of men that you don't agree with? Keep in mind that there are rules here for labelling people "bigots" and "racists", etc.--"misogynist" is just another form of this. Just millions? Yawn, this is all getting rather boring... I never said you weren't or have consider you to not be a "human being". That's typical feminist, though, isn't it, making such accusations? The fact of the matter is my concern is the betterment of all people, male or female; it's people who want to lower themselves by engaging in promiscuous or other viceful behaviour that make themselves less human.

...

Of course it's "drivel" to you because you don't (want to) believe it. Ask any economist, the cost of living has adjusted so that where once a man could usually support a family on his own, this is no longer the case. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but exceptions are not the rule. Right, that's the point; who drove these ideas into your head? This often happens in a very subtle manner, so of course you can make excuses for why it wasn't because of feminism. But in the end, that's what it boils down to. I never said I would you bear any number of children. If you suggest that having children (and raising them) leads to misery, that says much about how much you value human life. And you expect me to believe feminist claptrap about how women are inherently more nurturing and compasionate? The contradictions of feminism are astonishing. Feminism brought about the sexual revolution, which has proven to be the beginning of the decline of our civilization. Sexual immorality always is, ancient Rome being a perfect example. The fact that feminism lead to the acceptance of abortion and birth control in our society isn't exactly a stellar accomplishment. Abortion is the destruction of human life, while birth control has allowed for greater sexual promiscuity. In other words, feminism has made un-taboo premarital sex between children as young as 11 and 12 years of age. You think that that is a good thing? Please, by all mean, do not have children. It's bad enough that women like you screw up the lives of other peoples' daughters... I figured this would come up; you certainly don't waste any time in using the "m-word." The thing is, how can I be a "misogynist" for wanting women to live better lives? What makes me a "misogynist in your eyes is the fact that I oppose the ideology of feminism, which is negative, destructive, anti-male, and, as you have demonstrated, anti-human in general. Feminists rarely, if ever, acknowledge the things that men have done to improve the standard of living for women. Many of these men, incidently, were you to have met them in person you would have considered "misogynists" as well, because instead of subscribing to fairy feminist fancies, the chose to produce tangible tangible results through "patriarchal" science. You should ask him exactly how he feels about having to outlay a disproportionate amount of money to secure your interest, how he feels about the liberties you take with his income. Trust me, beneath his amicable and compliant exterior, there is resentment brewing. There always is. Deny him intimacy for a few months and trust me it will boil to the surface... I still wouldn't mind an answer to the following: 'So why is it that whenever a man has issues with feminism, which is an ideology, they are "angry with women" in general? And how is wanting women to be better persons and expression of "anger"?'

You don't even know what you're talking about.

Almost all early feminist "scholarship" is unsourced opinion, yet it is now considered fact. That's how it works, though, doesn't it; if you make up a bunch of lies and repeat them often enough, people will begin to believe them without question. It's a tactic that the Nazis used effectively. I don't think so. Women entering the workforce just contributes to inflation, and where once a man can support a family, now it often takes two to do so. Feminism teaches women to be selfish and self-centered, it promotes lesbianism and is anti-Christian. So any woman who subscribes to feminist teachings is doing herself harm and having a negative influence on those around her, in particular men. The problem with Iran is not that there are "very few feminists". http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/509-10/femini.html http://www.pamij.com/feminism.html http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/85spp.html So why is it that whenever a man has issues with feminism, which is an ideology, they are "angry with women" in general? And how is wanting women to be better persons and expression of "anger"?

This is actually a feminist myth. There is no evidence that such a law ever existed.

This sums it up nicely.

...

...

Well, given the fact that Scottish men like to wear dresses, I can think a few terms that are somewhat more exact than "Dispossessed Hiland Scottish Red River Settler who moved to BC". But I suppose stating them would get me banned.

So people who smoke marijuana now constitute a "race" in your opinion???? You may want to read through this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9978

LOL. Oh, yes, secret indeed! Seriously, the presence of this oil is far from being a secret, and it will never end "Middle East Oil Dependancy".

Where to begin... In a negative manner. Yes. Definitely yes. The standard of living for all people in the west has considerably increased due to science and technology. Many feminists view science and technology as the product of "patriarchy".

I pretty much agree with this, but I think that the "most likely result" will not be a CPC minority. Unless something disasterous happens during the possible election, Harper will probably manage to pull off a majority.

Not many people get to where Dion is at by being a "very nice man". Given the situation with the party, there's not much that he really can do, and he knows it. He doesn't have the backing, nor is the party strong enough, for him to talk as tough as he would like to. So the best he can do is grin and bear it, and wait for the inevitable.

You mean legislation that reflects the wishes of the 60% plus of the electorate that didn't vote for him? It seems to me that legislation derived from co-operation and consensus is more productive. Legislation that is imposed by majority governments (often elected by the minority of the electorate) often tends to get thrown out when a new regime is elected.

Feminism is inherently insane.

Why is it that now only "whites" can be referred by their skin colour without controversy? The term "black" is still used to some extent, but it really isn't all that pc. Call an Indian a "red man," though, and it's somehow racist, as is referring to Asians as yellow. Maybe jennie and Posit can show some respect themselves and start refering to "whites" as either Europeans or by the specific nationality if it is known.

It really doesn't sound as though the throne speech will be as important as the media is making it out to be. The Liberals are falling in the polls and best thing for them to do in the short term is to keep the government alive and keep rebuilding for an election in 2009 or so. Nobody really wants an elections--most provinces have already had one this year--and it will take a few years still for the Conservatives to start getting complacent and corrupt enough that their welcome starts to wear off.

Tough beans. If you prefer the system to stay as it is, then don't whine about the consequences.

The Monarchy and Princess Diana are two different things; many people who admire(d) and adore(d) Princess Diana hate the Monarchy because they feel that Princess Diana was a victim (which she wasn't) of Royal Family intrigues. What we are talking about is more than Royal watching--it's about a system of governance that a number of Americans acknowledge as superior to the current system. Actually, the American Revolution was instigated by a small group of elites who were frustrated by economic restrictions, not the marriage habits of the monarchy. Let's not forget that many of these rebels were siring illegitimate children with their slaves, were involved in Free Masonry and other questionable ideological beliefs. The result has been nothing short of embarrassing; leaders of questionable intellect and ability, corruption, an ever increasingly tyranical government... (Didn't Plato state that all Republics degenerate into tyranies?) Currently, the American government is influenced more by foreign interests than the will of the people... It's certainly not a model of government to be envied.

One can easily argue that the government of the United States is corrupt and further removed from the average citizen than the Monarchy. Whatever the case, if you are content being governed by "spoiled sons, mediocre actors and peanut farmers" then that's your problem; I prefer an enlightened Head-of-State, one whose sole purpose is to govern. Truth of the matter is that many Americans are fascinated by the Monarchy, I suppose because they recognize it as a more stable and enlightened form of governance.

I wait for them to show up in the thrift stores after a few years. Relax. That's what makes politics interesting. Who would follow politics if it wasn't for all of this intrigue, plotting, back-stabbing and bad-mouthing? Are you even a Liberal? I think this may have had more to do with Mulroney, but if you expect him to wait for the Liberals to sort things out, the book would have to be published posthumously. He really owes nothing to the current manifestation of the Liberal party. The party turned on him and ousted him and his supporters. The party may have the same name but it certainly isn't the same in terms of "ideology and beliefs".

I'm not a Liberal, but it always gets me when certain people single out the Liberals for being liars... Frankly, the biggest one of the lot was a Conservative, John G. Diefenbaker, whose memoirs are notorious for distorting the facts. By the sounds of it, Mulroney is not much better. It doesn't matter what party they belonged to, each former PM has the same goal when they write their memoirs.