AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > December > 22 > Entry
Who is the most admirable woman of 2005?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Several times a year, Diane and I set aside our usual debate and tackle a question of common interest. At year-end, instead of focusing on the controversies that fill the news, we focus on what is admirable – in particular, who is the most admirable woman of the year.
For several years behind the scenes, Melinda Gates has applied her considerable intellect and business acumen to building the world’s leading philanthropic foundation –- the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — which she co-founded with her Microsoft-guru husband. And in 2005, she stepped out from her previous desire for family privacy to bring attention to one of the globe’s most massive and least-recognized tragedies: the daily scourge of preventable sickness and death in the developing world.
Americans are generous people, but much of our giving is sparked when an overwhelming tsunami-like disaster fills our television screens. Most of us are completely unaware of the far larger global health crisis, especially in Africa. Between new scourges like AIDS and old ones like malaria –- which alone kills 3,000 African children every day — Africa’s population is being decimated. As Gates Foundation spokeswoman Jacquelline Fuller told me, “Melinda came to realize that someone has to speak for these women and babies who had no voice, and that she has a unique role to play. She was willing to give up some of that personal and family privacy in order to become that voice.”
Not to mention giving up a heck of a lot of money; the Foundation is capitalized with $29 billion, on top of their $47 billion net worth. And As Bill told a Seattle reporter last year, “I wouldn’t be doing the foundation if it wasn’t for [Melinda]. And she’s really shaped where we’re going with it.”
Where they are going with it will, with time and the leverage of their investment, change the direction of the developing world; guided by the premise that, as Melinda says, “One life on this planet is no more valuable than the next.”
Rebuttal
Choosing Rosa Parks as woman of the year may seem predictable. It may even seem safe. But I didn’t choose Parks because she’s an icon of the civil rights movement. I chose her because she represents something too few women even consider: challenging the status quo. For me, Parks’ defiance is about human rights, not just the rights of black people. Specifically, I applaud her as an example of someone who despite the three strikes against her — black, female, over 40 — she took a stand by staying seated.
For a lot of women in this world, it is easier to play along to get along and ignore what most consider the “little” things. But as Parks reminds us, in the end, it’s the little things that matter most — like refusing to comply.
Rosa Parks defied an overwhelming majority. She didn’t concede and join the local chapter of the Independent Women’s Forum and Uncle Tom her way to comfort by seducing those in power. She took the hard road. How many women can say that?
Most women choose to turn on the mute button, to not fight back, to just let the little things go. Ah, yes, I know. I’ve heard arguments to the contrary before: Feminists talk about trivial matters no one really cares about. Who cares about being called “Ms” or “Mrs” when what really matters is family. Who cares about crimes against women when what really matters is keeping peace. Women should worry about the long haul. Feminists should worry about the “big picture.” But is this really an effective strategy?
Rosa Parks forced society to take a huge step by taking a small one. It certainly wasn’t an original idea. There were two other black women living in Montgomery, Alabama who refused to give up their seats before Parks decided the same, and changed American history forever. Their defiance isn’t insignificant because they didn’t spark a movement. Everyone’s “little” battles lay the groundwork. And with any movement: When there is enough effort, from every one of us, everyone benefits.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Karen Armsby
December 26, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this
I nominate Condaleeza Rice for her intelligence and diplomacy skills representing the United States as Secretary of State. Her accomplishments are not often broadcast in the media, but her positive actions in support of our country and our relations with other nations will be acclaimed in the future.
By Bill
December 26, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this
Probably the most important move by a woman was, Sandra Day O’Connor resigning from the supreme court. What a snake she turned out to be.
By Lyrazel
December 26, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Condaleeza Rice. Sorry Diane. All Rosa Parks did this year was die, her life was long, turbulent and she deserves respect for what she did so many years ago that helped bring attention to civil rights—but what did she do THIS year? Sorry Shaunti. I like Mrs Gates and her philanthropic efforts and wish more people used their billions of billions for the greater good—but I cant help feel: Connie worked harder than Rosa and Melinda this year. Connie has achieved her stature/notoriety by her own consistent and admirable effort. (I am not a fan of her boss or the puppet he keeps as Prez) Ms Rice really is the most commendable woman of 2005. Other suggestion: The second wife of Michael Shievo—to have endured such tribulation in a media circus that had no business ransacking a private sorrow for entertainment. Then to have to endure personal slurs from an audience that knew nothing about her, nothing about her life—just so they could have a token wicked-other-woman. You. You women who do the daily grind! You moms and girlfriends, soldiers, partners and PollyAnnas. Woman of the year doesnt have to be famous because most of them will never be mentioned but are invaluable to the people in their small and insignificant parts of the world. Our world is made so much nicer and cozy by your efforts. Nuff said. Adios.
By Whiley
December 26, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
Who is the most admirable woman of 2005? That’s easy. Natalee Holloway’s mother, Beth.
Bill, this week’s post isn’t your opportunity to bash women. Sandra Day O’Connor was on the Supreme Court since 1981. Do you have the education & stamina to work such an important job?
By Just Being Me
December 26, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this
Yeah, Bill… what an inopportune time to make such an insensitive, idiotic comment.
~standing applause to Lyrazel~ Although I don’t agree with your minimization of Mrs. Parks’ efforts even in 2005 (you obviously don’t know much about her day-to-day work), I appreciate your honoring the new Mrs. Schiavo (didn’t know they got married), and all strong women whose works may not be well-known.
One point: Condi may have “worked harder” than Melinda, but Condi got paid for it. Melinda didn’t.
By Beverly
December 26, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this
I agree that Condaleeza Rice has earned Woman of the Year. I hope she will be the Republican Presidential Candidate in the next election. She would get my vote. Least anyone doubt things have changed in the South who would have dreamed 50 years ago that a 68 year old white woman who grew up in Metro Atlanta would say that about an intelligent, educated, and accomplished black woman who grew up in Birmingham, AL. There are plenty of us, white men and women, who feel the same way I do about Ms. Rice. She has overcome racial prejudice as well as contiuing to suceed in a world still controlled by men and has earned the respect of Foriegn Governments and well as Americans. I thank our President for recognizing her abilities and potential and giving her the opportunity to be a member of his cabinet. She has risen to the task and deserves “Woman of the Year” for what she has accomplised not only in her personal life but also for her service to our great country. God Bless America
By Steve SC
December 26, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Condi Rice is indeed a remarkable lady, but I wonder what her impact on the world has been this year, other than to undo some of the damage Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have wreaked on our foreign relations. Maybe that’s enough. In terms of long-term benefit to the world, I think Melinda Gates comes out better.
By ChristmasHangover
December 26, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
So Shaunti Feldman reads TIME magazine?
Don’t think Bill would be doing any philanthropic work if it weren’t for Melinda. LOL
My “Woman of the Year” nomination goes to the wives and mothers of the troops in Iraq.
By jill
December 26, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
As a sports fan, I’ve got to say it’s Danica Patrick.
By Van
December 26, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
I must agree with ChristmasHangover. The mothers, sisters and wives of our soliders, including the women in uniform in Iraq and other places.
Perhaps we should nominate the Gold Star Mothers, each one has sacrificed.
There are many women that deserve the honor, choosing one group or even one woman would be too daunting a task.
While I applaud the Bill and Melinda Gates, there sacifice is small compared to a gold star mother’s.
By Lisa
December 26, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Woman of the year???? Single Mothers!!!!!!!!
By Caron
December 26, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
What amazes me is that Diane Glass can’t stay away from the cheap shots and straw men (women?) even on this topic.
By Brian Curtis
December 27, 2005 07:35 AM | Link to this
WHAT cheap shots and strawmen? Diane spelled out pretty clearly the importance of what Rosa Parks did. Are you suggesting that racism no longer exists, or never did? I just don’t see a “cheap shot” there.
By Bella
December 27, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
The woman of the year is any woman who had the courage to rise above the status quo, speak out against injustice, make personal sacrifices for the greater good, and leave the community/world a better place. Fortunately, those women are beyond the political, religious, racial, gender or socioeconomic bickering that we Americans are so prone to.
By Tim
December 27, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
I agree with Bella
By MARTIN
December 27, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this
I found it very interesting that the “right wing” commentary focused on how important a person was based on money and financial success where as the “left wing” rebuttal focused more on humanity and equality. It says a lot about who thinks about what. It also shows where the true intrests are.
For the right wing I would have to nominate Condelezza Rice and for the left wing I would nominate Oprah Winfrey and/or Hilary Clinton.
P.S. Caron lacks inteiigence. To blast Diane’s choice as a cheap shot shows true ingnorance and that racism still exisits under a different form even in 2005. Caron, don’t respond because you don’t get it.
How great would it be for the 2008 Presidenatl election be between Condolezza Rice and Hilary Clinton?!
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
I found it very interesting that the “right wing� commentary focused on how important a person was based on money and financial success where as the “left wing� rebuttal focused more on humanity and equality. It says a lot about who thinks about what. It also shows where the true intrests are.
martin, the right wing commentary doesn’t focus on how important gates is bc of her money. not even close. melinda gates is admirable bc she runs the world’s largest philanthropic organization. the left wing rebuttal is focused more on humanity and equality, in comparison to shaunti’s comments? newsflash, the largest philanthropic org in the world is all about humanity. and look at melinda’s quote: “One life on this planet is no more valuable than the next.â€? if that isn’t speaking to equality, then i can’t even fathom a guess as to what you would define as equality.
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Feminists talk about trivial matters no one really cares about. Who cares about being called “Ms� or “Mrs� when what really matters is family. Who cares about crimes against women when what really matters is keeping peace. Women should worry about the long haul. Feminists should worry about the “big picture.�
brian, here’s the straw man/woman, since you seem to have missed it. i don’t know of anyone i’ve met in my life who says things like “who cares about crimes against women when what really matters is keeping peace”. or “Who cares about being called “Msâ€? or “Mrsâ€? when what really matters is family”. it’s pretty easy for diane to toss out ridiculous positions and then take shots at them for being non-feminist, as though non-feminists would have truly supported those positions to begin with. that is the cheap shot that diane just can’t quite bring herself not to make. in reading caron’s comment, you reacted to the wrong thing.
By Paul
December 27, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
I’m just glad no one said Hillary should be woman of the year.
By BlindHogHomer
December 27, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Conde Rice? Surely you jest? Bag lady for the Bushco mob of the year maybe. Her predecessor, a man of honor and character, resigned rather than having to continue to be part of the constant stream of lies that come out of this administration. She allows herself to be used as a tool, lackey and mouthpiece for BushCo. If she had the least little bit of character or dignity, she’d follow Colin’s excellent example.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Yeah, darn that Hilary. Why didn’t she just look pretty and act vacuous like a first lady should! Why wasn’t she Laura Bush! How dare she get involved in politics. Silly woman. Hilary! The woman rednecks love to bash with no justification whatsoever!
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Hillary should be woman of the year just for being able to survive, despite all the nasty people out there that are so cruel to her.
She’d make a much better president than Bush. She’s an easy target because she’s a successful driven woman married to a screwed up man. People still can’t handle a smart powerful woman. Don’t mistake strength & keeping her head high for coldness. Why aren’t strong men accused of being cold? Why aren’t men accused of being power hungry & too driven?
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Whiley - “People still can’t handle a smart powerful woman. Don’t mistake strength & keeping her head high for coldness.”
ummm, haven’t there been several posts on here prasing condi for these exact traits? it’s not the fact that see is a woman that causes a large number of people to dislike her, its the fact that she will do anything to get the power that she wants. -who stays with a man after being publically humiliated b/c their husband cheated on her - and then they both lied about it -she is now in the process of moving to the center on many of the issues, which drastically alters her previous positions on these issues (apparently no conviction in her previous beliefs)
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
Whiley, are you talking to yourself again? LOL!
I miss Renee and Jack. This week sucks.
And, by the way, to anyone who cares to answer: what is the problem ppl have with Hilary? Is she guilty by association? Or are people just annoyed that she stood by her man? Is she too outspoken?
I really don’t get it. None of the people I hear expressing contempt and dislike for Hilary seem to have any solid reasons…
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Condi, besides working with satan (think about it, first years will be good under him (GB the First), and then after the death/rebirth of him, the years will be terror (GB the Second); - take this toung/cheek); I just am repulsed by her. Kind of like Omarosa (sp?) - that snotty look as though she could give a $hit what others may think. But as stated, that might just be my issue…
I like the idea of Rosa & Hillary - both had to stand strong in the face of opposing tides.
Kudos for that.
Whiley, I do not know why people cannot handle a strong woman - as for myself, I am a alien (not a person); and that is why I can - but these people, as you noted: You got me there;) Of corse the “people” that can handle her are also aliens;)
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me , what did I say??? I’m a woman with an opinion get over yourself.
“its the fact that she will do anything to get the power that she wants. -who stays with a man after being publicly humiliated b/c their husband cheated on her - and then they both lied about it “
Millions of women deal with cheating husbands. Should Hillary have just thrown everything away that she’s worked for her whole life because her HUSBAND cheated? So what if she covered up knowing she knew about it? BIG DEAL WE’VE ALL HAD TO DO THAT ! So all women who have been cheated on should let the whole world know? Because he cheated & she really didn’t want the public embarrassment, she held out as long as she could. Not only does it hurt her more, but also their daughter don’t forget. And the “Do anything to get power” line has always seriously made me SO ANGRY. Just another way to keep a woman down & in her place. Thank god she is so strong.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
“that snotty look as though she could give a $hit what others may think.”
See, women are constantly judged by our looks. If she had a demure look to her, she’d be accused of being too soft & too motherly like to be in any power. Is it possible to have a conversation about a woman without judging her appearance?
By Angry White Boy
December 27, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Parks was without a doubt one of the most overrated people of our lifetimes. She wasn’t acting as a hero leading the march accross the Selma bridge. She wasn’t even sitting in defiance for her people everywhere. She was just a tired and angry lady that wouldn’t give up her seat. At least that’s the way it was told to me a couple of months ago at the King Center. Diane, I usually lean your way, but this is one of the stupidest pieces and weakest arguments you’ve ever made.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
If she had a demure look to her…
You saying Hillary has a look of demure to her? Cause I dont see it - I see a solid, self-assured person that will stand her ground. Or are you still confused what it is that you think? And you just know that you want to fight;)
Now, Oprah, she is a caving diplomat that has a demure look that people love. She sucks up to everyone that appears on her show - and never talks straight;) {people are gonna get riled about slamming Oprah;}
C.mon whiley; put up your dukes - we can knock your innane contradictions and hatred around again for kicks;) I got the time and you have the insanity;)
I am feeling your love baby;)
By The72John
December 27, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
A facial expression has nothing to do with gender or appearance, Whiley. W has a smirk that makes me want to smack him upside the head. So does Rumsfeld.
Try to climb off the soapbox ONCE in a while. It must get tiresome up there. I know it’s tiresome down here.
By Renee
December 27, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
JBM - HEY!!!!!!!!! Hope you had a great Xmas.
Hillary, president??? Hopefully, not in my lifetime.
Rosa Parks - overrated???? Yes, to a completely ignorant person of what she stood for. I can’t even go into why her being tired and refusing to give up her seat was of such importance.
Condi - I have much respect for.
By Renee
December 27, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Now, Oprah, she is a caving diplomat that has a demure look that people love. She sucks up to everyone that appears on her show - and never talks straight;) {people are gonna get riled about slamming Oprah;}
Personally, I don’t care whether Oprah talks straight or not. I don’t even watch her show that much. She is a business woman, and whatever she’s doing, she’s doing it right, evident by her bank account.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
Renee,
She is a business woman, and whatever she’s doing, she’s doing it right, evident by her bank account.
I agree totally with that view. I was commenting on the view most people have of her as a role model for stand-up behavior.
In that same light; Madonna is a great business woman - and so is Jenna Jameson. Which are not pertinent when talking about woman of the year - I would suppose…
{BTW - I do not watch/listen to the above either}
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Whiley, what the heck is your problem on this lovely Tuesday afternoon? My comment was said (in jest, I might add) in reference to your 11:33a post in which you seemed to respond to your own 11:15a post.
I jokingly asked if you were talking to yourself. I couldn’t care less about your opinion, and I don’t speak that lingo, so I don’t know what it means to “get over” oneself.
Go back and re-read your 11:33, then of course, I’ll accept your apology for overreacting, as usual.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Renee - I had a great one, hope you all did too! Now, what do you have against Hilary? Still no one has answered my question. So many people dislike her, but I can’t quite get a handle on why…
Oh, and I’m TOTALLY not an Oprah-fan, although she is probably the most successful business woman alive. Although leap-years behind her, Tyra Banks is definitely following in her footsteps, as are those annoying Olsen twins.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
And, though I digress, how could I forget the successful Raven-Symone, another awesome business woman.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
JBM,
So many people dislike her, but I can’t quite get a handle on why…
I figure it is because she neither placates men OR women - thereby alienating them both and only leaving us ALIENS that have no problem with men/women not fitting into boxes.
My 2 cents.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
FM, who considers Oprah a role model for stand up behavior????
And, by the way, I am STILLLLLL working on decoding your 12:03. You have GOT to be on something, dude. It takes so much effort to figure out what you’re saying most of the time…
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
It takes so much effort to figure out what you’re saying most of the time…
Just dense (as in density) speak;)
You do not have to figure it out - I have no problem with that;) You shouldnt also.
By Netbanker
December 27, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Good Morning everyone! Hope everyone survived the holiday weekend without too much trauma or drama.
My nomination is every Iraqi woman serving in their legislature. The strength and character to risk one’s life every day in a society that does not generally believe in public or leadership roles for women in order to participate in a new democracy is courage far beyond what most of us will ever need.
On the topic of Hillary…God Bless her! When she shows her intelligence and strength she’s considered a b***. It seems that those who hate her the most (i.e. conservatives) didn’t even cut her a break during the Monica Lewinsky debaucle. Hillary did nothing wrong, stood by her husband,
By Renee
December 27, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Hillary has her own agenda, in my opinion, and I don’t agree with her “policies”. Her agenda for government managed health care must be stopped immediately. I don’t care about her personal life, standing next to her husband when he cheated. She did what most women have done and I see nothing wrong with that. Politically it was a great move actually.
By Netbanker
December 27, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
(ok…my mouse hand got ahead of my head and typing there)
Hillary did nothing wrong, stood by her husband, and worked through personal, relationship issues. Had she left Bill then she wouldn’t have been a good wife, tried to forgive him, is an example of how no one tries to keep their marriages together, etc. She did exactly what one would expect of a conservative christian…forgave her husband, went to marriage counseling with him, and stuck out a bad time made worse by having a family situation splashed across TV monitors and newspapers all over the world…to do and she still get derided about how she handled it. Not a single one of us knows how or what their relationship is like/about and bottom line it is none of our blessed business anyway…which is how all ‘marriages’ should be.
Now before all y’all go off on my…I’m not a big Clinton fan. It just sticks in my craw to see any woman being dragged through the mud for having strength of character, intelligence, poise, courage, and grace.
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
JBM,
I’m sure people who dislike hillary do so for a variety of reasons, but you must be kidding if you don’t know any “solid reasons” why people don’t like her. do an hour’s worth of independent research on google about her and chances are you’ll come up with plenty of things you would find objectionable about her, throughout her life from wellsley to senator (both politically and personally). there are reasons why people fear “the wrath of hillary”, and there are reasons why people like elizabeth moynahan call her “duplicitous” publicly to the media.
to the contrary of what you seem to infer in your post, in my experience it has been the people who know nothing of hillary who are her biggest supporters. those who know things about her are usually the ones most concerned with her and what she would do with power.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
Hillary has her own agenda, in my opinion, and I don’t agree with her “policies�.
Her own personal agenda? Or a political agenda? There is a difference b/w a personal agenda and a political agenda - the later does and should rest on policy beliefs.
The difference? One who has experianced something; and reacts in a thematic way bc of that experience has a personal agenda. One who believes in an agenda, by rational observation and study, can alter the course as they gain more knowledge - in case they are mistaken or have been given bad data. For example; whatever the initial belief by GWB, his agenda has not altered; although new data is available to him - one that is personal/religious.
And you can dissagree with the policy belief; just do not make it a personal issue - especially when it is clear that it is not.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
lol Just Being Me
I forgot to refresh my page & did not see a few posts.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Renee - I can understand your not agreeing with her policies, that’s cool with me. But, don’t most politicians have their “own agendas”??? And, would you refrain from voting for her just because you disagree with her policy on managed health care for those who can’t otherwise afford it when we are the only industrialized nation in the world who doesn’t offer some level of healthcare for all its citizens? Sorry, got carried away… the question is, do you hope Hilary never becomes pres in your lifetime just because of her stance on government-sponsored healthcare, or is there something else? I’m not trying to debate this one, I’m just trying to really understand what people have against Hilary…
NetB - Glad to see you! I mentioned earlier that I missed Renee and Jack, but I missed you and Tim and RF too! Thought I’d be pulling my hair out all week long without the SANE AND REASONABLE regulars…
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
lol Just Being Me !
I forgot to refresh my page & I did not see a few posts. :)
By Renee
December 27, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
I think her political agenda is very much her personal agenda, but she’s not the only one. Many other politicians have their own personal/political agendas, which are one in the same.
By Netbanker
December 27, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Renee…EVERY politician has an agenda, yes? And why the fear of managed health care? As a whole, Medicare/Medicaid/VA are some of the most organizationally efficient providers of health care in the nation. They also have medical personnel making care and plan decisions rather than actuaries who are focused on the bottom line and numbers.
Is the ‘free’ market really doing any of us any favors in health care? H.C. costs are rising at several times the rate of inflation and have been for at least the past 5 years. WHY? No one can ever point to a single reason or driving factor. Not a single other industry has had this same rise in costs. Could it be…hmmmmm, let’s think here for a moment…still working on it…oh,right…my classic stand by….MONEY! ALL health care companies (drugs, HMOs, managed care facilities, etc) have had rising profits. One of the turning points in our health care was the fall in charity hospitals. How many truly charitable hospitals are left..you know, Catholic this or Protestant that hospital? Nearly all hospitals are run for PROFIT when they used to manage bottom lines to run flat (revenue/payments cover expenses). This changes the paradigm of health care from one of providing the best care and putting the patient first to putting the stock price and balance sheet first. When people cease to have faces and merely become numbers it’s easier to $crew them without having any guilt or worrying about morals getting in the way.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
SEE IT’S NOT ME ! My computer is losing it, not me.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
Blablabla -
but you must be kidding if you don’t know any “solid reasons� why people don’t like her.
Wasn’t kidding at all… most of the people I’ve come across who dislike Hilary are soooo passionate about it that you’d think she slapped their mama or something! lol. Obviously, I’m kidding about that part, but seriously, I have yet to get a solid answer from someone (except Renee’s just now, about which I still have questions) about why they so passionately dislike Hilary. I mean, people really seem to hate her, and their comments usually go beyond just expressing dissatisfaction with her performance as a First Lady and Senator… and I’m not sure why.
to the contrary of what you seem to infer in your post, in my experience it has been the people who know nothing of hillary who are her biggest supporters. those who know things about her are usually the ones most concerned with her and what she would do with power.
What did I infer in my post, and how is your comment contrary to whatever I inferred?
I think you may have read too much into my post. I neither sang Hilary’s praises, nor expressed dissatisfaction with her. I simply asked for someone to clarify why people hate Hilary so passionately.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
NetB,
Is that not how health care should be though? Blind and only dealing with the issue? Instead of bc of a fat wallet or a white-pretty face?
Therefore there can be an agreed upon bases of coverage that all people are entitled to, regardless of $$$ or race etc. People with the dough can still opt for extra coverage - which is fair (if they have the money to spend, they can have a provider that wipes their butt if they want).
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
BTW I love Oprah. Not every single show she has, but who can keep everybody’s attention constantly? She does a lot for other people & has been entertaining us for years. Oprah has brought up topics society loves to keep quiet about & has interviewed so many interesting people. The book of the month thing was a brilliant idea. She also discovered Dr. Phil. Say what you want about him, nick pick him all apart,you can’t deny his shows are entertaining & helpful.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
Brilliant, NetB.
I would love to hear another intelligent person offer an intelligent argument to counter what you said. It’s so convincing, and sensible… how could anyone disagree?
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
jbm, you seem to indicate that people don’t know why they don’t like hillary, or at least can’t express good reason why. I really don’t get it. None of the people I hear expressing contempt and dislike for Hilary seem to have any solid reasons… i was simply stating that my experience has been quite the opposite; those that know about her and her history are those that dislike her the most, while those that don’t know much about her are the ones that sing her praises.
I mean, people really seem to hate her, and their comments usually go beyond just expressing dissatisfaction with her performance as a First Lady and Senator… and I’m not sure why.
like i suggested in my post, go read about her. i don’t want to sound preachy, but it should become pretty clear, pretty quickly. read her book and then read dick morris’ book. morris was deeply involved with the clintons for over 25 years, from arkansas to the white house. he knows all of the main characters personally. it’s pretty interesting stuff.
By Renee
December 27, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Netbanker - I’m not saying we have the best health care system now, but I can in no way support government managed health care. That will be a big mistake. And to me, Hillary hasn’t said much that I have agreed with. Her reaction to the video games was over the top for one. She seems to portray one agenda while underlying she has a totally different agenda. Just my opinion. I wouldn’t vote for her.
On the other hand, she is a strong woman. She knows what she wants and she gets it, no matter who stands in her way. Nothing wrong with that. But just because she is a strong woman does not make me want to support her.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
*those who know things about her are usually the ones most concerned with her and what she would do with power. *
Oh yes. She might, I don’t know, spy on American citizens or claim presidential privilege to do anything she pleases.
Oh, wait. Never mind.
By RS
December 27, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
My vote goes to a very dear local friend of mine, whose name I won’t mention, to protect her privacy. This lady was badly disfigured in a childhood accident, is a single mom & is trying to get her own company going to promote & raise money for childhood accident/injury victims. She’s probably the bravest person I know, has a positive, uplifting, upbeat attitude & doesn’t allow what happened to her rule her life. I am SO blessed to be part of her life & if anyone asks me to give an example of what constitutes a truly beautiful human being, she’s it! Another female who gets my vote is Marlie Casseus, the Haitian teen who recently had a 16-lb. tumour removed from her face; she had to endure a lot & she, too, is very courageous. Hillary is too shrill for my liking, plus I’ve heard her utter some anti-Semitic sentiments; big turn off. Oprah is a grossly overpaid hatemonger; why is she so concerened with a pretty, common blonde bimbo who willingly went off with strange men when there are innocent young children who are missing? Plus she’s not the philanthropist so many consider her; the cars she “gave away” are probably a tax write off, plus the recipients had to pay taxes on them; gee, how can they afford the taxes when they couldn’t even afford to buy their own cars? And I agree with Diane about Rosa Parks; her action represented ANYONE who’s been unjustly treated because of what they were born as.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Nice post RS;)
By Renee
December 27, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
One more thing. JBM, I don’t hate her. I just don’t want to see her in power.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
What anti-Semitic comments do you think Hillary? Or have you fallen into the “If you don’t support Isreal you’re anti-semitic” nonsense?
By Netbanker
December 27, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Hey JBM! So did you survive Xmas OK? We had a great Christmas Eve catching up with many friends and acquaintences at a party. It was the 20th Anniversary Christmas Eve party a dear friend of our throws (about 200 people this year) and our puppy was the belle of the ball in her garnet satin dress. I’ll have to download some pics to her online photo album. She knows how to work a crowd already…we put her down and she started wandering about stopping at every old lady and gay boy to be picked up, fawned over, and hand out kisses.
Renee…hope you managed to stay warm in New England!
Whiley…nice to ‘see’ you dear!
By The72John
December 27, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
has made…has made.
By RS
December 27, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Thanks, FM, you’re a fast reader! T72J, that’s right! I distrust ANYONE who speaks out against Israel. Don’t you know that the countries who hate Israel hate US too & want to see the USA destroyed? To me, being anti-Israel is tantamount to being pro-terrorist & condoning barbaric acts such as suicide bombing. And, clearly, it’s not “Anti Semitic nonsense”, it’s the way some of these sickos really feel. Scary…
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
Renee: I’m not saying we have the best health care system now, but I can in no way support government managed health care. That will be a big mistake.
But, WHYYYY?
Blablabla - I’m afraid you’ve read too much into what I said. You said: jbm, you seem to indicate that people don’t know why they don’t like hillary, or at least can’t express good reason why.
I was not indicating any such thing. Seems like you thought I was being sarcastic, when really I was asking a sincere, curious question. I’m not suggesting that people don’t know why they don’t like Hilary, I’m stating that I don’t know why they don’t like Hilary. And, every time I ask someone why, they give me a response like, “are you kidding?” or “oh, I just can’t stand that woman,” “or, she just wants to be in the limelight.” It reminds me of my 15 year-old telling me she doesn’t like the next-door neighbor, and when I ask why, she’ll say, “I just don’t,” or “because she makes me sick.”
I don’t care who likes her or who doesn’t. I don’t have any feelings for or against her, and have no idea whether or not I would vote for her. All I’m asking is what people have against her - nothing in between the lines, no hidden sentiments. Just a simple, curious, sincere question.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
“Oprah is a grossly overpaid hatemonger; why is she so concerened with a pretty, common blonde bimbo who willingly went off with strange men when there are innocent young children who are missing?”
HATEMONGER? Are you kidding me? And who cares where she gets all those gifts to give out to SO MANY PEOPLE. She’s not overpaid at ALL. She has provided endlessly to so many people, employed so many people. SHAME SHAME SHAME on you. And WHO is the pretty, common blonde bimbo?, Natalee Holloway? Shame on you for saying that about a MURDERED young lady just trying to have fun on vacation. Forgive me, I forgot it’s slutty to want to kiss a young man. It’s Natalee’s MOTHER that arranges the interviews to keep this case public. Natalee’s MOTHER is a saint to work so hard to find her daughter & put her MURDERERS behind BARS.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
I have some great land down in S. Florida for you to buy;)
Are your signatures legal, or has the “impared judgement due to dimentia” order already been placed?
Can you say 1013?
By The72John
December 27, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Gee RS…I hope you’re being facetious.
The Israeli government treats Palestinians in roughly the same fashion that white South Africans treated black South Africans under apartheid. Any, Israeli rockets and tanks kill as many innocent Palestinians as are killed in sucide bombings.
Disliking the policies of a government is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC. Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews and Judaism.
I’m sorry that you can’t tell the difference.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
FatMoose WHAT are you TALKING ABOUT?
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Just take your meds whiley; calmness will come shortly;)
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Oh yes. She might, I don’t know, spy on American citizens or claim presidential privilege to do anything she pleases. Oh, wait. Never mind.
you said it, john. if you believe the “we are the president” line of thinking, she probably already has. (wink)
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
LOL Fatmoose ! Do I really type that angry? Can’t help it sometimes, people are mean & rude.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Oprah is a grossly overpaid hatemonger
First off, as previously stated, I’m no Oprah fan. That aside, I’m curious as heck as to why you think she’s a hatemonger?
And, if she’s “grossly overpaid” who can be angry except the consumers who buy into her? She pays herself, and her fans pay her, and she deserves every penny of it. She’s a self-made business woman who climbed her way to the top.
NetB: Oh, I can’t wait to see the pics!!!! I’m so glad you had a good time!
Renee: One more thing. JBM, I don’t hate her. I just don’t want to see her in power. I know I’m about to get on your nerves for asking this again, but: WHYYYYYY?
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
you said it, john. if you believe the “we are the president� line of thinking, she probably already has. (wink)
Gonna have nightmares about that; thank you very much!
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Really, Your “But Why?But Why?But Why?But Why?” IS annoying.
He is saying that you can easily look it up for yourself - same goes for the Oprah comment. After you have, you can then converse on that as a topic; but noone is required to educate you here.
{ie - get an opinion and bring it back;}
By Renee
December 27, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
JBM - Canada has goverment sponsored healthcare. When you get a chance read about it. Canadians are coming here to get healthcare, etc. Read about the waiting lists, the refusals to treat, and the list goes on and on.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
Now, speaking of Natalee Holloway, I have to admit, I’m really disturbed by the fact that pretty, white women who go missing garner much more media attention than regular-looking women, and black women.
It feels even worse when black media give in to this preference. I guess it’s not something many people think about until it hits close enough to home.
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
jbm,
I don’t have any feelings for or against her, and have no idea whether or not I would vote for her.
given what a polarizing character she is, i’m a little surprised by your statement. but if that’s the case, you should go read about her and find out for yourself what you think she stands for and what she believes, and then form your own opinion on her.
there are plenty of reasons why i don’t like her, involving her personal and professional life going all the way back to her college days and ranging forward to today. there are probably other people on this blog who would take the opposite position and sing her praises with great passion. i’ll leave it at that and let you go form your own view on her.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - First of all, you can ignore my “whys” just as easily as I can ignore your annoying-to-all-understood-by-none-spelling-error-laden-grammatically-incorrect-poor-sentence-structured-wrong-punctuation-using-never-making-sense BANTER.
Second of all, my “whys” weren’t directed to YOU (nor to Blablabla, as you seem to think), but to RENEE - who will certainly let me know when I’m getting on her nerve. Until then, shut up and mind your business. Don’t “talk” to me unless I’m “talking” to you.
And, for the record, I didn’t ask anyone to “educate” me here, and certainly not you - unless I want to intentionally become an idiot. I asked, which I have a right to on this PUBLIC BLOG, why people dislike Hilary so much. The question seeks an OPINION-BASED answer, not a FACT-BASED answer, therefore, it isn’t possible for the answer to be educational in value. STUPID IDIOT.
Happy? You’ve finally provoked me into resorting to your low-level.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Renee - I’ll look into it (oh, that reminds me, did your books come in yet?).
Wouldn’t this proposed “universal” health care be available primarily for those who can’t afford health care, in which case “something” would be better than “nothing?” For example, my partner’s job doesn’t offer her medical insurance, and my job doesn’t give domestic partner benefits. So, for a long time, she had no healthcare insurance. Recently, we bought private insurance (which is overwhelmingly expensive), after realizing that she hadn’t had a check up in years.
I’m just thinking (as elementary a thought as it may be) that she would’ve been better off with a free check up than with none at all… Obviously, people who have good insurance would keep theirs, but wouldn’t those with no insurance be better off?
I’ve got a lot of time on my hands this week, so I’m definitely going to look into the Canadian situation…
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me, there are SO many murdered & missing women & children that the news cannot continually report on all of them. It’s the family that must keep the letters, emails, phone calls & everything going to keep it in the public eye. One day I would like to see the world wake up & realize how serious & widespread violence against women & children is. There are protests against the war in Iraq about the soldiers dying there, but nothing of the daily slaughter going on just in this country alone.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Ooo. JBM. Nicely put.
Scary. But nice.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Blablabla - I’m just that kind of person, I guess. It takes a lot for me to develop a passionate dislike for anyone, especially someone I don’t know personally. For example, my entire family and many of my friends are anti-Bush. Although I didn’t vote for him, and I’m certainly not one of his fans, I don’t have this passionate disgust for him that so many of his opponents have. I guess I feel the same about Hilary. I don’t have a passionate dislike for her (obviously because I don’t know enough negative things about her), thusfar, she hasn’t influenced me to like or dislike her.
When people bash Pres. Bush, they usually talk about race-relations, his gubernatorial years, his decisions about the war, the budget deficit, his poor presentation skills, selection for Supreme Court replacements, etc. Whether I agree or not, those are solid reasons for people to like or dislike him.
Or for Clinton, the whole Lewinski scandal (affair, lie, pretending to understand simple questions, etc.)…
That’s kind of what I was trying to figure out about Hilary, what solid things do people have against her? I don’t know anything about her college days - I’ll have to look into that…
Thx
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Where did I use all-bold?
Nope - not My level, one of all your own.
Smile;) Dont be so angry;0
By The72John
December 27, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
I’m convinced that many people don’t like Hillary - Blablabla’s experience aside, most HIllary-bashing I hear comes from uneducated rubes in camoflauge - because A) She’s a woman who “doesn’t know her place” and B) because she worked on the health care plan, which has been presented by conservatives as Socialism at best and Communism at worst.
Now Bush I do despise for a number of reasons, but mostly because if given a choice he would remove me (and you, and Net, and Renee to name a few) from the planet. Not to mention the fact that every time he needs to win an election he makes us into public enemy #1 and blames us for the downfall of civilization as we know it. I don’t understand how you CAN’T hate him.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Whiley, your point is understood, and I agree that there are way more missing women and children than the media can report on. But, surely you’re not suggesting that the media doesn’t report on more pretty, white women, than on any other group, namely the not-so-pretty, and the non-caucasian????
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
So many people dislike her, but I can’t quite get a handle on why…
I replied:
I figure it is because she neither placates men OR women - thereby alienating them both
Simalar to:
because A) She’s a woman who “doesn’t know her place� and B) because she worked on the health care plan, which has been presented by conservatives as Socialism at best and Communism at worst.
And I posted it at the first why; but that is different.
{yes - I am getting a kick out of the ignorance, insanity, and hostility on here; reminds me of what the general population is made up of}
By RS
December 27, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Ah, I should have figured some of my sentiments would start a firestorm. Oh well, I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else. T72J, no I am not at all being facetious. Actually, the Israeli govt is too lenient on those animals. I’d LOVE to see every filthy Palestinian refugee camp (REFUGEES?? Oh those poor victims! My heart bleeds. NOW I’m being facetious) decimated. INNOCENT Palestinian?? My dear man, show mw one of those & I’ll show you someone under the age of 3 or whenever they’re considered too young to be indoctrinated into that rabid hatred of Western culture. John, you’re defending a culture that would just as soon kill you as look at you. Disliking Israeli politics is just thinly veiled anti-Semitism; I’m sure your shaved head & white sheet look fantastic on you… By “hatemonger”, I refer to anyone who makes a career out of lumping anyone with different sexual preferences into the category of “sex offender”. OK, I think looking at pictures of naked young girls is disgusting but I wouldn’t bother going on a witch-hunt for anyone who DOES as long as they don’t act on these impulses. Oprah’s “providing” things for people are a tax write-off & a publicity stunt. Of course she has to employ a lot of people; she’s a huge industry. Seems to me everything she does is to make herself look good; sad she has so many sheeple duped. Yes, Natalee Hollow-head is EXACTLY who I’m referring to & JBM hit the nail right on the head. I always seeing teeny tiny little local news blurbs about missing children turning up sexually assaulted & dead; yeah, their parents make quite a stink too, but they’re not particularly pretty, or blonde, or white Christian so the story just falls by the wayside. I wonder if Beth Holloway ever cautioned her daughter never to go off with strangers? You’d think at age 18 she’d know better, but hopefully what happened to her will stop other young women from doing the same thing so her life won’t be a TOTAL waste. Back to what JBM said: A long, long time ago, a mentally retarded man had a menial job at a place where I’d been employed. He was very sweet & took a great deal of pride in his simple job. Eventually some slimeball murdered him, probably for the few dollars he had in his pocket. Did the case get any publicity? NO WAY! In fact, the only reason I heard about it was because I worked there. This was years ago but truthfully I’m still sad & bitter about his senseless death. Oh, but who cares? He’s not a pretty, blonde girl.
By Neal Johnson
December 27, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Nobody mentioned Cindy Sheehan. She is the woman who spoke truth to power this year.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
And I posted it at the first why; but that is different.
It’s not different, just not enough to satisfy my curiosity. If a person is attempting to get a handle on why a group of people think a certain thing, surely an intelligent person wouldn’t take ONE person’s answer and be satisfied with that. I continued to ask because I was STILL curious as to why OTHER people dislike Hilary. I was not, and am not, SOLELY interested in why YOU think people dislike Hilary, just as I am not solely interested in why BLABLABLA dislikes Hilary. I want to know from a number of different people why THEY dislike Hilary.
What are you p** because I didn’t just take your word for it and call it a day?
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me I agree the media plays up more of the pretty people. They also invent scandalous sex lives of the victims, dissecting all the things the young women did wrong. I’d rather see them go after the perpetrators lives instead.
By Renee
December 27, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
The media definitely reports on more white girls/women missing than black. Same with missing white children versus black.
John - although I supported initiially Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, his stance on gay marriage alone allowed me not even to consider my vote to go to him.
JBM - not yet, but I just got packages today that I had been waiting since early last week. Also to answer your question, yes, a free check up is better than none. But do you want a quality free check up, or just someone performing the act without actually doing the work and being paid an exorbidant (sp?) amount of money to do so.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Anyone who reads your venom-filled post must surely find your use of the phrase “hatemonger” to be ironic. I pity you RS, but more I pity the world. It is attitudes like your own that are exactly the reason that people continue to be at each others throats.
Most Palestinians ARE innocent, you venomous bigot, just like most Israelis are innocent. Anyone who believes that opposing a particular governments policies is tantamount to hating a culture is ignorant and stupid, and gullible on top of that.
You are a monster, RS, and I hope that you receive that which you wish on others.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
Neal, whether you respect or loathe what Ms. Sheehan is doing, I don’t think anyone will agree that she’s the “most admirable” woman of 2005. Now, you can put her in the group of “mothers of soldiers” that someone else “nominated” earlier, but on her own, she’s certainly not the most admirable woman of 2005.
RS… and to add to that, Tameka Huston. The beautiful black woman from North Carolina who was missing from May 2004 to October 2005 with nearly NO media coverage. In fact, it wasn’t until after her body was found that she got some press. Dateline did a story on Tameka, and the fact that black women don’t get the same amount of press, you can read it here
The list goes on and on… no intelligent person in the world can deny that “regular” people don’t get national media coverage for disappearing.
By RS
December 27, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Too late, T72J. Being JEWISH, I’ve already “received” it in thousandfolds, as have just about all my Jewish friends. So believe me, I know exactly what I’m talking about…Too bad I can’t say the same about you. Hey, have you ever walked/driven past a group of virulent nutcases protesting YOUR ethnic group & carrying signs stating that a horrific act of genocide (the Holocaust) perpetrated against your ancestors is nothing more than a made-up hoax? I have. So until you’ve walked a mile in my Manolo Blahniks (that’s right! All us Jewish American Princesses are obcessed with designer brand names, you know), your rantings are devoid of any credibility…(need a dictionary to look up some of the 2+ syllable words I used, by the way??)
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
I agree the media plays up more of the pretty people
Whiley, are you having a hard time admitting that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear???????
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
So RS, since it’s not safe for a young woman to be alone with any young man, even a judges SON, shouldn’t we be requiring all young men to stay away from all females then? Shouldn’t there be required classes in school to teach young girls the danger of males? Shouldn’t we put all boys away in different schools so that girls will be safe? Shouldn’t all males have a curfew of 8pm? NO? Instead, lets take all the rights away from FEMALES then. Lets put ALL the safety responsibility on them. THEY should have ESP & be able to tell which boys will date rape & murder them.
Does this not be alone with strangers include being alone with a teacher? Maintenance men? Personal trainer? Neighbor? Uncle? Should we all be treating all males as criminals & if we don’t it’s our fault if something happens? That’s basically what you just said. How lovely sexist views & blaming the victim are alive & well in 2005.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
What are you p* because I didn’t just take your word for it and call it a day?*
No,
It is because just like your example of your kid saying “because,” you kept “But why.2x.3x.4x.more!”
And you were getting riled becuse noone would educate you - instead of you doing as was posted numerous times indicating you should to do a quick search;)
Pi$$y much?
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
The question bears repeating.
Whiley, are you having a hard time admitting that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear???????
MEDIA, are you having a hard time admitting that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear???????
MISSING PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS, are you having a hard time admitting that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear???????
FELLOW BLOGGERS, are you having a hard time admitting that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear???????
AMERICA, are you having a hard time admitting that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear???????
Will someone who is NOT BLACK please admit that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear?
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
most HIllary-bashing I hear comes from uneducated rubes in camoflauge - because A) She’s a woman who “doesn’t know her place� and B) because she worked on the health care plan, which has been presented by conservatives as Socialism at best and Communism at worst.
john, you obviously get your hillary-bashing from the wrong place! you need to get up to ny more and meet some of the uneducated rubes living up there who know all about her.
By RS
December 27, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
JBM, no, sorry, the name Tameka Huston is unfamiliar to me, which clearly proves your/my point. What a tragic story…And I’m sure you recall the Jon Benet media circus; how could you NOT, though? For years, every time you pick up a newspaper or turn on the news…. I STILL see stories on that. At the time the story first broke, I was living in an area with huge Latino, African-American & Jewish populations. AND, at the time, there were a number of disappearances & subsequent sex-murders of very young children from those areas who belonged to those 3 ethnic groups. Bet you can’t remember any names or details…Neither can I! Point proven…Instead, all the publicity goes to a painted, prancing pony whose clueless parents tricked her out like a child prostitute & a teen bimbo who willingly went off with some guy(s) she didn’t know..
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me , uh I already said that’s true. lol refresh your page.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
“a teen bimbo who willingly went off with some guy(s) she didn’t know.”
THAT comment is SEXIST & EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
RS, as long as there are people like you in the world, there will never be peace. You are too eager to nurse your wounds and grudges, too willing to dehumanize an entire group of people.
You talk about the Holocaust, but then turn around and spew out filthy bile advocating the slaughter of children. How does that make you any better than a Nazi?
The saddest thing about you, RS, is that you have failed to learn ANYTHING history has to teach you. You just go on making the same mistakes that others made in the past.
As far as credibilty goes, dear RS, I’m gay. I know exactly what it’s like to experience prejudice and hatred on a daily basis. Frankly, I suspect I experience it more than you ever do or will. But thanks for playing.
By the way, what in the world makes you think I need a dictionary to understand your rather limited vocabulary? Obviously, I’m far more intelligent and articulate than you. Perhaps you were just making a cheap shot and, lacking anything approaching creativity, fell back on an old standby?
Try harder next time!
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
shouldn’t we be requiring all young men to stay away from all females then?
Absolutly!
I say legalize the protective condom to boot (has nice little inward spikes in it that shred nicely).
A stranger is: Person you do not know - be it a senator or a bum.
Not a: Does this not be alone with strangers include being alone with a teacher? Maintenance men? Personal trainer? Neighbor? Uncle?
Ohh boy - I am an uncle. I better go commit myself!
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
IDIOT, a “quick search” does not give me the opinions of my fellow bloggers, which is what my question sought.
If I ask a group of people for their opinions, for the purpose of gauging a number of different ideas, and one person (who doesn’t even fit the category of the ones whose opinion I sought) responded, of course I would continue to ask why, you non-English-speaking idiot.
Nevermind, I won’t bother trying to explain to you what everyone else on this site already understands. That’s your parents’ problem, not mine.
And, if you get a “kick” out of anything, you should get a kick out of the fact that YOU ARE THE ONLY IDIOT in this blog that can’t seem to comprehend that. Go ahead, take a survey. Ask around. You will find that YOU ARE THE ONLY IDIOT HERE that nearly everyone thinks speaks in another language…. whose writing nearly EVERYONE has to read two or three times before it starts to make sense. YOU ARE A TOTAL IDIOT.
Have a great day!
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
OH GEE I forgot to say “WHITE”.
By RS
December 27, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
JBM, let me clarify this: Yes, you are right. I am not black (OK, I’ve been told I have a little bit of black ancestry from way back, but I was raised white/Jewish) & I 100% acknowledge that these horrific crimes against black women & girls are nowhere near as publicized as the selfsame crimes against their white counerparts. Even if they’re white, they have to be PRETTY in order to garner such publicity. The only unattractive one I recall such a furor being made over was that psycho “runaway bride” but I guess when your family has that much money…
By The72John
December 27, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
john, you obviously get your hillary-bashing from the wrong place! you need to get up to ny more and meet some of the uneducated rubes living up there who know all about her.
Sorry Blabla, use poor old Southerners ain’t got no call to go t’the big city!
I wonder if you give this level of credibility to the many critics of Bush who have come out of his administration? There are countles accounts of his own lust for and abuse of power…are you so quick to believe them or do you just discount them as “liberal rantings”?
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley, despite your stab at sarcasm, there is a difference.
You said that the media pays more attention to “pretty” women. That is minimizing the issue that was raised: that the media pays more attention to WHITE, pretty women. NOT just pretty women. Unless you believe that all the black women who are missing just aren’t pretty. And, I knowwwww you’re not saying that.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Will someone who is NOT BLACK please admit that BLACK WOMEN DO NOT GET THE NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION THAT WHITE WOMEN GET when they disappear?
I agree totally.
But you are a freak in your typing - geez.
Is it more offensive to be called a teen bimbo who willingly went off with some guy(s) she didn’t know.� Or to be one?
Has that been in a play? Ohh yeah - americans have no need for personal responsibility.
By RS
December 27, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
What offends ME are bimbos, teen & otherwise. They are idolized, fawned over & forgiven any transgression because of their looks. If an overweight/pimply and/or African American girl went off with an unknown man/men, boy, would she be reviled….T72J, the “children” I’m referring to are those little monsters who strap bombs around their midsections & kill innocent people. By the way, you said something that profoundly (pro-found-ly. 3 syllables.) shocked me; that you are gay. Really? I had an image of you as one of those “kill them queers & Jew-boys” types. I’m not sure how long you’ve been following this blog, but a number of people on it can tell you I’m a card-carrying (card displayed on request) “f* hag”. Oh, believe me, I am sadly aware that gays & lesbians have been unfairly reviled over the years & one reason I wouldn’t vote for Bush was his stance on gay marriage. That previous post of mine where I mentioned walking past a group of Neo-Nazis carrying signs challenging the veracity of the Holocaust? The same jerks were also protesting against gays & lesbians. That offended me just as much.
By Angelina B
December 27, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
How about Angelina Jolie? She helps the needy around the world and even snagged one of the hottest movie stars around-Brad! And she even adopts orphans!
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
OK, we are going off the real issue here. Murdered & missing women & children. There are so many we need a 24 hour channel just to fairly feature each one.
OK I’ll say it, the MEDIA DOESN’T REPORT ENOUGH ON MURDERED & MISSING BLACK WOMEN & CHILDREN.
That’s not the biggest issue here folks. The biggest issue here is there are so many murderers & sex offenders roaming all around us & we (the victims & future victims) are fed up. When are the ones in charge actually going to do something about it? When? When? When?
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
JBM,
I would think idiot better defines one who asks one question; then defends it by stating they asked another. Confused again? Below is your initial posts Qs and your restated Q to try to have a winning arguement:
So many people dislike her, but I can’t quite get a handle on why…
And the rephrased: If I ask a group of people *for their opinions
And we have run into this before - you get all riled up bc your Q is actually different than your posted Q.
And I do not express myself clearly?!?!;)
You clearly are a dip$hit - which leaves more room for me; for you will end up like that lady who got stuck climbing into a house to pilfer (for your BK Triples maybe?); disrobed (now shes naked hanging out of it); and died in it with her a$$ hanging out.
You are that type of idiot deary;)
Ohh yeah, it was some mans fault that she ended up like that by some wormy BS whiley will come up with.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
RS, you are a hag for certain.
Let me see if I can’t drill this into your thick skull one more time.
Most Palestinian children aren’t suicide bombers. Most Palestinians aren’t suicide bombers. There is blood on BOTH sides of the issue. Neither side is guiltless, but there are innocents - MANY innocents on both sides. You have allowed your bitterness to poison you into thinking that an ethnic group made up of millions of people is fundamentally evil. How are you ANY different from the perpetrators of the Holocaust?
You think because I don’t share your rabid hatred of Palestinians that I am a bigot? That because I condemn equally the shelling of innocent civilians by the Israelis AND the actions of suicide bombers that I am a Nazi? How stupid are you?
What, in ANYTHING I have written suggests to you that I hate ANYONE?
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
RS,
I know I am being caustic today; but still: Kudos to your post.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
Let’s see:
How many of these names do you recognize?
Jennifer Wilbanks Chandra Levy Marcie Crane Lori Hacking Asha Degree Elizabeth Smart Carly Brucia Latoya Thomas Tyesha Bell Laci Peterson Audrey Seiler Dymashel Cullins Natalee Holloway Dail Dinwiddie Daphne Jones
Lemme guess: you recognize 8, right? Or perhaps you’ve already forgotten about Audrey, the idiot from Univ. of Wis. who faked her abduction, putting your recollection at 7.
Do you recognize the names of the two women from right here in Atlanta, both mothers of five??
My guess is no.
By RS
December 27, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
FM, I laughed my OWN derrrierre off at that story about the nekkid woman who got stuck in the window of the house she attempted to rob! No, I hadn’t heard that one but of COURSE it’s some man’s fault! Why, she was sexually molested (translation: Some man whistled at her in the street & she was APPALLED at such blatant SEXUAL HARRASSMENT!) when she was young, pretty, skimpily attired & a tease so naturally the world owes her a living
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Like I said: Nevermind, I won’t bother trying to explain to you what everyone else on this site already understands. That’s your parents’ problem, not mine.
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
i hear you, john. and i wouldn’t go there this time of year.
i give a open ear to the bush critics, bc without looking at a story/issue from both sides, you’re going to miss something. i also think that if you don’t challenge your views by reading a range of opinions, you don’t truly know why you believe what you believe.
that said, i give a lot of creedance to the stories of a guy like dick morris, who has known hillary for 25 years. nobody else has had insider access to the clintons more than he has over the last quarter century. there’s also plenty of stuff that gets reported in the paper about her that i don’t like, and certainly don’t need some talking head to describe.
i’d prefer not to get into the whole littany of reasons why i don’t like her, but trust me, i don’t like her and there are plenty of good reasons why. none of them have anything to do with her “not knowing her place” or the health care silliness.
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
jennifer wilbanks is pretty?
chandra levy was pretty?
ugh. no way.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Um J27,
It is the Palestinians that object to the Isreal state and began this crap.
If they stopped their terrorist tactics, this would not be happening.
Think it this way - rightly or not - the US now owns all of the Indians land. But you do not see the Indians acting in terroristic ways bc of a decent ideology they hold - “to be good people.” This is what is missing from the equation - decent idoilogy.
Same in Iraq - agree with the war or not (which I dont)- the tactics used against US soldiers and iraqi peoples ARE sub-human.
By Whiley
December 27, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
“Is it more offensive to be called a teen bimbo who willingly went off with some guy(s) she didn’t know.â€? Or to be one?”
It’s more offensive to use the language that you do, you are blaming the victim for being in the presence of a male. I would rather you say “It’s offensive that a spoiled rich son of a judge thinks he is entitled to stalk & coerce a young woman on vacation into trusting him. It is disgusting he would happily plot with his two friends to drug & have sex with an unconscious young girl. It is filthy for those pigs to cover for each other. It is even more disgusting that a govt. would purposely cover it all up.”
Something like that would be more appropriate than calling a murdered young woman a blonde bimbo.
By RS
December 27, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
Thanks, FM! Nah, I know you’re keeping it real. JBM, the list of names you provided is EXACTLY what I meant. I think Chandra Levy WAS Jewish, but she was pretty. T72J, I KNOW not every single Palestinian hates Jews & Americans; Did I say that? No, you were reading between the lines. But from what I’ve seen, most have been indoctrinated into hating our culture. And not to burst your smug little bubble, but do you know what their culture thinks of homosexuality?? 3 guesses…DUH!!!
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
Blablabla - Apparently in order to get press, they only have to be one or the other: pretty or white. And, perhaps my point fell on “deaf ears.”
At least you know what Chandra and Jennifer look like. Do you have any clue what Tameka, Asha, or Marcie look like? Could you call the police and give them a tip if you passed by that child or one of those ladies on the street?
Probably not.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, I suggest you learn about the Israeli/Palestinian situation from something other than Fox News and from a perspective longer than the last 20 years. Until you have a basic grasp of history, I really wouldn’t be shooting my mouth off.
And are you truly so ignorant as to believe that the Native Americans didn’t fight back?
Terrorism isn’t an ideology, though obviously you’ve bought the hype. It’s a tactic used by a weak group against a strong group. Period. It’s abhorent to us because it targets civilian populations rather than military ones and we consider this offensive, but roadside bombs are no more inhuman than dropping carpet bombs from 10,000 feet up.
Telling ourselves that just makes us feel less guilty about the civilian casualites we cause.
By RS
December 27, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Again, FM, thanks. You know what for. Yeah, Chandra Levy was pretty but of course I never saw a picture prior to her nose job (?!?) I do agree about Jennifer Wilbanks but she has rich folks so…See? That’s what I mean. If you’re blonde & pretty it’s never your fault. Black? Latino? Fat? Ugly? Oh, she was desperate; she asked for it..
By RS
December 27, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
JBM, not only do I have no idea what Tameka, Asha or Marcie look like, I have no recollection of their names. My guess is they’re either 1) White & unattractive 2) Black & unattractive 3) Attractive, but black
By blablabla
December 27, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
jbm,
no, i think you’re probably right. the press spends far more time talking about the disappearance of white folks, and while my comment was admittedly off-color, there’s something to be said about coverage for the pretty ones as well. personally i would have no idea what those other women you named would look like. your point is probably valid.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
Something like that would be more appropriate than calling a murdered young woman a blonde bimbo.
You mean something like:
shouldn’t we be requiring all young men to stay away from all females then? Shouldn’t there be required classes in school to teach young girls the danger of males? Shouldn’t we put all boys away in different schools so that girls will be safe? Shouldn’t all males have a curfew of 8pm?
You crack me up with your hypocracy.
As much as some things seem to make one guilty (the number of dna released men now are in in the three digits - that is hundreds for you people that like to throw around the word idiot;) - we should be able to crucify these boys out of (currently) circumstance…
Yes, you are a very sane and rational person.
Thanks for the humor today girls/boys - off to feel guilty about bouncing my 3yro niece on my knee! Now I get to explain to her how horrid it is by whileys standards;)
By Skeeter
December 27, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
If Hillary becomes President we should all move to Canada or Mexico. Hilliary is not a strong woman whom we should admire, she is a person who believes she is above the law. During all the White House scandals during the Clinton years that everyone so conviently forgot Hilliary was just as guilty of lying as her husband. The Clinton’s are ALL about power and they don’t care who they run over or what they have to do to get it. I feel really sorry for all the democrats, Hilliary does not give a damn about you, all she is looking at is how she can use you or say whatever she needs to say to you to give her more power.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
RS…I realize you are incapable of making this distinction but I don’t hate anything about “your” culture. For one thing YOU aren’t Israeli. You have probably never been to Israel and you probably never will. YOU are the one who thinks that not liking Israel is anti-semitic, and I guess I will not be able to change your mind about that. That’s your blinder to bear.
Actually, I have a great ADMIRATION for Jewish culture and traditions, but you would rather believe that because I don’t like the current policies of the Israeli government I am an anti-Semite. That’s YOUR problem, not mine.
And I am aware of what Islam thinks about homosexuality. So? There are enough Christians in this country who think the same thing and I don’t think THEY should be slaughtered, either.
And let’s look at this statement: T72J, I KNOW not every single Palestinian hates Jews & Americans; Did I say that? No, you were reading between the lines.
No…you said:”Actually, the Israeli govt is too lenient on those animals. I’d LOVE to see every filthy Palestinian refugee camp (REFUGEES?? Oh those poor victims! My heart bleeds. NOW I’m being facetious) decimated. INNOCENT Palestinian?? My dear man, show mw one of those & I’ll show you someone under the age of 3 or whenever they’re considered too young to be indoctrinated into that rabid hatred of Western culture. “
Your meaning seems pretty clear to me.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Terrorism isn’t an ideology
Really? Cause my G-Parents are muslim, as is my dad, and they know exactly what BS Islamic teachings are going on and how they differ completely with the actual religion.
And that they adhere to “books” that are non-exixtent, exept to teach and promote hate…
Indians “fighting” back is correct - not suicide bombing of schools “on purpose”.
As for: FatMoose, I suggest you learn about the Israeli/Palestinian situation from something other than Fox News and from a perspective longer than the last 20 years. Until you have a basic grasp of history, I really wouldn’t be shooting my mouth off.
Ummm - I lived it, how about you? (Lived in Turkey and got to see many friends/family die fromthe same MENTALITY EXTREMIST GROUPS) I feel for ANYONE who lives next to people that think the way they do.
(RS - our joint understanding is a nice example of the issue there not being actually religious, but one of hate)
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
How did Turkey deal with its terrorist problems - the only way one can:
As soon as you have a real belief these people are located in an area; you bomb it.
Harsh? Yes - the consiquence is harsher: Suicide bomb in the middle of a mall killing two of yur friends and countless others that have no part in ANY arguement one may have with a govmt.
Do I wish there were other means? Yes - but YOUR ignorant view is the one that FOX promotes. And everyone wants to boohoo for the mass-murderers.
Good show idiot.
By The72John
December 27, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, I realize that your grasp of history, logic, and everything else is lacking, but Turkey is not Israel. The situations are not the same, nor are the causes even remotely the same. I’m so glad you lived in Turkey, and I’m sure you are qualified, minimally, to discuss the situation in that part of the world, but that contributes absolutely zilch to your understanding of Israel/Palestine. Thanks!
Terrorism isn’t an ideology
Did I stutter? Terrorism is a tactic, and anyone who has any grasp of history is aware of this. An ideology is a set of beliefs.
Indians “fighting� back is correct - not suicide bombing of schools “on purpose�.
Again, just a LITTLE bit of history would help you in this argument. Indians orchestrated attacks on civilian populations. I’m pretty sure there were no suicide bombers anywhere in the world during the US Western Expansion.
Seriously FM - you might want to try a little edu-ma-cation before you try to join in an argument. Rube.
By FatMoose
December 27, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Dont be mad just cause your wrong J27.
And your view of what actual islam teaches is wrong as well:”And I am aware of what Islam thinks about homosexuality. So?”
It is these people and their fundi-islam bastardization of it that teaches the hate.
You try learning some - you try to tout schooling; but exhibit none.
By Just Being Me
December 27, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, I realize that your grasp of history, logic, and everything else is lacking, but Turkey is not Israel.
LOL!! Hilarious!!!
I’m so glad you lived in Turkey, and I’m sure you are qualified, minimally, to discuss the situation in that part of the world, but that contributes absolutely zilch to your understanding of Israel/Palestine. Thanks!
LOL!!!!!! Hilarious-er, John!!!
Did I stutter? Terrorism is a tactic, and anyone who has any grasp of history is aware of this. An ideology is a set of beliefs.
And, the hilarious-est of all!!! (By the way, I cracked up when I saw FM’s response to that comment… he didn’t know the definition of ideology and he told on himself!!! LOL!)
By Lou
December 27, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this
Who gets my vote for outstanding woman of 2005? My Mom. Imagine growing up in Southwest Georgia, going thru the depression, being dirt poor and still managing to get an education, becoming a teacher and an inspiration to others. She - and her sisters - are truly inspirational - not only because of their work ethic and their intelligence - but, because of their profound belief that they could accomplish anything they set their minds to. She is crazy, fun, creative, and loving. I hope all of y’all have such a person in your lives. All these other woman mentioned are simply pictures in a magazine or tv. My Mom is real.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
JBM - you were in rare form yesterday, lol. Hold it down!
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
Renee - The devil made me do it. LOL! Seriously, I don’t know what got into me. I guess the wrong button finally got pushed, either that or my tolerance was really low. I don’t know. It’s been a long time coming, though…
FM - I apologize for calling you names yesterday. Although your lack of understanding frustrated me, and I grew increasingly weary of decoding your comments - I still shouldn’t have resorted to name-calling, and I’m sorry. I’m still working on patience and tolerance; God isn’t through with me yet!
Good Morning, All!! :-)
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
Just to show how much of an idiot you are JBM/J25:
i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-) n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
And that is what is taught by these extremist muslims - the coran + books that promote/teach an IDEOLOGY (get it yet - or still reeling in your stupidity?); some of which are that suicide is acceptable; 72 {this number is a kin to the american slang of there was a hundred of them - meaning infinite - or countless} virgins await you if you are a martar.
Again - the peanut gallery here is about as good as the old guys on the muppets;)
Good show!
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
No apology needed - you are what you are. Be proud of your new heights in dumbness;)
Kind of like getting run into by a fly and it apologizes - completely harmless and unneeded - except the fly knows no better.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this
…in other news, the olive branch from jbm is rejected by fatmoose. oh boy.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Hope everyone had a nice Christmas. Looks like FM got up on the wrong side of the bed. Santa didn’t get you what you wanted?
By RS
December 28, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
Lou, your mom sounds like a heck of a lady & a real inspiration to you & everyone else around her. You are so blessed! Oooh, FM, you admitted to bouncing your toddler niece on your knee?!? Pervert! (LOL) I’m so sorry about what you experienced living in Turkey. I disagree with T72J that the similarities between that & the Israeli/Palestinian situation are not that evident. Now, because you lived through this, you are way more qualified than him, or myself, for that matter, to comment & sadly you are right. Sometimes bombing an entire area is the only way.T72J: I, & probably FM have gotten our info from a very very old & respected source. Fox News indeed! No, the Old Testament promises that Israel belongs to the Jews, the Chosen People. Isn’t it a miracle in itself that this little country has survived so long, surrounded by enemies? As for my ancestry & travel habits, you’re partly right…& partly wrong. No, I’m not Israeli, at least not my immediate ancestry. But go back far enough, EVERY Jew is from Israeli/Hebrew ancestry. The Jewish population living outside of Israel is known as the Diaspora (dispersion). True, I’ve never been to Israel but how can you presume I “probably never will”? Even I don’t know that; I don’t have a crystal ball. But I hope you’re wrong about that. The type of “Christians” who bash gays are NOT Christian; they CLAIM they are; they may even have themselves thoroughly convinced they are. A CHRISTIAN follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, i.e. tolerance & compassion. Fundamentalists in ALL religions are intolerant. That’s why I’m not an Orthodox Jew. And no, a Palestinian raised with Western values & NOT indoctrinatd into extremist fanatacism at least has a shot at growing up to be a decent human being…Bigot? Hag? Oh, T72J, you are so-o-o mature! Does your mommy know you’re on a big boys’ & girls’ blog instead of doing your homework? That’s ok, I won’t tell!
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
Now, I would accept some calmata olives;)
But a branch? Just to smack you up-side the head;)
Not taking you all serious anymore - it is for my kicks only; this is too stupid for my efforts.
Take JMBs actual question yesterday: Why do SO MANY PEOPLE think…
Well, to figure that out, you will have to survey MANY PEOPLE, and almost everyone on here gave some sort of personal reply; but JBM wanted to know, not what we thought, but why SO MANY PEOPLE thought this - so she was directed {appropriately} to google to get results en mass.
Yet ignored that for 1.5hrs.
She has pulled the same ignorant crap on here each week - so I am not going to take it seriously and kick the stupidity around for shts/grins;)
Must be the bakedness.
Enjoy;)
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
JBM, it’s difficult to be patient and tolerant with some people - fret not.
FM, though this argument is surely pointless: The Koran contains 5 passages addressing homosexuality, and while the Koran itself is generally less harsh in its recommended treatment of the “sinner”, the later hadiths of Mohammed advocate stoning or being thrown off the roof of a tall building.
Interestingly enough, there are also two passages within the Koran that suggest that a true believer will be served by beautiful virginal boys in Paradise.
However, the Koran also takes the interpretation that the fall of Sodom was caused strictly by homosexual activity, and that there was no homosexuality prior to Sodom. The Hewbrew scriptures do not suggest this.
There is also an interesting distinction made in Islamic society between the aggressive partner and the passive partner - the aggressive partner is not considered to be homosexual, only the passive partner. The agressor is assumed to be merely satisfying his needs through force - this is acceptable behavior. This may account for a long tradition of older men dominating younger pubescent boys sexually in that part of the world.
You see, FM, it is not my education that is lacking. As usual, it is your own.
By RS
December 28, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Oh! As I was just reading FM’s post here, something dawned on me..I wonder if the 72 as in T72J has anything to do with those 72 VIRGINS????
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
That sounds exactly like the western one-dimentional teachings so common here, J27.
Sorry again, but you are wrong. You mix, like the bible thumpers, NT and OT (metaphor) along with book/chapters that do not exist in reality; but are taught to promote an ideology of hate.
Study the book for 4 years and you will be on the same page - so to speak.
But, that same bastardization of the bible has occured also - so I would expect no less from simple minds.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
FM. It’s best not to get angry. If you do, they win. (whoever they may be at the time)I know. Been there, done that.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this
RS, your citing of Biblical mythology to support your claim to Isreal suggests that you are far closer to Orthodoxy than you suggest. You are no more Israeli because the Bible says that thousands of years ago Jews came from that part of the world than I am a Scottish Pict because my ancestors came from that part of the world.
Sadly, you can not see the hatred that oozes out of your posts. You object to the word bigot, yet you advocate the murder of innocent people based on nothing more than their heritage.
As long as Isreal continues to pretend it is blameless in the struggle, there will be war in the region. As long as there are people like you to fuel the fires of hatred and war, there will be suicide bombers and retaliatory missle strikes that kill innocent - yes, RS, INNOCENT - people.
But no - rather than appreciate that there are TWO guilty parties, you would prefer to play the victim and pretend that the never-ending game of strike and retaliation is justified.
The day Rabin was assasinated was a dark day for peace, indeed. Of course, he was killed by someone like you, someone who doesn’t want peace, but only wants to kill his enemy. How sad for you.
Please, RS, don’t attack my maturity because I call you on your own irrational prejudices. You are mired in a swamp of hatred and bloodlust, and I truly feel sorry for you.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this
FatMoose, I suspect the only thing you’ve been able to study for 4 years is your television and couch.
I can happily list the quotes, as well as numerous scholarly articles addressing them - articles that have nothing to do with any fundamentalist teaching.
Again, your lack of education and critical thinking is showing.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
Jack,
FM. It’s best not to get angry.
Ohhh - I am not angry, or even barely stirred;) This is just entertainment for me now - I have learned long ago that making a point on this board is useless. I am just filling up time pointing out the idiocy of posts.
Had a good Xmas - you?
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
Hey 72John, that chip is showing on your shoulder again. Wish I could be as smart as you when I grow up.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
J27;
Like you have been called out on before - google away and post your findings to call your own.
This has happened 4x to my knowledge and I have yet to hear anything from you that shows otherwise.
Yes - my critical thinking does show; thank you;)
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
I’ll have to agree with John on this one. FM, you really are the ignorant one, and I don’t have to prove it to anyone because most of the brighter people here already know it.
I am clearly aware of the definition of “ideology” and I’ll still agree with what John said, terrorism is NOT an ideology. Using YOUR definition, terrorism is NOT the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture; nor is terrorism a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. Terrorism is the vehicle that some groups utilize to gain power over the powerful. This is not their set of doctrines. It is not their body of ideas.
An ideology is, as you so kindly shared with us IN AGREEMENT WITH JOHN, a set of ideas, beliefs. Terrorism is not a set of beliefs.
Now, back to my question yesterday. You said: Well, to figure that out, you will have to survey MANY PEOPLE, and almost everyone on here gave some sort of personal reply; but JBM wanted to know, not what we thought, but why SO MANY PEOPLE thought this - so she was directed {appropriately} to google to get results en mass.
This is so riddled with erroneous information, I don’t know where to begin. First off, the reason I asked the question publicly on the blog was to find out why the people here disliked Hilary (those that did in fact dislike her). To my recollection, there were three responses. One that came from Renee, which initially didn’t tell why she didn’t like Hilary, just that she wouldn’t vote for her. Another came from you, which implied that you did like Hilary, but were trying to tell me why others didn’t. NOT WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR - I WANTED AN ANSWER FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T LIKE HER. A third came from Blablabla, who didn’t tell me clearly why he didn’t like her, except for general comments such as, (indirect quote) “I don’t like her from her years at Wellesley, or her professional years.” Then, I think Whiley also chimed in on why she doesn’t think people like Hilary, but again, Whiley likes Hilary, so that wasn’t what I was looking for.
FOUR people (even if it was TEN people) is not “almost everyone on here,” as you indicated. Math obviously isn’t your thing. Neither is grammar. Neither is history, as you proved yesterday, and if I recall correctly, neither is science. What are you good at other than causing people to get puzzled expressions on their faces? What are you good at other than talking a bunch of nonsense that no one understands but YOU?
Perhaps to an idiot, these answers would have sufficed. They hardly answered my original question. And, to be quite honest, as of this moment, I still don’t know what specifically my fellow bloggers have against Hilary Clinton.
Lastly, if you read through yesterday’s blog, which I just took the time to do myself, you will find that the only time I re-posed the question, “why” regarding Hilary Clinton was at 2:46 and it was directed to RENEE, not to BLABLABLA (who suggested I google Hilary). You followed immediately with your quip about my asking “why.”
NOW WHO’S FINALLY PROVEN TO BE THE VILLAGE IDIOT?????????
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
Yes. Wasn’t off work long enough but Santa was good. This blog is addictive isn’t it?
By RS
December 28, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
T72J, suicide bombers are suicide bombers because they choose to be so. If Israelis are as violent as you say they are, it’s becuase they HAVE to be; it’s called survival.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
FatMoose, silly man, it’s called research. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? Educated people use it all the time. It’s how we learn. Otherwise we are like you - wallowing in wilful ignorance for the rest of our lives.
And never, sir, have I been “called out” on anything and been unable to back it up.
Jack, try hard - you can be!
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
No RS. That’s an excuse to justify a never-ending cycle of bloodshed.
JBM, it’s pointless to argue with FatMoron. He is an ignorant hick with pretensions to wit and intelligence. One need only count the numerous grammatical and spelling errors present in every post, the awkward sentence constructions, the regular use of fragments, the downright incomprehensible “conclusions”, and the junior-high structure to realize that he has absolutely nothing to offer but uneducated squawking.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
J27, No, it is plagerism when you call it your own as you do.
Plus, it is in the first 3 hits you get; so one-dimentional plagerism at that.
JBM -
These terrorist have a culture that promotes the belief that this is how you act to serve your purpose. If we were talking about columbine; you would be right; but these people have an ideology that teaches this is how you behave.
Still trying to argue a point you do not understand for fear of learning something.
Jack; we talked dogs - right? Addictive; yeah and kinda fun in a mundane way;)
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
See? 72A$$ is trying his hardest. He probably got beat up daily in school and that is why he is so nice and pleasant and easy to get along with.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
Just for the record, RS, here are the current death tolls since September of 2000:
Israelis - 1010 (764 non-combatants) Palestinians - 3179 (1099 non-combatants)
Who seems more violent to you?
By RS
December 28, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Soooo, T72J, do you suppose one small country in the midst of countless violent enemies should just turn the other cheek, NOT defend itself, lay down & die??? Oh, yes, I’d imagine YOU’D “think” (?!?) so….
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
One need only count the numerous grammatical and spelling errors present in every post, the awkward sentence constructions, the regular use of fragments, the downright incomprehensible “conclusions�, and the junior-high structure to realize that he has absolutely nothing to offer but uneducated squawking.
John, at the risk of being condescending and being accused of having a chip on my shoulder too, I have to agree with you. I know the difference between a typo and a spelling errors. Both typos and spelling errors I can deal with - some people just aren’t good at spelling or typing. I can even understand the common or occasional grammatical error… but consistent destruction of the English language is NOT an error, and it can’t be explained away by “having a busy day” (yet not too busy to blog alllllll day long), or rushing, or not being a good typist.
An ignoramus who thinks himself smart is really sad.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
PLAGARISM, FatMoron, PLAGARISM. DIMENSIONAL, FatMoron, DIMENSIONAL.
And no, it’s not PLAGARISM because I’m not writing a PAPER, you MORON.
And trust me, I examine many, many references.
Jack, what is it with you - anytime anyone attempts to discuss things from an academic standpoint you get all p**. Whats the matter - didn’t take the meds this morning?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
And no; I am not going to spell check posts;) If you cannot understand that - it is your issue.
The only people that make that their arguement are the ones that have no real arguement left.
Absolutly Jack; hence my caustic posts this week - I am left with the barrel dregs; besides you and RS of course.
By RS
December 28, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
T72J, WHERE did you dredge up those statistics, the Neo-Nazi News? Hey, I HOPE it’s true!!!
By RS
December 28, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
Gee, FM, I’m starting to feel a little guilty about baiting poor T72J; don’t you know it’s cruel to engage the unarmed in a battle of wits?? (LOL)
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
Okay, FM, you’re right. You win. You’re way too smart for me. I don’t know why I even bothered to disagree with you. I simply can’t go up against your matchless intelligence. I should have known from all the previous arguments you’ve won that I was no match for your sharpness, education, intelligence, brightness, common sense, street smarts, and valuable experience.
Okay? Good.
By JOC
December 28, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
WHY IS ALWAYS SOMEONE WITH MONEY, FINANCIAL SUCCESS, POLITICS, THIS WORLD IS TO CONSUMED WITH PRESTIGE AND NOT WHAT PEOPLE REALLY ARE ABOUT. MAYBE KATRINA, RITA AND WILMA SHOULD BE PUT IN FRONT. ENOUGH SAID
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
Hi JBM & Renee! Hope you had a good Christmas.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
No RS, I would expect that the country would attempt conflict resolution. I would expect that any rational person would understand that treating an indigenous population like third-class citizens is bound to create resentment and anger. I would expect any REASONABLE nation to learn from the past mistakes of OTHER nations and try to find a SOLUTION to a problem rather than making it worse.
Do you think that suicide bombings are going to STOP when Israeli tanks go rolling through the streets, destroying people’s homes? Do you want them to stop, or do you just want to DESTROY YOUR ENEMY?
A solution needs to be found. Until one is, those numbers are going to go up and up and up and up.
If you allow the Palestinians to establish their own completely autonomous and independent state and remove the apartheid-like abuses of their basic human rights, then Hammas and Hezbolah and all the other groups lose most of the wind out of their sails.
You would just rather go on killing people though, wouldn’t you?
By Jack
December 28, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
Did it ever occur to you T72J that some posters are at work and don’t take the time to proofread their entire posts? I’mm guiltie of tht.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this
Good Morning, Jack.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
RS, how does it feel to wear blinders?
Those particular numbers came from ITC, an international counter-terrorism think tank. However, they are available from the BBC, The New York Times, CNN - pretty much any world news source. Obviously, you would prefer to continue playing the victim.
By the way, if you are going to cast aspersions on my intelligence, perhaps you might consider something a little less trite. Assuming you are able.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
RS,
Yeah; it is probably cruel - and definitely useless to us. But it is entertaining - kind of…
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Sorry Jack, that doesn’t wash. Spelling I can understand, but a consistent failure to use the english language correctly is not the result of bad proof-reading.
I do have ONE question for you Jack - FatMoose is CONSTANTLY telling people how stupid they are, criticizing their posts, etc. Why are you jumping on my case, AGAIN? Maybe you should be a little more equitable in your scorn.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
If you know how to spell, the only reason you’d need spell check is to check your typos.
And, I’m a lot LESS concerned with the use of spell check than I am with the use of grammar check. I don’t care if every word is spelled incorrectly; just please, PLEASE structure your sentence so that it makes sense and is readable.
By the way, I think “plagiarism” has an “i.”
By JOC
December 28, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
GEE YOU PEOPLE JUST CAN NOT COME UP OFF THIS S*
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
if you allow the Palestinians to establish their own completely autonomous and independent state and remove the apartheid-like abuses of their basic human rights, then Hammas and Hezbolah and all the other groups lose most of the wind out of their sails.
john, do you honestly believe that? having watched this situation unfold for the last few decades, i can’t imagine that anything would get hamas and hezbolah to put their weapons down. the israelis could give the palestineans 110% of what they want and hamas would still try to kill jews (IMO).
By RS
December 28, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
FM: Yes, toying with fools IS kind of fun, in a sadistic way! Case in point: T72J: Of course Israel has repeatedly attempted to arrive at a nonviolent resolution, hence the peace talks. But you can’t reason with the lowest of the low. They don’t deserve “human rights”, basic or otherwise. And destroying our enemies before they destroy us will prevent another 911 but I suppose the world looks a lot prettier through your rose-coloured glasses. And did it ever occur to you that your news sources may very well be loaded with anti-American, anti-Israel bleeding-heart liberal terrorist sympathizers? Nah, probably not…
By Brian Curtis
December 28, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
RS: How about someone who simply doesn’t give a damn about Israel one way or the other… who considers it no more important to the U.S. than, say, Ghana or Argentina? And would prefer to stay the hell out of the whole Israel/Palestine mess entirely?
Are they “anti-Semitic” too? Is it now necessary to support Israel’s murderers against the Palestinian murderers to be considered a good American? Sheesh.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
I call um like I see um.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
I will concede that spelling has something to do with the amount of respect and time one cares to put in to a specific person/arguement, but seeing as no-one bring up that point except when they are on the loosing/ignorant side. Plus the fact that as stated, I am moving beween this and work…need say more? I think not nor will.
With you idiots I just let my fingers fly - I am just glad that text-message speak doesnt come out;)
Yes Blaa - this is the point we started with; but he believes the issue going on there is an equally two sided one….
By RS
December 28, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
T72J, Blablabla is absolutely right…Don’t forget, we’re dealing with the monsters that danced in the streets on 9/12/01 & passed out candy to their children (i.e. indoctrinating innocent youth into their culture of hatred & evil)No, these sickos will not be happy until they’ve wiped Israel AND the USA off the face of the earth. But that’s ok, dear, keep defending them while they plot a violent death for you.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this
Blablabla, I don’t believe that it would stop the radical members of those two organizations, but that’s not what I said. I said it would take the wind out of their sails - it would substantially lessen the support they receive from outsiders and eventually lead to the downfall of those organizations.
This is exactly what happened in Northern Ireland - as compromises were reached, the power of the IRA declined until now it is just a few fringe lunatics who want to continue the violence.
I’m not suggesting that you will be able to eliminate Israel/Palestinian hostilities entirely. But it IS possible to change those things which currently cause the Palestinians who are otherwise normal people to celebrate the actions of Hammas.
It would also eliminate much of the recruiting power of groups like Al-Qaeda, who use the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to whip up young muslims in other parts of the world with righteous indignation.
There’s no quick fix - I don’t believe that for a minute. But I KNOW that the cycle of attack and retaliation that RS believes is working does nothing but INCREASE the problem. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that this NEVER leads to the cessation of violence. EVER.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
One can compare the Native Americans to the Palistinians. Look what happened to the “red man” Peace will not occur in the Middle East until it is vaporized by one side or the other.
By RS
December 28, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
Brian: Yes, quite frankly, a sentiment of that nature concerns me. The USA & Israel have the SAME enemies. We two countries AND our western allies need to join forces & present a united front in standing up to our common enemies. That’s why 911 & other terrorist attacks have transpired…complacency!
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
And destroying our enemies before they destroy us will prevent another 911 but I suppose the world looks a lot prettier through your rose-coloured glasses. And did it ever occur to you that your news sources may very well be loaded with anti-American, anti-Israel bleeding-heart liberal terrorist sympathizers? Nah, probably not
Ah, the traditional block for any information you don’t like. It’s the liberal media! If I don’t like it, it MUST be a lie!
This is obviously a pointless argument. Please, continue to cloak yourself in ignorance for the rest of your days, RS.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
I said it would take the wind out of their sails - it would substantially lessen the support they receive from outsiders and eventually lead to the downfall of those organizations. This is exactly what happened in Northern Ireland - as compromises were reached, the power of the IRA declined until now it is just a few fringe lunatics who want to continue the violence.
i can only hope that you’re right. i’m just not as sure as you, i’m afraid.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
Brian, drop it - RS is one of those people who have wholeheartedly bought into the neo-conservative nonsense.
By RS
December 28, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
T72J, oh did you just contradict yourself in a big way..any individual who’d celebrate the actions of Hammas or any of those other groups lacks the potential to be an “otherwise normal person”. Although it sounds as if you have a warped definition of what is ‘normal’
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Made a simalar point yesterday.
Said also that it is unfortunate; but if you look at history - the sherman notion of total removal of a popluation IS the only way to stop a long lingering affect.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this
No RS, I didn’t contradict myself.
History is full of people who support causes that are seemingly abhorent because of desperation, anger, outrage, etc. People are not simple, nor are our behaviors simple.
Many Palestinians look at this conflict as a struggle for independence. As such, there are many, many “normal” - yes, NORMAL - people who are likely to be sympathetic to the two groups I named. I’m sure there are many otherwise decent Israelis who celebrate when they hear that another Hammas cell has been shelled, even when those shellings have resulted in the deaths of innocent children.
It’s easy to vilify a group of people and view them as a single, monolithic entity. People have been doing it in war for a long, long time. Too bad you haven’t learned from the lessons of history.
By RS
December 28, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
Quite frankly, T72J, I’d be much happier if I heard more often about Hammas cells being shelled. Those “innocent children” will have been brainwashed into the same fanatacism & will have bred more “innocent children” to be similarly brainwashed, & programmed to kill.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
john, you keep quoting history, but what has history shown you about appeasing groups that are hll-bent on violence? al-qaeda wants to kill or convert you. do you really think you’re going to talk them out of a violence?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Jack/RS,
Seeing as I missed out on the sharing of pet images last week; I posted a calendar on my cafepress page that has them all.
If interested in them; go to the cafepress url and ammend it with FatMoose on the end. Afraid to post the url - do not want to seem to be advertising products; although none is really “for sale.”
Look at the bottom of products for the All Images Calendar. Roe - my dog - is on the March page.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Quite frankly, T72J, I’d be much happier if I heard more often about Hammas cells being shelled. Those “innocent children� will have been brainwashed into the same fanatacism & will have bred more “innocent children� to be similarly brainwashed, & programmed to kill.
Thank you - case in point. You, a likely otherwise normal human being, celebrate the deaths of innocent children because they come from a particular ethnic group. You are exactly what you claim to despise, and you don’t even realize it.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
If there was a fight between RS & 72John, my money is on RS.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
J72-
Umm… RS was explicit in saying Hammas CELLS - which, unfortunately include the innocent children you speak of - waving guns and ready to kill by 4-5 yrs.
Without a massive “deprograming” effort (which would be touted as just us brainwashing them) there is little hope for these people that adhere to this IDEOLOGY.
{I spell checked this post in false hope that maybe you just cannot get past a misplaced “i” or such and you will “get it”}
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
Bla,
No one is suggesting we try to appease Al-Qaeda. That is Conservative propaganda intended to paint the left as weak, and it is beneath you.
However, we are not going to defeat Al-Qaeda by providing more reasons for people to join.
No one is born a fanatic. Something, or somethings happen to push average people over the edge and turn them into killers. Al-Qaeda can’t just go out on the street and say “Hey - want to be a suicide pilot?” and have people say “SURE!” - there are causes. That’s not laying blame on anyone, by the way, it’s just basic sociology.
Poverty, anger at the perceived intrusion of the West into the politics of the Middle East, lack of opportunity, lack of strong governmental systems, etc - all combine to create a class of people who are vulnerable to the kind of manipulation at which Al-Qaeda and similar groups are so adept.
We are NEVER going to eliminate groups such as AQ through the application of conventional force - never. There are far too many studies showing that they are so decentralized and flexible in their organizational structure that any blow to one part simply results in a transfer of authority to another. The ONLY way we will eliminate the threat to the West posed by Islamic fundamentalism is to win the hearts and minds of the average person in the Middle East.
We aren’t going to do that by invading nations and pretending we’re fighting a conventional war.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Yep; put $200 on RS for me too.
J27 seems to think that his limited 2yrs in finishing school and a few cut/pastes from google, that he claims are HIS ideas, make him a scholar.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Again FatMoron, reading comprehension is not your strongpoint, but if you read back, you will see that RS has consistently displayed nothing but hatred for ALL Palestinians - ALL of the them, FatMonkey.
Aw Jack, are you insulting my masculinity again? How sweet. Does this mean we don’t have to be nice to each other any more? Can I call you a backwards fossil again?
By The72John
December 28, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
FatMuMu, I haven’t cut and pasted anything - I synthesized a series of articles into a comprehensive whole. I promise you, you can google anything I’ve written and you won’t find a match.
And it’s not the 2 years in finishing school, my dear oaf, it’s the 10 years in higher education and the Masters Degree that make me a scholar.
And yes Jack. I know you get p** when someone mentions their academic credentials, but he did bring it up first.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Yes you may. :)
By The72John
December 28, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Nah Jack - despite everything I actually like you. So no fossil comments today.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Well there’s the problem. It’s not that FM can’t spell - it’s his spell check that doesn’t work. See, it didn’t even catch “deprograming.”
By Jack
December 28, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Only “wusses” use spell check.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
“Only “wussesâ€? use spell check.”
HEY wait a minute there !
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
john, the left is soft. democrats used to have leaders like harry truman. now democrats have leaders like john kerry and hillary. need i really say more here?
(jbm, if you’re reading, hillary’s longstanding hatred of the military and multiple accounts of her screaming and spitting on the secret servicemen sworn to defend her with their lives contribute to my dislike of her - hopefully that’s a more specific reason; there are dozens more…)
The ONLY way we will eliminate the threat to the West posed by Islamic fundamentalism is to win the hearts and minds of the average person in the Middle East.
you make a fair point that conventional warfare won’t get the job done. i agree with that. it’s just going to be difficult to win the “hearts and minds” of the average middle easterner when they get their news from al-jazeera, and are essentially indoctrinated from birth that the mere existence of israel is the root cause of all the problems in the mid east.
i read an interesting piece in the economist a few months ago about middle easterners having greater internet access and more news choices. hope springs eternal, i guess.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
I like Jack. I like Jack best when he contributes meaningful input to the discussion at hand, or tells funny jokes.
Now, onto the topic at hand. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know a darned thing about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - except that PM riel Sharon just had a heart attack or stroke or something. I remember hearing a long time ago, that the underlying conflict is that Israel claims ownership to some land because of Biblical promises, or something like that. I also noted someone’s quote up there that said, “the Old Testament promises that Israel belongs to the Jews, the Chosen People.”
Well, there’s the problem right there. Who on earth has the right to force someone else to believe what they believe?
If this really comes down to Israel believing they have a God-given right to the land, why on earth should the Palestinians trust them and their holy book when they live by a different holy book??
Let’s say they really ARE the chosen people and the Bible and the Israelis are right and the Koran and the Palestinians are wrong, does that give the Israelis the legal or civil right to forcibly take the land? If they are being governed by the Old Testament, why can’t they trust the promises of God to be fulfilled with His sovereign omnipotence? Why do they have to take the war upon themselves? Does the Bible not teach that the battle isn’t ours, but God’s?
By Jack
December 28, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
WHILEY! XOXOXO
By Jack
December 28, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
Thanks JBM. I like you too. :)
By The72John
December 28, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
(jbm, if you’re reading, hillary’s longstanding hatred of the military and multiple accounts of her screaming and spitting on the secret servicemen sworn to defend her with their lives contribute to my dislike of her - hopefully that’s a more specific reason; there are dozens more…)
Interesting that you mention this after bringing up Harry Truman…now, I haven’t read or heard anything that would confirm this, and I’m inclined to believe you probably heard it from Anne Coulter, but did you know that there are accounts of Truman urinating on his secret service men? Intentionally? Because he could?
And if by “Soft” you mean not hawkish, then yes. Personally, I believe that the use of force should be the last resort, not the first. If you think that makes me weak, that’s your problem. I think anyone who sees the first solution as a gun is weak. That’s just me.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
T72J. You’re not alone in your dislike of Hillary. She KNEW he was cheating and should have kicked him out. Being 1st lady was much more important.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Thanks, BLABLABLA - now THAT’S specificity. It’s exactly what I was looking for yesterday. Thank you again. (And, by the way, I hadn’t heard any accounts of her mistreatment of secret servicemen; I’ll look into that, but I have my doubts about her hating the military - that sounds more opinion-based than factual).
And, Whiley, I’m glad you’re here. I had something to say in response to a comment you made yesterday. Not to rehash the whole thing, but your comment really hit a sore spot with me, and I didn’t see it until this morning.
Yesterday, you said:
OK, we are going off the real issue here. Murdered & missing women & children. There are so many we need a 24 hour channel just to fairly feature each one.
OK I’ll say it, the MEDIA DOESN’T REPORT ENOUGH ON MURDERED & MISSING BLACK WOMEN & CHILDREN.
That’s not the biggest issue here folks. The biggest issue here is there are so many murderers & sex offenders roaming all around us & we (the victims & future victims) are fed up. When are the ones in charge actually going to do something about it? When? When? When?
One problem I noticed about you is that you get angry when people don’t share your passion. First of all, not everyone is an activist. Secondly, not all activists share the same passion. A PETA activist cannot get angry with me for not joining in the fight against unethical animal treatment. I love animals, but that’s not my passion.
I expressed a passion for getting more media coverage for underrepresented groups of women and children who disappear, and you’re telling me that this is not the biggest issue. It’s not WHOSE biggest issue? I won’t argue whether or not it is THE biggest issue. But, I will tell you that you don’t get to define what MY biggest issue is, or anyone else’s.
I am DISGUSTED that black women are slighted when it comes to getting media coverage when they disappear. I am OUTRAGED about that. Absolutely OUTRAGED.
In my world, the biggest issue is NOT that “there are so many murderers & sex offenders roaming all around us & you (the victims & future victims) are fed up.” In my world, the biggest issue, as I said, is that the media places less of a value on black women’s lives than they do on white women’s lives.
The biggest issue is that vengeance can never be had for Abner Louima who was sodomized with a broomstick by a group of white police officers IN A POLICE STATION. The biggest issue is that Amadou Diallo, an unarmed, law-abiding legal immigrant, who was shot 41 times by white police officers while reaching for his wallet after they asked him for ID, will never breathe again.
Did you protest those injustices? Are you passionate about those ruined lives?
I can go on all day about what my “biggest issues” are. Don’t you ever tell me what to take issue with, and how to prioritize what enrages me.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
Thanks, BLABLABLA - now THAT’S specificity. It’s exactly what I was looking for yesterday. Thank you again. (And, by the way, I hadn’t heard any accounts of her mistreatment of secret servicemen; I’ll look into that, but I have my doubts about her hating the military - that sounds more opinion-based than factual).
I’ve been doing a little looking, and I can’t find a SINGLE reference to Hillary spitting on a Secret Serviceman. The only thing that comes close was a claim that she threw an ashtray at a SecServMan when he caught her in bed with a well-known actress, so I’m not really giving it much credence.
Sounds like our normally rational BlaBlaBla has bought in to some fanciful, apocryphal stories. Easy to believe bad things about someone who’s politics you don’t like, hmm?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
JBM;
You are wrong again.
I would venture to state that fact checking is much more important than spell-checking…
de·pro·gram ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-prgrm, -grm) tr.v. de·pro·grammed, or de·pro·gramed de·pro·gram·ming, or de·pro·gram·ing de·pro·grams or de·pro·grams To counteract or try to counteract the effect of an indoctrination, especially a religious or cult indoctrination.
Your stupidity is unbounded;)
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
FM - First off, if a spelling error is stupidity, then you wear the crown.
Secondly, my comment was a reference to SPELL CHECK, not Merriam-Webster.com or Dictionary.com. On Microsoft Word spell check and Word Perfect spell check, when you type in “deprograming,” it auto-corrects to “deprogramming” or it gives you the red squiggly underline to let you know the suggested spelling is “deprogramming.”
By the way, “ain’t” is now a word too, and after years of mispronunciation the “t” in “often” became un-silent.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
AND, Merriam-Webster (one of the superior authorities in spelling) doesn’t recognize “deprograming” as a correct variation of the spelling of “deprogramming.”
By The72John
December 28, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Ah JBM, you gave me a little chuckle. Just a little one.
Ok, it was a big one.
By RS
December 28, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
FM & Jack: Why thank you! I’ll fight the good fight the best way I know how so as not to let you down. T72J: FM (that stands for Fabulous Man) beat me to it. CELLS, yes, CELLS. And yes, if these “innocent children” survive, where do you think they’ll be in another decade? Blowing up Israelis & Westerners. So you “think” you can reason with these animals & appeal to their (cough, gag) “better natures”?? Good luck, buddy! JBM: Amadou Diallo & Abner Louima, who, sadly, I’d never heard of, were, clearly NOT pretty little white sluts who used their bodies to attract men, who they subsequently went off with ON THEIR OWN VOLITION; therefore no one cared…And, this goes way beyond the Old Testament, these are historical facts: The Hebrews occupied Israel first. The Palestinians barged in & instead of trying to exist peacefully, they’ve been engaged in a never-ending effort to annihilate the Hebrews. Can we say…INTERLOPERS???
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
I can spell “sidestepping the issue.”
And mis-information.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
And, this goes way beyond the Old Testament, these are historical facts: The Hebrews occupied Israel first. The Palestinians barged in & instead of trying to exist peacefully, they’ve been engaged in a never-ending effort to annihilate the Hebrews. Can we say…INTERLOPERS???
Oh…my…god…you’re actually raving about things that happened CENTURIES ago? Can you say HOLD A GRUDGE??? Yes, as long as people like you are around the violence will continue.
Going to give land back to the Native Americans sometime soon? Can you say INTERLOPERS???
And once again, here is proof that RS is nothing but a frothing-at-the-mouth, seething cauldron of racial hatred, no matter how she tries to backtrack: Actually, the Israeli govt is too lenient on those animals. I’d LOVE to see every filthy Palestinian refugee camp (REFUGEES?? Oh those poor victims! My heart bleeds. NOW I’m being facetious) decimated. INNOCENT Palestinian?? My dear man, show mw one of those & I’ll show you someone under the age of 3 or whenever they’re considered too young to be indoctrinated into that rabid hatred of Western culture.
Hatred is an ugly thing.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
JBM: Amadou Diallo & Abner Louima, who, sadly, I’d never heard of, were, clearly NOT pretty little white sluts who used their bodies to attract men, who they subsequently went off with ON THEIR OWN VOLITION; therefore no one cared…
Nope, not pretty little white girls. Ugly, black, working-class, immigrant men from Africa and Haiti, respectively.
And, this goes way beyond the Old Testament, these are historical facts: The Hebrews occupied Israel first. The Palestinians barged in & instead of trying to exist peacefully, they’ve been engaged in a never-ending effort to annihilate the Hebrews. Can we say…INTERLOPERS???
Oh is that what happened? Ya learn something new every day. Thx.
By Fay
December 28, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
My person for woman of the year is Carrie Underwood, great album and for winning the singing contest, American Idol. If you haven’t heard her new album, buy it. It’s great.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
And just for your info, RS, though you will almost assuredly ignore this as well, those children are what we politely refer to as “Collateral damage”. That’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guiltless. Innocent.
But, like you, the Israeli government doesn’t care who they kill. All it cares about is continuing the violence. The one man who actually tried to do something about it was assasinated by…an Israeli! A friend of yours, maybe? He didn’t want the violence to end, either.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
I can spell “sidestepping the issue.� And mis-information.
Are you suggesting that you can spell “mis-information?” If so, I suggest you start by taking the hyphen out.
Secondly, how is it sidestepping the issue, when YOU brought it up?!!!!!!
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
Okay, can someone (except for FM - no offense) please put the simple facts on a timeline? Nothing in too much detail, just tell me when the Hebrews occupied Israel? When did the Palestinians move in? When did the fighting begin?
Like I said, i don’t know enough about this, but you guys (RS and John) are both saying two different things and I’m getting confused.
By RS
December 28, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
T72J, did I ever claim to have a problem with Native Americans living here? No, because I DON’T. Neither did I ever barge onto a NA reservation & open fire..nor would I. Yes, the Israeli/Palestinian thing started centuries ago but the slime that’s around now is just as dangerous as the slime back then, perhaps even more so. Another life lesson, JBM: I guess if you’re an “ugly, black, working-class African or Haitian legal immigrant man”, well, guess what, honey! Your life isn’t worth squat! I’m WHITE & I get rabid over stuff like this!
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
RS, I’m glad you get so angry about the devaluing of black men and women’s lives.
I think you misunderstood John’s comment about the Native Americans. The point was the dichotomy in the Israelis exercising their perceived right to fight the Palestinians for invading their land, but the Native Americans not exercising their right to fight us for invading their land.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
” pretty little white sluts who used their bodies to attract men”
YOU’RE a sexist pig.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
“Oh…my…god…you’re actually raving about things that happened CENTURIES ago? Can you say HOLD A GRUDGE??? ” Isn’t that what the people who bash Jews are doing?
By Brian Curtis
December 28, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Not necessarily. Some of just don’t care if the Israelis OR Palestinians all blow each other up, as long as the U.S. stays the heck out of it.
Ethnic hatred can never be fixed by choosing sides and trying to ‘stamp out’ the opposition. It just doesn’t work.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Brian, I think this is the first time I’ve ever been able to agree with you.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
YOU’RE a sexist pig
But of course it is not sexist to use your body to get what you want and to manipulate others - It is only sexist for people to like your body.
Can you describe your appearance again for us Whiley…I seem to remember something about busty/big hair….by your own admission would be considered sexist.
RS - Whiley is sexually open, which is good, except when coupled by the castration of sexually open men. She has no idea how to rationalize the two.
Hmmm - can you say hypocrite?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
I think you misunderstood John’s comment about the Native Americans. The point was the dichotomy in the Israelis exercising their perceived right to fight the Palestinians for invading their land, but the Native Americans not exercising their right to fight us for invading their land.
Not going to even point out the stupidity of this mis-match contradiction (hyphens are optional in cases like these - it depends on the writers notion of which is more readable: Chicago Style Manual). But I will point out that you are, although backwards, making the point I made yesterday: The Indians, because of a predominantly harmonious IDEOLOGY, did not continue on to slaughters of innocents; except if you buy the old westerns on TV like J72 does. America did a fine job re-writing history.
Good stuff;)
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
jbm & john:
i hesitated to put down the example i used regarding hillary and the secret service/military bc it is more story-based than something that can normally be verified with fact. it was a poor choice. my bad.
however, if more verifiable, specifics are desired, here’s a brief list things i don’t like about her from her “early years”. any of these can obviously be debated, but hey, this is my list of things that i know about her that give me pause…
1) i don’t like her relationship with saul alinsky, whom she met at wellesley. alinsky is the author of multiple books regarding radicalism and is considered by some to be the father of american radicalism. he is also said to have had quite a significant influence on her life (and i believe - altho i don’t remember for sure - her senior thesis included much of alinsky’s thoughts on class warfare). one can look at many of the things that alinsky proferred as his “rules for radicalism” and see blueprint for “the politics of personal destruction” that many believe the clintons made famous in the 90s with sidney blumenthal and later chris lehane.
2) i’m uncomfortable with the role she played in helping to defend the black panthers that were accused and later convicted of murder (of one of their own black panthers) in new haven while she was in law school.
3) while at yale she had a very close relationship with the professor known as tommy the commie emerson.
4) i don’t like the fact that she had an internship for a former member of the US communist party, robert truehaft, in the early 70’s.
shall i continue???
of course, people can change significantly from college to mature adulthood, and it is certainly possible that she has. however, i find it interesting that people who call her a communist or a socialist are so quickly vilified as being extreme or over the top, in light of who she hung out with and influenced her life.
i chose her early years bc those are things that people are probably less aware of than more recent things that she’s done or been in the middle of. people probably have already heard all they want to about her firing the white house cooking staff in a huff, fbi filegate, travelgate, whitewater, her relationship w vince foster, her defiance of numerous inquiries to produce documents from her years as a private attorney, etc., etc., etc.
and her anti-military stance isn’t something i made up. don’t take my word for it, take the word of ed klein, who interviewed over 100 people close to hillary before he wrote his recent book on her.
john, what you said about truman urinating on SS is very interesting. i’d never heard that.
And if by “Soft� you mean not hawkish, then yes. Personally, I believe that the use of force should be the last resort, not the first. If you think that makes me weak, that’s your problem. I think anyone who sees the first solution as a gun is weak. That’s just me.
that’s not what i’m saying at all. there’s a difference between being non-hawkish and being soft and i think democrats of yesteryear understood that better than democrats of today. we may end up agreeing to disagree, but there is a certain nationalist backbone that i always felt like the “old democrats” have more than today’s democrats.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Today’s dems, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean etc. have no gonads at all. Instead of “we the people” it is “we the government”.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
whiley, do you get this fired up about sexism when you see a girl walking thru the mall wearing a shirt that says “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them”, or “stupid factories - where boys are made”?
what if we were to change the target of this type of t-shirt, to hmmm… racial groups? (disclaimer - i mean not to offend, simply to make a point)
hispanics are stupid, throw rocks at them
stupid factories - where black people are made
see how ridiculous this is? wouldn’t there be righteous outrage? why do you think there’s no outrage when these things are said about boys? i’m curious.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
Okay, it took me a while to catch up on today’s blog reading. I think it’s a shame that opinion sharing has to turn into name calling among other things. With the amount of animosity present right now on the blog, it makes one lose the initiative to express their opinion.
Hello to you Jack! Hope your holiday was great!
By The72John
December 28, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
FatMoron, my grasp of history outstrips yours so completely that you might as well be a kindergartner.
Obviously, your intellectual dwarfism prevents you from understanding metaphor, but let me make this easy on you. I don’t want your feeble brain to explode, after all. You might hurt one of your fellow fry-cooks.
Europeans are to Indians as Palestinians are to Hebrews, in RS’s version.
You see, simpleton, RS expresses indignation that the Palestinans “took” the land from the Hebrews. I asked if she felt similar indignation that Europeans took land from the native Americans.
It was really a tongue-in-cheek statement, by the way, but again I suspect you are too stupid to appreciate that.
Bla,
We MAY agree to disagree, but your list of reasons are perfectly valid reasons for you not to like someone. Thank you - I may not agree with your reasons, but at least they are valid points.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Not going to even point out the stupidity of this mis-match contradiction (hyphens are optional in cases like these - it depends on the writers notion of which is more readable: Chicago Style Manual)
I’ll tell you what’s NOT optional, and that’s the “-ed” that should have been at the end of the word “mis-match.”
BLABLABLA - I like you. You make sense. Your list is full of things I hadn’t heard before - hence my reason for posing yesterday’s question. But still, I’m glad you mentioned that people change (not that I know whether or not she has, but people do).
Oh, and your 1:37 makes an excellent point.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
my grasp of history outstrips yours so completely that you might as well be a kindergartner.
You have had weeks on this blog to show this - but cannot and have not. Instead, you talk about your scholarly prowess - with NOTHING but the third grade info you present learned from mainstream TV.
All hot air with no substance to back it up.
“Europeans are to Indians as Palestinians are to Hebrews, in RS’s version.” and mine from yesterday - along with the point that there were none of the same IDEOLOGIES present in ONE of those scenarios {you figure out which one}. Spotty hatred, yes; but a culture of abolute hate - NO.
See, once again, you just argue in circles, making no actual point; besides you are a moronic dip$hit;)
{ahhh yes…sentences: One can have as many dependant clauses as you wish, as long as you have ONE non-dependant clause. Although, this is a blog anyhoo - and you do not have the wits/position to grade me}
Thanks for the encore of the Good Show;)
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
Renee - You’re right, and I’m so sorry that I was one who contributed to it. I used to cringe everytime I saw (dare I even speak his name) Taboga on the blog because I knew some vicious name-calling was soon to follow. Now, I’ve gone and done the very same thing I abhor.
Although I stand by my opinion, I certainly could’ve said it in a less abrasive way.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Hey English Teacher, shouldn’t that be:
One can have as many dependent clauses as one wishes, as long as one has ONE non-dependent clause.???
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
blablabla I’ve never seen anything like that. I’m too old for the mall lol I’ll have more sympathy for boys once males as a whole are sexually judged for everything they do. When all males bodies are ridiculed & picked apart. When all males who are victim of crime’s are also publicly blamed for their own deaths due to being “promiscuous.” Interesting how those 3 pigs that murdered Natallee admitting to having sex with her while she was unconcience. I don’t remember anyone calling them whores or tramps. I’ll protest your little T-shirts when all males are labeled sluts & whores at the same rate as females.
Until that happens don’t bother me with your poor little boys getting their feelings hurt whining. lol
“But of course it is not sexist to use your body to get what you want and to manipulate others - It is only sexist for people to like your body.”
OK your a sexist IDIOT. Like men are just completely brainless & we can just wiggle around to get what we want. Yea right. LOL And yes I do have a naturally good figure, especially for my age ! And I am partially a minority. So there you all sexist pigs ! lol
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
Furthermore, why would you point out dependent clauses when you’ve got so many other glaring flaws in that sentence (i.e. improper use of brackets, missing commas, improper use of semi-colons [which people really shouldn’t use unless they know how anyway], failure to place a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence…).
I would never have brought it up if you didn’t sarcastically try to teach an ENGLISH lesson - of all subjects.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
FatMoron,
What’s really entertaining about you is that you are so utterly stupid, yet you think you’re intelligent. In every area - language use, history, basically anything - you have decided that you are an authority, and when people surpass your limited understanding of those areas, you claim superiority simply because you are too basic to understand the complexities of the topic in front of you.
Every post you make is riddled with errors of all kinds, yet you insult others. Every post you make demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the post you are “responding” too, yet you tell others that they are off-topic!
You even had the gall to insult my writing a week or two ago, and tell me that I didn’t have a topic sentence. Well, FatMummy, I have never scored less than the 99% on national standardized tests from high school through graduate school. That’s NATIONAL, FatAssPieceOfCrap. I have more writing awards than you have brain cells, not that that’s saying much. I knew more about how to write properly when I was in sixth grade than you do now, yet you STILL think you get to tell me how bad I am.
You are an idiot! My grasp of history comes from a movie? Dumbass, my father is a PhD historian. I learned more about history before high school than most college graduates, and none of it came from a movie!
Ideology? YOU’RE THE ONE OBSESSED WITH IDEOLOGY, you MORON. I wasn’t addressing ideology, I was discussing the irony of a particular position - you are too stupid too even understand that!
FatMoron, do us all a favor. Just shut up. You make yourself look even stupider every time you put fingers on keyboards. Or better yet, just unplug the computer. You might hurt yourself.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
To me JBM that is what makes a bigger person. But you apologized first thing this morning to no avail. I do know about feeling passionately about your point, and even knowing the other person is wrong. You are one of the more level headed people on this blog, actually a down right intelligent sister (which is why we get along so well, even when we disagree). Basically, my comment was in general, and was in no way directed to you.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
When all males who are victim of crime’s are also publicly blamed for their own deaths due to being “promiscuous.�
Gay men already are. That’s a start isn’t it?
And I am partially a minority.
What in the Sam Hill is a partial minority?????????????
By The72John
December 28, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Ok, temper back under control. FatBlubber has gotten under my skin yet again.
But no more, as I will no longer be responding to his innane garbage.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
I still believe that Natalee Holloway’s mother is a hero & should be the most admirable woman of 2005. Can you imagine what she’s had to deal with & fight against? BTW I did hear last night that the reason the Holloway’s case has been in the news so much was because her mother, Beth, has never stopped keeping it alive & in the public eye.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
lol Just being me I’m what you call a little melting pot.
:)
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
But no more, as I will no longer be responding to his innane garbage.
Promise? Seeing as you dad now has three different phds!
Your mom should have swallowed;)
By Jack
December 28, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
T72John. Are you this condesending to other people when in person? Easy to be that way on the phone or blog. The karma fairy is watching, beware.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Renee - Thanks!! I feel the same about you. I didn’t think your comment was directed toward me, but I still felt compelled to respond because name-calling isn’t just offensive to the person being called names. It can be offensive to anyone who’s around. Not to mention, annoying… lol. (Though I know I shouldn’t bring this up again), it all started when someone said that he was tired of my re-posing the question “why” people didn’t like Hilary. The irony is that (1) this is the same person who annoys us all with his obsessive re-posing of questions, swearing that nobody answered him, and (2) I only re-posed the question “why” once (the other time was about universal healthcare and was directed solely to you).
Oh, and I’ll probably call you tonight or tomorrow. I need to vent about something you’d understand.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
“Your mom should have swallowed;)”
Another Sexist pig comment.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Whiley, I don’t care what kind of melting pot you are, there is no such thing as a “partial minority.”
Jack - you don’t think the condescending bullets are flying both ways?
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
“Gay men already are. That’s a start isn’t it?”
Nope, only when all you guys hear & feel the constant badgering & judging.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
No, an absolutely crass, crude, uncouth, disgusting comment.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
Beth, has never stopped keeping it alive & in the public eye.
Yes. By annoying the crap out of people based on what she wants to think is true. The truth so far is that they all were together that night - no more or less.
But from a mothers conviction, which is biased, she MUST be right! Do you know how fixated parents are concerning such issues; although there may be little to no proof? You know how many innocent people land in jail bc of that fixation? Humdreds as we speak - and there will be more.
You are a sexist hypocrite.
{you=your in previous post;}
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
Whiley, first off, I’m not one of “all you guys.” I’m a woman.
Secondly, my question wasn’t “isn’t that enough?” It was, “isn’t that a start?” Do I need to ask the English Teacher to define “start” for us?
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
LOL I always thought you were a guy !
I did answer your “isn’t that a start” correctly. You need da Engalish claz.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
this is the same person who annoys us all with his obsessive re-posing of questions, swearing that nobody answered him
Accurately: You replied to my post in the past, stating you were answering my question; but had not. And then wanted to assert that you did, and finally rested on that you do not remember what the question was. It was like debating with a stoner. That is what occurred
Disgusting? You find Yen gross? Figures that you and whiley would be so shallow.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
That was pretty bad FM. JBM. Yes the bullets are a flyin in all directions.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Well then your understanding is lacking, Whiley. You state that you’ll have more sympathy for “boys” when all males who are victim of crime’s are also publicly blamed for their own deaths due to being “promiscuous.â€?
Then, I state that homosexual men fall into this category, so this is a start.
And, you then say that it’s not a start until ALL guys experience constant badgering and judging…
That means that either (a) you’re not interested in a start (progress), only a finish (the completed task); or (b) you have no idea what the word “start” means.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Whiley shallow? Don’t think so. Back off, this is a woman to woman blog. We are guests.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
“Yes. By annoying the crap out of people based on what she wants to think is true. The truth so far is that they all were together that night - no more or less.”
FatMoose you are complete sexist idiot too.
You wouldn’t say the same thing about John Walsh when his son was missing & turned up murdered. He did everything he could to keep it in the media.
And you obviously know nothing of the FACTS about what happened in Aruba. The ridiculous stories those pigs made up, what they finally admitted to. Stop reading the Inquirer.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
I agree it was a mean comment. I have no reason to use logic and niceties with people that only through out paradoxes. I already have proven and know that I can/do debate logically/rationally; but with those that comply to the same standard.
Look at the past weeks - I have refrained from name calling until this week. I no longer am going to provide comforts of a decent debate to those that cannot adhere to that notion - and moreover, to those have rejected it week after week.
Is it the healthiest of choices? No - but neither is debating with Pseudo Scholars and Stoners in a decent fashion: it will drive you nuts to expect the sane to emerge from a paradox.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
I love you Jack ! !
hehe
By Jack
December 28, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Ditto Whiley.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Yes, that comment alone FM deserves NO response. Points can be (and should be) expressed without being that crass and disgusting. Any respect I may have had for you is gone with that comment.
Whiley - I don’t think Natalee Holloway’s mother is a hero. She is a mother with a missing child, along with others like her.
The following is a definition of hero:
I don’t think any one of these describe Beth Holloway. She is devoted to finding her child (as she should), but hardly a hero. I do believe, unfortunately, that those boys did kill her, but she will never find out anything from the Aruban government or get any substantial help from them.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
Jack:
Whiley shallow? Don’t think so. Back off, this is a woman to woman blog. We are guests.
This is where we disagree - woman to woman only refers to who is heading it; not who is invited. We are all the same caliber of guests.
Whiley, You wouldn’t say the same thing about John Walsh when his son was missing & turned up murdered. He did everything he could to keep it in the media.
By ignorantly blaming potentially innocent people? Or in did he keep the story in the media in general: There is a difference and you ignore it. You also condone the slander of currently innocent people based on their gender.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
If all people that have a loved one that is missing or murdered, made the effort that Beth Holloway has, maybe it would create such an uproar that one day the killing of women & children would be rare thing. Wouldn’t that be something?
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, you REALLY don’t know the FACTS on the Holloway case DO YOU !
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Is the killing of women and children important, or maybe the killing of all people?
Everybody who has lost a loved one (due to missing and being murdered) does not have an avenue in the public media to present their grief and anger. If so, we would need a channel dedicated just to that. The media picks and chooses which story they broadcast (which JBM brought up yesterday).
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
whiley - thanks for the candid response. it’s a shame that your passion for the slights of sexism isn’t a two way street. you may find that a more even-handed approach to the entire sexism issue will give you a greater ability to address and correct perceived wrongs and double-standards. or perhaps when boys commit suicide at a higher rate than girls, you’ll take notice that adolescence and adulthood are difficult for both men and women. oh, wait.
and btw, i’ve never said boo about the three young men accused of killing holloway. they must be pretty awful people if they took turns raping an unconscious girl.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
“The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods. “
Even the definition of “hero” is sexist. lol Sometimes it’s so depressing the extent of it all. All you can do is call people on their sexist BS.
And Beth Holloway is a true hero to other parents & all young girls who are victims of crime. All the victims who are blamed for what happened, who’s looks, sexuality & “common sense” are judged.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
A hero is one who comes to the aid of those in need. All single Moms should be nominated. It’s hard enough to raise children with 2 parents, can’t imagine doing it alone.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, you REALLY don’t know the FACTS on the Holloway case DO YOU!
That is the point - no one currently know all the facts, but you still want to make absolute assertions - as does Mrs Holloway.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Even by Jack’s definition of hero (which is good I might add), Beth Holloway does not meet that criteria either. I don’t see how she is a hero to other mothers??? Are all mothers with missing children not looknig for their kids. And while I do believe those boys did do something to Natalee, she is not the virginal angel her mother makes her out to be. But a mother is usually blind to their children. And for the most part, in mythology, men were the heroes. I dont see that as being sexist at all.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Why not fight for all sexism instead of stopping all sexism?????? OK, first tell me then, why didn’t Martin Luther King fight against discrimination against white men?
By Jack
December 28, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
God knows what happened to Natalie. They won’t get away from Him. (although I would love to get my hands on them.)
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
“she is not the virginal angel her mother makes her out to be. But a mother is usually blind to their children.”
SEXIST COMMENT.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
I wasn’t aware that there was a problem with discrimination against white men in the 60’s. But I believe the Klan did take up that fight.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Bla, We MAY agree to disagree, but your list of reasons are perfectly valid reasons for you not to like someone. Thank you - I may not agree with your reasons, but at least they are valid points.
BLABLABLA - I like you. You make sense. Your list is full of things I hadn’t heard before - hence my reason for posing yesterday’s question. But still, I’m glad you mentioned that people change (not that I know whether or not she has, but people do).
jbm and john, thank you. i appreciate these sentiments. jbm, i like you too, and i may need you to call my wife and tell her “i make sense”. LOL.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
That facts are:
J72 suggest rationalizing with people who have an ideology to kill innocent people in which they do not agree with - and they pass this ideology on to children.
Whiley suggests all but the castration of all males for the sins of the 2% that commit horrid acts - while being a hypocrite regarding women.
And JBM/Renne muck up every issues with repeated “what??who??where??” that echo Vinny Barbarino; yet want to be taken seriously.
It is TV insanity at its best - like Welcome Back Kotter meets (female version of) Archie Bunker meets Dennis the Menace.
Good episode today I tell you!
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry you find it sexist. I find it true, hardly sexist. Doesn’t mean she deserves to be missing, killed, or whatever may have happened to her. But she didn’t come up missing after nightly Mass.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Where is Taboga when you need him?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Ohh Whiley;
Try looking up the female version of hero; seeing as that is the masculine one. FYI - It is heroine.
There are male and female versions of nouns in most languages…
See - it is this same type idiot assertion while missing major facets that is absurd on this blog;)
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
And JBM/Renne muck up every issues with repeated “what??who??where??� that echo Vinny Barbarino; yet want to be taken seriously.
I didn’t ask what, who or where to anything. I just came on today and none of my comments say that. Matter of fact, I don’t have a trend of asking those questions, so that statement about me would be false. I’m not sure why you are attacking me, but whatever, it doesn’t matter.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Where is Taboga when you need him?
Curious…To lower the bar? Why would you like to hear from him?
By Jack
December 28, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
we’re so sorry…..Uncle Albert. But we haven’t done a bloody thing all day.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Renee what you implied was that just because she was out having fun, maybe a little drinking, flirting, wearing a cute outfit, that she was a slut out to take advantage of men by bouncing her body around. And the “she wasn’t coming from Mass” comment was very sexist as well.
That just makes me sick. Nobody EVER ever does that about young men, even when they are being sexually agressive hitting on every female possible. Seen it years ago, nothing has changed. See how conditioned our society is to quickly judge?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Renee,
Granted; this week you have really just cheered on JBM.
I guess I do not like that you only cheer; like lozen and whiley. Lozen rarely sticks her foot in her mouth like whiley; but she cheers her on…
Maybe my view of you is biased based on that…have to think on that.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
When he was on the blog, he was a magnet for disention (sic). Instead of everyone calling everyone names, everyone called him names. Kind of a scapegoat. He loved it.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
“Whiley suggests all but the castration of all males for the sins of the 2% that commit horrid acts”
No not at all, but I do expect you to contain your bad apples.
2% sounds so little when you put it that way, but aren’t there MILLIONS of male sex offenders & criminals just in this country? What about the ones that were never caught?
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
*Renee what you implied was that just because she was out having fun, maybe a little drinking, flirting, wearing a cute outfit, that she was a slut out to take advantage of men by bouncing her body around. And the “she wasn’t coming from Mass� comment was very sexist as well. *
If you think that is what I said and/or implied, then I must leave this discussion. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but so be it. And she wasn’t coming from Mass, so in addition to that being sexist, (according to you) it does seem to be a fact.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Jack,
I was thinking that was your direction: Like the old Alice episode where Mel becomes the focus of anger to stop Alice and Flo from fighting;)
Andy Griffith had one like that too - with the argueing couple that was taught to be polite;)
I see where you are coming from.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
whiley, what is the definition of a “sexist comment” in your mind? your definition appears to have a pretty broad range.
and are you only capable of seeing the double standards that work against women?
See how conditioned our society is to quickly judge?
umm, you’re the one telling everybody they’re sexist idiots, or making sexist comments.
By The72John
December 28, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
J72 suggest rationalizing with people who have an ideology to kill innocent people in which they do not agree with - and they pass this ideology on to children.
Wrong, as usual, FatMonkey.
You say “they have an ideology” as if it were some absolute truth that defines every Palestinian.
The real truth is what I said earlier: Most Palestinians are normal people. Most of them do not condone murder. However, because of the situation in which they exist they are more likely to sympathize with the actions of a group they believe is helping them in their fight for independence and freedom.
To simplify this for your tiny mind as much as possible, if one eliminates the circumstances that cause otherwise rational people to behave in an irrational manner, those people return to being rational. In other words, if the Israeli government starts treating the Palestinians like something other than third-class citizens and cedes complete possession of the contested territories to the autonomous rule of the Palestinians, then many of those people who support Hammas and Hezbolah right now will withdraw their support and the region will begin to stabilize.
But I’m sure you will just sit back on your not-so-insignificant posterior and mumble “ideology”. Possibly you’ll droll a little, too. I’m not really sure.
Jack - Really, dude. Once again I am condescending only after I have been condescended to, and once again you single me out for criticism. What’s up?
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
2% sounds so little when you put it that way, but aren’t there MILLIONS of male sex offenders & criminals just in this country? What about the ones that were never caught?
and whiley, what about the MILLIONS of female sex offenders and criminals in this country? what about all those women that were never caught?
remind me again who the sexist is around here, whiley?
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
What does “not leaving from Mass” have to do with anything only to judge her. She was at a public bar on a resort on vacation. Is mass the only place that is appropriate for a female to be? That’s what the mass comment implied, there was NO reason for you to say that. Would you tell an abducted from a shopping mall rape victim “well, you weren’t coming from Mass”.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
2% sounds so little when you put it that way, but aren’t there MILLIONS of male sex offenders & criminals just in this country? What about the ones that were never caught?
Well - that is the number put on ALL violent crimes; caught or not.
ONE of your sexist posts: it’s not safe for a young woman to be alone with any young man, even a judges SON, shouldn’t we be requiring all young men to stay away from all females then? Shouldn’t there be required classes in school to teach young girls the danger of males? Shouldn’t we put all boys away in different schools so that girls will be safe? Shouldn’t all males have a curfew of 8pm?
Dont tell me… You were “just joking right. lol”
By Renee
December 28, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
This week I haven’t been on here that much. I do agree with JBM on issues this week, I hardly call that cheering. But if by chance, I do cheer, I have that right. But I don’t. I feel as if I accurately discuss my issues, usually without the anger, unless it becomes personal, such as a blatant verbal attack on homosexuals. I disagree with her, as others, but do not make it personal. I do not blindly ask questions, with no rhyme or reason, but you are certainly entitled to your feelings, and do not have to respond to me since I am ignorant in your eyes.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
“and whiley, what about the MILLIONS of female sex offenders and criminals in this country? what about all those women that were never caught? “
Millions? Go check your inmate population & sex offender registry then get back with us you sexist.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
and the ones that were never caught…?
we’re all sexist but you, whiley. lol.
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
“Dont tell me… You were “just joking right. lolâ€?”
Yes & no, reread that post. I think the point of it was it’s ok to restrict all females because of the danger of male violence, but not ok to restrict males.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Most Palestinians
Never the topic - refugees that are encroaching on Israel; and H.Cells were the topic, but you digress and broaden; bc otherwise you would have NO point.
Whiley;
What does “not leaving from Mass� have to do with anything
Here is an example: My male friend was leaving a bar at 4:30am drunk off his a* - alone. He got mugged (happened to be two girls and a guy - crack addicts) and beaten to hell and back.
Now, although he did not deserve the situation; he understood that there are SMART ways to live and NOT-SO-SMART ways.
I guess we are saying that there is no guarantee when you are rolling dice - yes the ideal would have the same probability at all times in all circumstances; but that is fantasy. And it applies to ALL people; just in different ways.
Likewise; I am not going to walk downtown at 4am holding $300 in my hand - even if it is an ALL GIRL n’hood - it just is not smart. And if I do; I am not going to be an idiot and blame ALL girls.
Geez - it only gets better;)
By RIK
December 28, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
“I think the point of it was it’s ok to restrict all females because of the danger of male violence, but not ok to restrict males.”
Whiley, could you provide a few examples of this please?
And hello to everyone from a long-time lurker.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
Basically, anyone who disagrees with FM is “ignorant” and not worth his time. Oh, but he’s not the condescending one, that would be John.
And as for “mucking” something up… you’ve got to be kidding me. You have won the prize for “mucking” up the English language. You “muck” up every time you open your mouth, so to speak.
I agree it was a mean comment.
Who are you agreeing with? I didn’t see anyone say it was “mean.” It was GROSS. Crude. Crass. Uncouth. Vile. Disgusting. Not “mean.”
I already have proven and know that I can/do debate logically/rationally; but with those that comply to the same standard.
Who has verified that this has been “proven?” Betcha can’t answer that one. The only thing you do here is ask the same question over and over again, and when you find someone who agrees with you, or with whom you agree, you just go back and forth with them, riding on their knowledge, throwing in your own opinions, pretending that you are half as smart as the person you’ve latched onto. Again, who among us can verify that you’ve “proven” your ability to debate logically?
Jack, if you agree that the condescending bullets are flying in both directions, why does it seem like you keep making comments about John’s statements?
By The72John
December 28, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
OMG FatDork - Learn2Read.
RS and I were discussing the Palestinians and Israelis long before you stuck your nose into the argument with your random comments. RS clearly stated that she thought ALL Palestinians were animals that should be “decimated”.
So, whatever you THINK the topic was, you are wrong. As usual.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
it’s ok to restrict all females
And how is that done? Or are we back at square ONE? And Anyone should be able to do anything at anytime without consiquences being a greater possibility?
2%, whiley. 2% is all I should have to say. The number of mental disorders in a given population (gender,race,location) is higher than that - so by your reasoning; we should lock up all of that given population.
That is plain wrong reasoning and is what bring about manditory minimums: Like the guy who had a GF who was 2 years his junior (18&16) - Well, her mom had him arested, he is now a sex offender and has had to move 6x - two of which were forclosures bc he had 3 weeks to do it in. On top of that, he has to explain to his kids WHY he is considered a sex offender (now married and has three kids).
THAT is what your ignorance bring this society! Talk about sexist!
By Jack
December 28, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
T72John. You seem to be better at the condesending thing than everyone else. FM is trying but today is not the norm for him. Lighten up. :)
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Jack, you’re wrong. Being condescending is the norm for FM. If you glance through any previous topics (which I doubt you’d ever have time or desire to do), you’ll see that FM is often times quick to call someone “beneath him” or “not worth his time” or “ignorant,” or otherwise suggest that they are not as intelligent as he (which, we all know is a complete joke).
I don’t mean to be offensive, or condescending, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to point out that FM is not one of the more brilliant people on this blog.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
Okay, T72J, I know I’ll sound hypocritical for suggesting this, but can we at least agree to stop calling names? Disagree. Be angry. Be frustrated (Lord knows you have a right). But, just chill out with the name-calling for today, okay?
Like Renee said earlier, it really shows who the bigger person is. Granted, it’s not always easy to be the bigger person, you can (usually) make your point without calling names. And, seriously, if you know that he doesn’t comprehend 1/1,000th of what you’re saying, why bother anyway?
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
No. I commented on her post back then, and her post was:
I’d LOVE to see every filthy Palestinian refugee camp (REFUGEES?? Oh those poor victims! My heart bleeds. NOW I’m being facetious) decimated.
You mistakenly then generalized: Most Palestinians aren’t suicide bombers. There is blood on BOTH sides of the issue.
She NEVER said ALL Palestinians.
Idiot - you do not even know what you posted or what you were replying to. And when it offended her that you would stand up for the specific groups that have hate as a way of life and teaching; you chose not to re-read and back off. Instead, you had your precious SCHOLAR ego to defend.
By Jack
December 28, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
I’ll agree to disagree on that one. We really don’t know how smart folks on this blog are. Taboga led us to believe that he was intelligence challenged but turns out he was pretty sharp. For that matter, the internet creates lots of invisible beings. Didn’t someone think you were a man? I could be a 12 year old boy, or girl?
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this
Hello lurker, OK, how females are restricted, just a few: Don’t jog in a park by yourself. Don’t keep your windows open & unlocked especially at night. Don’t walk down secluded stairwells, Don’t open your door to anyone, including those who claim to be from the gas company. Try not to schedule night classes on campus (I remember this one) where you could face having to get home at night by yourself. Don’t ever ride public transportation at night. Don’t accept a drink from anyone other than a bartender. If you accept a date with someone, drive your own car & never ever be completely alone with him. Try to get someone to escort you to your car if you are working late. Don’t open your window or door if you are stranded on the side of the road & especially don’t accept a ride from anyone. Do not wear any suggestive clothing. This invites verbal abuse & danger. (too many more warnings to type)
Any attempt to not follow these simple 10 thousand rules may very well cause you to be a rape or murder victim, and it WILL be YOUR fault. After all, you should have been in Mass instead.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
After your reply to her, she wrote:
T72J, that’s right! I distrust ANYONE who speaks out against Israel.
You were speaking out against Israel and for the group she specified - as seen above.
So, you continued - without reflection - “The Israeli government treats Palestinians in roughly the same fashion that white South Africans treated black South Africans under apartheid.”
Got it?
(This type of posting is what JBM refers to as condescending - well it is this type of ignorance that no longer deserves a rational debate once that attempt has been exhausted. And I do not apologize for it - too much of this backwater mindset has done social/judicial damage already bc people look the other way.)
By Jack
December 28, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Whiley,carry a firearm and you could do all of the above. The fact is man has the physical advantage over most women. That is why the restrictions are there.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Men never get murdered or mugged from being out late at night by themselves, by opening the door to strangers, by being out on dates, their car breaking down or anything. Is this what you are implying Whiley?
Did you know that women rape other women? Women beat other women. I had a friend of mine whose partner used to beat the hell out of her. She never had that problem with men. And if you think same sex domestic violence among women is not a problem, it’s probably because you aren’t in the life to see it.
Do crimes happen against women and children? Yes. Should they happen? No. Does the majority of the male population beat, rape and murder women and children?? No.
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
And you wil ignore my FACTUAL post of what your type has done to people.
By blablabla
December 28, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
whiley, my dear, these aren’t restrictions on females. they’re common sense things to do to protect yourself. most men would abide by your suggested “rules” as well.
and failure to abide by your so called rules won’t make things your fault if something bad befalls you. but don’t you think it makes sense for people not to put themselves in compromising positions to begin with? isn’t part of the issue to avoid potential problems?
By Jack
December 28, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
Gotta go folks. Let’s not forget our nice pills tomorrow!
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
NO NO NO, FM. Don’t try to put the condescending discussion on me. Jack began by calling John condescending, and I suggested that perhaps BOTH of you were being condescending. BOTH of you. You were touting your supposed knowledge, and he was touting his knowledge. Both of you were “bragadocious.”
By Renee
December 28, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
Exactly. While there is no reason for a woman to be raped, some women put themselves in a position that would make them more likely a target. Some things that make you a lesser target for crime are common sense things. Like not walking down a dark alley at midnight with a pocket full of cash and a see thru outfit. (this is an extreme example, but makes the point)
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
But Jack I already TOOK my nice pills today ! Hold up, the bottle says “testosterone” OH NO ! !
heheee
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
Bye all.
Gonna refrain from the board for a while - boredom has hit rock bottom.
Good Show though - one of your best episodes!
By The72John
December 28, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
FatMoron:
The Israeli government treats Palestinians in roughly the same fashion that white South Africans treated black South Africans under apartheid. Any, Israeli rockets and tanks kill as many innocent Palestinians as are killed in sucide bombings.
You will notice that this sentence makes no reference to Palestinians living in or out of a refugee camp. By the way, living in a refugee camp does not mean that one is ENCROACHING on Isreal, dumbass, it means that their homes in the area have been DESTROYED by the Israeli army. You are so colossaly ignorant it defies imagination.
Then RS responded with her comment, which clearly is about all Palestinians. Then, she routinely refers to ALL Palestinians as slime, evil, etc.
Get. A. Clue.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Yes, Jack. It was I who was thought to be a man. And, wasn’t it you who earlier this week (or last week) told NetBanker how sharp he is; I think you referred to him as one of the brightest folks in here?
You can assume based on the things he said that he is a pretty smart guy. Just like one can assume, if NetB. had said idiotic things, that he is a pretty idiotic guy. One can assume that Whiley can be a bit “over the top” sometimes. One can assume that RF is generally a level-headed, reasonable guy. One can assume that Chuck is a judgmental Christian.
Sure, you don’t know who’s really smart and who really isn’t; you don’t know who’s 12 and who’s 72. You don’t know who’s female and who’s male, who’s black and who’s white.
You might be 12, and you might be a girl, but you can’t pretend to be ignorant, because you’ve already proven that you’re not. And ignorant people can’t pretend to be wise. Well, they can pretend, but they won’t fool anyone except other ignorant people. As for Taboga, I never thought he was unintelligent, I just thought he was very childish. I could tell that he was bright, just didn’t know how bright until his second-to-last topic… he made some comment that dropped my jaw.
Anyway, my point to you at 4:15 was that you were wrong (IMO) by saying that FM wasn’t normally condescending. He has been condescending in the past, unprovoked, and the prove is right below in any one of those links.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
You’re bored because RS hasn’t been around for you to ride her coattails.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
JBM a man — too funny!! I never would’ve thought!
By Whiley
December 28, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
blablah, men do NOT have the same threats as females do. There is a big difference in freedom between male & female. You cannot seriously think it is the same.
Females are restricted in many ways, this even carries over to college courses we can take (secluded class room buildings at night), what jobs we work. I doubt any man worries about being raped murdered & stuffed in a ditch just for someone else’s jollies.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
JBM - I forgot to respond to you earlier. Call me today or tomorrow. Venting all around would be great, lol. I’m at my wits end!
By FatMoose
December 28, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
You’re bored because RS hasn’t been around for you to ride her coattails.
I love it when people tell me how/what/why I feel - all durring their assertion of what it is to be condecending;)
Nice hypocracy;)
J27 - Then RS responded with her comment, which clearly is about all Palestinians. Then, she routinely refers to ALL Palestinians as slime, evil, etc.
I did a search and no such thing is in existance on this blog.
Simple - you are wrong.
By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
I doubt any man worries about being raped murdered & stuffed in a ditch just for someone else’s jollies.
Neither do most women I know, including myself.
Renee, it was Whiley who thought I was a guy - all this time.
By Renee
December 28, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Maybe she thought you were a stud, not a man, lol, lol.
By Tamika
December 29, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this
Hiliary Clinton Is definatly the most greatest person of 2006.
SHE WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE USA in 2008!!!!
By vincent
December 29, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
Condoleeza Rice? Woman of the year? This woman was the National Security Advisor during the biggest failure of national security in our history. If someone screwed up the way she did within the company I work for, they’d be fired. But she wasn’t and then was promoted. She flip flops all the time on our position regarding international diplomacy and has not once spoken AGAINST the inhumane ways governments that we support treat women. She had nothing to say when the USA was the only UN country that did not renew the International Women’s Health Care Treaty and obviously cares more about oil than the lives of our young men and women in the military. Remember, Chevron named a tanker after her service as a Board Member.
I say Shirley Chisholm should be 2005’s woman of the year.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this
Vuncent. Are you saying Condi was somewhat responsible for 9/11?
By Jack
December 29, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this
I meant Vincent. Sorry.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this
lol Renee!
lol @ “Vuncent” lol
Gotta say, I wouldn’t be opposed to naming the Hon. Shirley Chisolm a “Woman of the Year.”
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
oops, “Chisholm” not “Chisolm”
By Jack
December 29, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
The posters must have left the building.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Did you get to check out my dog yesterday? Or not really interested?
{we did talk dogs, right?}
By Jack
December 29, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
I didn’t get a chance to. I’ll save the info and check it out. I don’t remember talking about dogs but I am a dog person and have had several.
By Jerry
December 29, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Parks “woman of the year”? What year? All she did in 2005 was die.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
Jack,
He is on the month of march I believe.
No big deal either way - I had though we talked about hide/seek with dogs and such; but my memory of who said what in the posts tend to get pretty boggled;)
By Jack
December 29, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
I think you were talking to NetB. BTW good job of stirring it up yesterday.
By Paul
December 29, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
All I know is whenever something makes me mad I just blame Bush. Why? Because I’m a liberal moron. I think that the world owes me something because I can’t take care of myself.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
BTW good job of stirring it up yesterday.
In a good way? Cuase it was really just selfishness - had no patience for the usual sequence: Person A asks a question or makes a statement; Person B picks ONE misplaced word OR warps the meaning enough to have an arguement; Person B become mad (justifiably? Probably to a point anyhoo) and responds, therefore unintentionally shifting he subject to Person Bs notion….Later down the line Person A relizes that the subject is not based on what they said/meant, but Person B dont care and just keeps a rolling (“all night long, train kept a…”)
And if you make a statement that flatly disproves Person Bs point; they just go NuhUh or ignores you post;)
Sometimes there are people that do not adhere to this; but it only takes one or two to start a chain effect most of the time.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
Paul. You aren’t fooling us.
FM. I especialy hate it when others put words in your mouth (post)
By Jack
December 29, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
In a good way.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Jack,
Thanks for seeing who I am - especially in less than good times;)
Anything {topics} you want to kick around? Know anything about Coral Castle in Fla? I have been obsessed with it lately…
By Jack
December 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Is that the eminent domain case?
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Hehe.
No - sorry but totally different realm of topic, but I see why you would think that.
It is a “castle” of sorts built by a <100lb man using slabs of coral that were 1-7 tons each. He did it alone and by night in the 20s-50s, and when asked how he stated he now knew the secret to how the pyramids were built.
Out of all the spooky hocus-pocus stuff out there, this is one of the few that has SOME written history behind it and is fascinating.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
I remember that! He moved huge chuncks of coral using his mind. (or so he says)
By Jack
December 29, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
The ladies must be busy today. Here’s a big kiss for all of you. XOXOXO
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
I remember that! He moved huge chuncks of coral using his mind. (or so he says)
That is actually just one of the stories based on some kids that (supposedly) saw him moving a block - rational people think he was merely singing while working.
But there are neat notions regarding using pyramid structures to focus the gravitational pull of the moon/sun..etc. And that is what I find interesting; bc if you think about a lens, it is only a curved piece of glass. If you couldnt not see sunlight; you would not know where to put it to focus the light {which is the issue with gravity} - so why not a simple device, that if in the right place could focus gravitational pull…
By Jack
December 29, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Would like to have that device. Wish they could come up with a way for room temerature superconductivity. We could forget about fossil fuels.
By Whiley
December 29, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
Some of us have been doing returns & taking advantage of after christmas sales.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
Hi Whiley. :)
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
Yeah, but I have just enough scepticism that I wonder if the $Mongers would allow it to be released to the public.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
I’m a shop-o-phobe. The only thing I like to shop for is food.
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Does BEER count as food, Jack?
Hey everyone!
By Jack
December 29, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Hi Net. Yes. Beer & Liquor are considered necessities and I don’t mind shopping for it. Matter of fact I’ve got to get some today.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
Without expanding the subject; can you give me your honest, non-joking, opinion of this:
There is no legal difference regarding being a listed sex offender between a person who rapes and kills a child and someone who is 18+ and has sex with a 16yro. There are currently hundreds of men AND women that are now listed, for life, as a sex offender; and many cities have systematically made the the entire city limits off-base for them to live in.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Your opinions are welcome also guys.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
FM. In my opinion, there should be a difference between them. It’s similar to the zero tolerance in schools. There needs to be common sense. I also think that anyone who rapes and/or kills anyone should be castrated and have their gonads fed to them.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
I forgot to say that the procedure should be done with a rusty hacksaw blade.
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Ooohhh this could get good, FM.
Legally there are no differences, but I don’t agree with that because case 2 is not necessarily a violent offense. Personally, I don’t understand the concept of statutory rape (who would want to rape a statue anyway?) when the people involved are over the age of consent. If one is old enough in the eyes of the law to consent that should be it. Whether the person you agree to have sex with is 16 (age in GA, yes?) or happens to be 60 according to the law at 16 you’re old enough to decide who to give it up to. Why should someone older be punished for agreeing?
Whiley…find any good deals? I was highly disappointed in Dillards myself.
For those who care to take a look: [Updated photos of Abigale}(http://photos.yahoo.com/dinetbanker)
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
Ooohhh this could get good, FM.
Legally there are no differences, but I don’t agree with that because case 2 is not necessarily a violent offense. Personally, I don’t understand the concept of statutory rape (who would want to rape a statue anyway?) when the people involved are over the age of consent. If one is old enough in the eyes of the law to consent that should be it. Whether the person you agree to have sex with is 16 (age in GA, yes?) or happens to be 60 according to the law at 16 you’re old enough to decide who to give it up to. Why should someone older be punished for agreeing?
Whiley…find any good deals? I was highly disappointed in Dillards myself.
For those who care to take a look: Updated photos of Abigale
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
I agree as well. ANY absolutes work against the whole purpose of our system and the reason a judge sits at the bench.
NetB: Check out Roe (my dog) at www.cafepress.com/FatMoose {Disclaimer: although it is a site to sell goods; that is not my intent in posting the URL - had to add that bc I am not sure what the net-police would think…}
You can find Roe in the All Images Calendar at the bottom of the page; he is the March centerfold;) The others are the ferrets (anabelle&lulabelle: The Bells;) Moose (Yellow/beige Cat) Jojo (white cat) and some 3D art that I did some time back.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Cute pics;)
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
What a happy looking dog! Love the picture of Jojo and one of the Belles together. Which one is the beer drinker? A friend in college had 2 hooded rats with one being a beer drinker and the other prefering rum&coke. We’d fill a chapstick cap for them and they’d sit back on their haunches with the cap in their front paws and lap down a drink with us.
Pretty cool 3D art also. You’re quite the talent.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack! Thanks for the kiss, hope you didn’t mind my coffee breath. I was busy this morning planning my Valentine’s trip to the mountains… just finished with that, so I’m ba-aaaack!
~waving~ Heyyy NetB! Abigale is by far the cutest dog in all the land!!!!! (Well, except for my Savannah… lol)!
By Whiley
December 29, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, All the good deals are at any store that is NOT in a mall ! lol TJMax, Kohls, Marshalls type stores seem to have the biggest savings.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
NetB,
Lulabelle loves her beer! Although we do not let her have any actual liquid; we let her lick the rim and roll it around;)
Thanks for the comment - you actually can see a faint image of my face in the Macro of Moose’s Eye.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Your puppies are cute. They would make a nice meal for my boxer. LOL
By Jack
December 29, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Hey Whiley, did you hear about the 24 y/o law student in Gwinnett that stabbed her boyfriend to death?
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
NetB/Jack,
So, just to make it difficult and cover all scenarios -
What laws would be in place, if any, regarding a person who has repeatedly met 16yo boys/girls at the mall or such and talked them into crossing a line that a kid of their own age would not have the persuasion/prowess to accomplish?
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Whiley’s reply (bc things like tha have come up before) will be “who cares about one incident - I am worried about the thousands of women/children that live in fear everyday.”
Meaning until women commit thousands of violent crimes and have sunk as low as the 2% of men that commit these acts; they should be disregarded.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
FM. Get out the hacksaw blade. Talking a naive adolesence into a sex act is the same as using force in my opinion and should be dealt with the same way.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Now FM. We discussed putting words in others mouths. We should wait to hear what she has to say.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
FM. Get out the hacksaw blade. Talking a naive adolesence into a sex act is the same as using force in my opinion and should be dealt with the same way.
But how does one come to that conclusion? After the 3x? 4th? Purely on the word of 16yo?
I do not buy the last one, seeing as there have been numerous cases of white girls being with a black boy and feeling ashamed bc of upbringing, a boy who is gay and does not want it public yet…there are many reasons to lie.
So, I do not see that as a solution.
How about a consent form? Especially that comes with with every BirthConrol method?
Now FM. We discussed putting words in others mouths. We should wait to hear what she has to say.
Understood; I will agree to retract and apologize if there is a hint of difference in her reply, but I have to assert that this has been brought up many times to her and her stance has been clear. I would bet she agrees with my assumtion.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
FM. We are talking about an ADULT being with a 16yo. If the 16yo said she was 18 or 21 and loked like it, well…huge gray area. Let her Daddy talk to the perv.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
I had to laugh at the idea of a consent form. I can hear it now. “Please have sex with me, it won’t hurt at all. I won’t tell anyone. Before we do it please sign this form.” A consent form is like a contract. Gotta be of age to sign a contract.
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
I’m back…I was rudely interrupted by someone searching for info and knew I was in the office. The gall! Just because I’m at my desk doesn’t mean I’m really going to work this week. Sheesh…amateurs!
JBM…please tell you got a place with a hot tub! There is nothing like taking in a good mountain view from the hot tub after a long day of hiking or skiing while enjoying a glass of wine.
Whiley…I’m gonna have to generally agree although Dillards has the BEST end of season clearance sales. This past fall I spent about $200 for roughly $1800 worth of Perry Ellis, Kenneth Cole, and Claiborne clothes at their sale. I haven’t paid more than $12.50 for one of their shirts yet.
Jack…you can let your boxer try to eat her, but good luck. Abby might be small and look demure in a dress, but she has no idea that she isn’t a big dog and is a speedy little devil when she runs. I’ve yet to see a big dog that can keep up with her speed or stamina. Gotta catch ‘em to eat ‘em!
FM…I’m going to have to cogitate on that one. My gut reaction is that someone can’t be talked into doing something they didn’t really want to do in the first place. Also, this ties into the age of consent. What is the point of declaring one in the law if it doesn’t really apply?
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Jack,
I am going on this information:
Whether the person you agree to have sex with is 16 (age in GA, yes?) or happens to be 60 according to the law at 16 you’re old enough to decide who to give it up to. Why should someone older be punished for agreeing?
Hence the disjunct bw our points.
An easy fix would be to raise the GA, AL, etc laws up to 18 - I would agree with that.
By Jack
December 29, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Yeah but 18 is past marryin age. lol
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
My gut reaction is that someone can’t be talked into doing something they didn’t really want to do in the first place.
Different but still: When I was little punk skater of 17yrs; my friend and I talked a 15yo skater into eating a night-crawler (no metaphor here!). Boy, did he regret it! And his mother was PI$$ED!! FYI - We got the idea from an old school skate vid.
I would bet you could not talk him into it at 18+; not as easily or without beer anyways…
By Jack
December 29, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Gotta go. Gonna paint the town red with my lovely wife this weekend. Everyone have a happy and safe new year!!!!!
By Whiley
December 29, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
“Hey Whiley, did you hear about the 24 y/o law student in Gwinnett that stabbed her boyfriend to death?”
I did but no details. What in the world happened?
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Yeah but 18 is past marryin age. lol
Yeah, Can you image the opposing people at the polls voting on moving it up to 18?!?!
{When I was at UGA there was this same cop on my way home to savanna in the boonies (pulled me over once) - always had his 16yro GF with him in his car while on patrol. Spooky stuff off the main drag in some states. I heard he had a showdown with her parents; but only after she started dating/riding with another cop. The original cop began pulling over her family anytime he could. Lost his badge, so I hear.}
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
The women of the world really have us by the nads on the age question, Jack. If the woman misrepresents her age she’s not in trouble or can lie about it. If the man asks to see ID to verify age, well you know how that goes when asking a woman her age.
By Whiley
December 29, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
Any man that is trying to have sex with a 16 year old is a pervert anyway & deserves prison time. 16 year olds look like 16 year olds. Maybe if those men weren’t so quick to try to bed someone, they wouldn’t have these problems. The responsiblity is with the ADULT. Not a 16 year old child.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
Take care Jack, and have fun.
By Bob
December 29, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
This year it’s Dr. Rice, Secretary of State; unwavering in her dedication to the President and just off the chart in her knowledge of world affairs. Watch out Hillary, you’re a strong, powerful and intelligent woman but you come with a ton of baggage (his name is Bill) but Dr. Rice can match you and up you one. I can’t imagine Dr. Rice not achieving anything she sets out for. Condi, consider at lest a VP run in 2008, please!
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
The last 6 situations in the news like what were are talking about actually were women; and the last one is claiming she did not know. Not to mention the woman that was having drinking/pot parties and sleeping with 3-6 teenage (15-18yrs) boys at each party.
So, person would be more appropriate than men.
By James
December 29, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
You have to be crazy to think that middle-aged white men, and trust me…there’s a bunch of us will vote for Hillary Clinton to proctect our freedom and run this country? Yeah right. Each and every Republican I know is chomping at the bit in hopes the the Dems are dumb enough to run her. But, as dumb as you Dems are, you probably will. She will be anihilated.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Have fun, Jack.
NetB. I did!!! I’m soooo pleased with the place I got. My baby and I go up to Helen often; we usually stay at our favorite bed and breakfast. We’ve been there so many times, the innkeeper is like family now. But, this time we’re taking 3 other couples with us (and maybe Renee if she can make it back to Atlanta) and staying in a HUGE mountain-view chalet. It is absolutely stunning, breathtaking!!
I’ll tell you what’s hard to find though, is an INDOOR hot tub in one of these mountain cabins.
And, Dillards DOES have the best sales (along with Lord & Taylor and Parisian).
Whiley, so far the only information I’ve gotten on the case is that the guy’s friends were outside waiting for him in the car. He went in to tell her she had to leave, and came back out looking dazed. He told his friends she had stabbed him, and they sped to the hospital. All along the way, he kept saying, “I’m gone, I’m gone.” This happened on 12/21. On Christmas Day, she went to the hospital to visit him and learned that he had died. She gave a bunch of drama, and then got arrested.
And, “16 year olds look like 16 year olds”???????????
Are you kidding me?
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
But, as dumb as you Dems are, you probably will.
Talk about an idiot telling on himself. That was by far, THE most ignorant generalization I’ve ever heard on this blog (and believe me, I’ve heard a great many).
By Whiley
December 29, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
You’re correct FatMoose. Any PERSON that tries to have sex with a minor is disgusting & should do prison time just for being nasty. It is the responsibility of the ADULT to find out their age. My opinion if there is any question, they are too young to be having sex anyway. I just don’t understand the attraction to boys if you are an older woman. yuck !
I don’t think there is a Dillards anywhere near me. That’s too bad because it sounds like a good place to go when there is a sale going on.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
I wonder how many Condi-fans would vote for her if she switched tickets and ran as a Democrat?
Just curious…
(By the way, before y’all go nuts, I’m not in any way suggesting there’s a possibility or likelihood that this will happen).
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
An adult’s attraction to a minor is not something any mentally sane person can understand. It’s a defect, an abnormality.
I agree that the responsibility falls on the adult. But, then again, I also think that two people should be tested together before having intercourse. That shows you what a fool I am.
And, I hate to make this a racial thing, but most black people will agree that a lot of white teenagers look WAYYYYYYYYYY older than they are. If I were a man who dated white girls, I would card each and every one under 35 (and I might ask to talk to their mama too), and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. No kidding.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
I just don’t understand the attraction to boys if you are an older woman.
I agree and VV as well. Heck, as I am sure everyone on here knows - weeding out the 30+ that still act 15 is difficult enough!
Yeah, maybe the tight bodies on the boys/girls LOOK good; but the baggage - and I do not care to play games anymore!!!! No thank you!
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
But, then again, I also think that two people should be tested together before having intercourse. That shows you what a fool I am.
Well, I am a fool too; cause that is a requirement to date me on a serious level.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
And, I hate to make this a racial thing, but most black people will agree that a lot of white teenagers look WAYYYYYYYYYY older than they are.
I can say the same thing about a lot of black girls I see -I wonder if it is the Bovine Growth Hormones in the milk…
But, to the contrary; I walked the UGA campus last year with my nephew. And it happend to be orientation: The upcoming freshmen looked like 7th graders!!!
Could there be a correlation bw less educated/on-the streets looks and well educated/suberbia kids looking older/younger (respectfully)?
I know that there is a lot more to do bw fat and hormones than previously thought - so that could get in the mix as well - since people of lower income have worse diets…
Just ponderings…
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Jack..have fun, be safe!
FM…this is such a tricky topic…darn you for making us go through mental gymnastics during the holiday! Looking at Whiley’s post there is a presumption that it is men seeking sex with 16yo’s. As you point out there have been a number of cases lately involving the younger party being boys. I would expect that most people are going to determine their answer based on whether the minor is a boy or a girl. Also, 16 doesn’t look like 16 did when I was that age. Either I’m getting worse at judging age or kids don’t look like they used to.
I’m not really aware of any of the boys feeling like they’ve been victimized. I’d venture a guess to say they thought they were lucky to have sex, lose their virginity, and have someone with experience leading the way.
When it comes to a 16 yo girl there is always the presumption that they were victimized. Is it not possible that there are 16 yo girls who would feel as lucky as the boys to be ‘victimized?’ The only females I know who have said that the first time or few times didn’t completely suck are ones who lost their virginity to men at least 10 years older than they. It wasn’t about being in love and in fact one friend admitted that she sought out an older man on purpose because she didn’t want an “over eager, no nothing, teenage boy who is finished before I’m even ready to start.”
JBM…that place sounds EXCELLENT! In all the years I’ve lived in GA, I have yet to go to Helen. Actually, I really haven’t been too many places in the state. I need to start fixing that this year.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
I think one difference (keeping in mind that this is admittedly a generalization on my part) is that white girls tend to look older than their age (in the face); black girls tend to develop way faster than they used to, making them look older in the body, but IMO still looking young in the face.
This is a fact I read in a parenting magazine about a year or so ago: the average girl with caucasian parents will begin wearing makeup at 13 years old. The average girl with non-caucasian parents will begin wearing makeup at 15 years old.
That’s one contributing factor.
I know in my house, none of my sisters nor I could wear makeup until we were 16 years old, and this was common among the black girls who went to my church, and other black girls I knew. However, in my neighborhood and at school, every single white girl I knew was wearing some kind of makeup in “senior year” of elementary school - 6th grade! We’re talking about 11 and 12 year olds already looking 14 and 15!
Meanwhile, I couldn’t even wear colored lipgloss or eyeliner!
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Is it not possible that there are 16 yo girls who would feel as lucky as the boys to be ‘victimized?
I know it is possible, but unsure of proportions. I do not know if we THINK the ratio is that different, or that it IS.
I do know that the book Women on Top (regarding success as well as sex) has a LOT of intimate details regarding fantasies that young girls have (these ones interviewed - which are hundreds) - And I have to say I was pretty shocked at the “norms” that were broken. One trend was knowing how to sit on an adults lap to tease EARLY in age; and later fantasizing about it.
Another thing I know; our culture is no where near the maturity/honesty to touch these subject on a real level.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Do you think it is fair to say that there are more secular white families than black? Going only on my observartion, which comprises MAYBE .005% of black people…
If so, that would explain a lot of the makeup issue - besides church, there are not many family outings that are with other families that they know on a regular basis and would cause refrain of such practices.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
FM…this is such a tricky topic…darn you for making us go through mental gymnastics during the holiday!
Sorry, just trying to get the week to move faster;) SLOW at work this week.
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
I feel like I’m a salmon swimming upstream because I seem to be the only one viewing the question from the teen side rather than the adult side. Before this gets out of hand let me just say that I completely agree that adults actively seeking out minors for sex is wrong.
Is is still right to hold the adult responsible when it is the teen seeking an older partner? Clothes and attitude can make a difference. Let’s not forget fake ID’s. I had one.
FM…interesting young/old experiences. The last time I was on my campus and looked at freshmen I thought there was no way I looked THAT young when I went to college. Riding MARTA daily I saw LOTS of young people who were probably younger than they appeared. I wonder if it is isn’t more economics from the point that inner city or poor kids have to grow up faster to survive vs stable suburban family life that still allows kids to have a childhood.
In regard to children sexually maturing earlier I don’t think it’s the hormones in food at all. My guess would be that it’s better nutrition. Food that my parents and prior generations ate wasn’t fortified out the whazoo with vitamins and minerals like it was for me. There are known scientific studies that have showed that humans grew in height with better nutrition. Think of the average height in colonial times v.s. 1900 for example. Is it possible that with improved nutrition height is no longer our body’s natural response, but earlier sexual maturation is?
By Netbanker
December 29, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
I was being sarcastic about the mental gymnastics. I can find plenty of dullards, but those who challenge us to really think are rare gems.
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
I feel like I’m a salmon swimming upstream because I seem to be the only one viewing the question from the teen side rather than the adult side.
I am just being gun-shy and do not want anyone coming down on me;)
I agree, when it comes down to a teen going up to an adult and wanting a mature partner - which does happen - I am unsure of what to think. Would like there to be a provision to allow that situation.
Seems a screwy 15 yr boy/girl can do more harm than good compared to an adult.
Metaphor: If I desire to learn to swim; I do NOT want another novice teaching me! I want a swim expert!
By FatMoose
December 29, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
I was being sarcastic about the mental gymnastics.
Was just joking back at you.
One of the problems with blogs/email - There is no inflection to indicate so many speach signals we are used to. It has gotten me into trouble more than once - hence all the (){}<<<:::;; I use.
By Just Being Me
December 29, 2005 05:18 PM | Link to this
The only females I know who have said that the first time or few times didn’t completely suck are ones who lost their virginity to men at least 10 years older than they.
NetB. I’ll have to be the first woman you “know” that doesn’t fall into that category. My first time was with a man that I was absolutely in love with, and who loved me even more. The overall experience was wonderful, and everything I hoped it would be.
And, you absolutely HAVE TO go to Helen (if you like tranquility and peace).
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
JBM, Do you think it is fair to say that there are more secular white families than black?
If you had asked me that five years ago, in my ignorance I would have said yes. However, as of today, I don’t think it’s safe to say that at all. I think that a great part of Black American culture is “religion.” However, there are a great number of Black Americans who either abandon their faith, or never had a faith-based upbringing. In my small world, nearly everybody is Black and Christian. 96% of the people in my world are “saved,” go to church, read the Bible regularly, and adhere to (or publicly, at least) the basic tenets and traditions of Apostolic or Pentecostal Christianity.
Despite this, I am keenly aware that there is a much larger world outside mine, wherein people are not Black and Christian, and may or may not adhere to the same traditions with which I was raised. I work as a consultant to churches, so I’m very familiar with a great many churches in the Atlanta metro area. In fact, I’ve been to most of the better known churches in Atlanta. I assure you that the white Christians teens wear just as much makeup as the white non-Christian teens.
I’d highly doubt that the reason white folks allow their children to wear makeup at a younger age is that they are more secular.
there are not many family outings that are with other families that they know on a regular basis and would cause refrain of such practices.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here…
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
*there are not many family outings that are with other families that they know on a regular basis and would cause refrain of such practices.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here…*
Just that without church functions; there are not really much else a family does together (out of the house). So, it would be easier, in a secular home, for a mom/dad to say: If you want to look like that, it is your business; since the parents dont have to worry about embarasing looks from people.
IE - “Your not going out with me looking like that” would not come up as much.
But, most of the women I see are also (IMO - and my preference goes) wearing way too much makeup. I prefer au natural - none; except for the occasional night out and minor eye-liner,lipstick, and maybe a hint of blush. Same goes for bodies - no plastic parts please! But that is me.
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
Just that without church functions; there are not really much else a family does together (out of the house). So, it would be easier, in a secular home, for a mom/dad to say: If you want to look like that, it is your business; since the parents dont have to worry about embarasing looks from people.
I disagree. Families can go to the movies together, to theme parks, amusement parks, beaches, concerts, plays, shopping, running errands, to the gym, out to dinner, etc… there are many places that families (Christian or non-Christian) can go without worrying about “embarassing looks” from other people.
But, the issue shouldn’t rest on whether or not you get embarassing looks anyway. How she dresses and looks is a reflection of me, my values, and what I believe and teach in my home. I don’t forbid her to wear makeup because I’m afraid of getting embarassing looks; I forbid her to wear makeup because I don’t want her to look like she’s 21 until she turns 21. I don’t want her to look like she’s 16 until she turns 16. (And, I don’t want her to look like she’s 40 until she turns 50)!!
And personally, I would never tell a child “if you want to look like that, it is your business.” I know many disagree, but in my house, my child has no “business.”
Either way, I understand your overall point, but I don’t think whether a family is church-going or not has much to do with whether they’ll allow their children to wear makeup at an early age.
For the record, I think there are some things that black and white teens share in common when it comes to looking older. For example, I think both blacks and whites, in equal proportions, wear clothes that are too revealing, and too grown-up for their ages. I think blacks and whites, in equal proportions, pick up habits like smoking, drinking, and using bad language - which can also contribute to their appearing older.
However, when it comes to the makeup thing, I think whites definitely surpass blacks in using it to look older.
By Working Woman
December 30, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Darn shame they were looking for nominations for woman of the year or comments on their column and this all ended up boiling down to a cat, er dog, fight.
I think any strong woman who can make her way in the world deserves all the kudos she can get and there is no way to pick, idolize, just one individual.
Shame we can’t even get along to comment on this topic.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
I agree with your post.
For clarification, I was not promoting such behavior. Nor was I stating that a family cannot go to those places - just that the unit, in my experience, is less apt to do those things together and tend to live pretty separate lives from each other - thereby not being AS concerned with appearences.
For example - when I went to a concert as a kid; I would dress all rocked out; and although my parents would go “Um Okay…” that would not have been their response if it was going to dinner with the family; much less the family with an organization. But that never acme up - I would always dress respectfully with them; yet we were quite a tight family (even without religion).
But my family was not near any norm - far from that actually.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
Working Woman,
If you frequent this blog you will find that most times we run the “topic” out by Wed - and more times than not is it bc we agree (or it is a non-issue to begin with); that is when the digressing begins out of boredom and need of a deeper topic.
If you ever have something to say on the titled topic, I am sure people will respond; as well as the multiple topics raised in digression.
For example: I think any strong woman who can make her way in the world deserves all the kudos she can get and there is no way to pick, idolize, just one individual. Has been stated a couple times and agreed upon - also it leads nowhere once agreed upon.
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
I think this day will go down in history.
FM, for once, I completely agree with you on your 10:49a. I’m gonna quit while I’m ahead and sign off. It’s time to begin my holiday weekend!
See you all next year! Happppy New Year!!!!!!!!!!
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Take care and be safe
A lot of idiots in cars out there.
By Netbanker
December 30, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Good Morning everyone! I was trying to post before my second conference call of the day, but didn’t make it.
I have to agree with JBM’s thoughts about family activities even though I grew up in a church going family. While we were all quite involved in the church (choirs, sunday school and church, Dad was an elder, both my brother and I served as officers in Jr. and Sr. Youth Groups, bro and I were both acolytes, Mom volunteered in the office) we also had a very active family life outside of church. We belonged to a camping club of about 30 families, most of my childhood vacations and numerous weekend getaways were spent hiking, biking, swimming, canoeing, or exploring national parks and historic sites from Florida to Maine, we went to the community pool together, played tennis/golf at the Officers club as a family, attended local arts and music festivals, etc. I haven’t the slightest idea of why white chicks start wearing makeup ealier than other ethnic groups.
FM…I agree that many women/girls wear too much makeup these days. When I worked at Macy’s I was advised by the cosmetics women that for everyday a good makeup job looks natural. The point is to enhance one’s features not completely cover them up.
My family wasn’t the norm growing up either. Freakishly we pretty much are what is considered the ‘ideal’ family and that includes my extended family. FM, I guess that makes us both part of the Abby Normal Clan? My family is of the Loud sub-clan.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
My my point was the possiblility of:
we also had a very active family life outside of church. We belonged to a camping club of about 30 families, most of my childhood vacations and numerous weekend getaways were spent hiking, biking, swimming, canoeing, or exploring national parks and historic sites from Florida to Maine, we went to the community pool together, played tennis/golf at the Officers club as a family, attended local arts and music festivals, etc. I haven’t the slightest idea of why white chicks start wearing makeup ealier than other ethnic groups.
Those activities you describe stem from a family that has a root source that they can built off of {religion/church} - and your case backs that notion up - not asserting it is absolutly correct; but a potential theme.
My dad was a Psychiatrist and would let me sit in on his one-on-one sessions as well as another of the Doctor’s mens group sessions - if the clients did not object; which never occured. Would not reccommend it to everyone, but it served me well. The earliest I remember attending one was in 3rd grade after having the bus driver drop me off at his private practice - boy did she give me looks until she understood my dad worked there! Ahh the 70s - free and easy;)
By chuck
December 30, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Well Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
Well it took me about 45 minutes but I was able to struggle through reading the garbage posted on here the past few days. I thought I had gone to Bizarro World. First, we have JBM, the sweet, tolerant, nonjudgemental christian “minister” fighting with WHILEY of all people AND calling people IDIOTS. Then we have Mr. “educated” 72john spelling “plagiarism” “plagarism” and thinking it was correct, then he denied doing it because “he wasn’t writing a paper” when he knows good and well that taking someone else’s ideas and presenting them as your own is plagiarism whether you are writing a paper or not. THEN, after he says that he is not going to respond to fatmoose anymore EVER, he responded 3 more times to him in one short afternoon. Boy you leave town for a couple of days and look what happens.
By Netbanker
December 30, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Merry Christmas, Chuck, and a Happy New Year, too!
By chuck
December 30, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Condi Rice is without a doubt, the Woman of the Year. She makes Colin Powell look like the wimp he was.
Rosa Parks is an “okay” choice, but I don’t think you should get an award for dying. She certainly deserved the award back in the day, but not now.
Gates’ wife doesn’t deserve it either. It doesn’t take much to give millions when you have billions. I think those who volunteer at soup kitchens or halfway houses are more giving than she is.
Condi’s role as the first Black Woman Secretary of State is not the big deal either. It doesn’t matter if she is a woman or Black. What matters is that she is doing a terrific job in that position. She does a better job of articulating the foreign policy of our country than anyone in the administration including the President. For that, she gets my vote.
By chuck
December 30, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
Thanks NETB
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
Yes - It is just as bad as the reality shows on TV when at its (the blogs) worst; at its best a person or two learn something until the next week;)
I like it though;) Gives me a chuckle.
By Whiley
December 30, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Chuck, being a “Christian “ministerâ€? doesn’t automatically make you a non-idiot.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with girls wearing makeup & trying to look older, old men trying to bed young women is. Wearing makeup & trying to look attractive to the opposite sex is all part of growing up for girls. Just as trying to grow facial hair, acting tough, & trying to get the attention of girls is what boys do. It’s not a bad thing, it’s actually amusing to watch. We all did the same thing even if it was centuries ago. The biggest difference was we were always an earshot from our parents. Always. I remember my girlfriends & I hid behind our middle school building & put make up on before classes started, washed it all off before mother & dad saw us. lol
Beth Holloway is still my vote for the most admirable woman of 2005.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
There is absolutely nothing wrong with girls wearing makeup & trying to look older, old men trying to bed young women is.
May not be anything wrong with it? I would argue it is not especially healthy and wrong if an older person is not what they are trying to attract - on multiple levels.
Some off the cuff reasons:
Who are these older people they are trying to attract? And what for? Why is it okay to further the notion that they are not completely beautiful the way they are? Who are they modelling after that presents theirself this way? Mom? Madonna? Their friends?
If I am fishing; I use a lure specific to what I want to catch. Occasionally another type of fish will bite; but more often than not I will get what I am trying to lure.
Would it be right/healthy of me to complain that I caught a trout while using a yellow grub as a lure? No, it would be stupid.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
I think the question should be: Should an idiot minister…
By Whiley
December 30, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
As I said before, the burden of being the more responsible one is put on the OLDER person, not an underaged kid. Particularly when so many much older men are impregnating way to many underaged GIRLS. I’m not talking about teenage pregnancies between teens. I”m talking about teenage pregnancies when the sperm donor is WAY older than the child. Girls have made themselves up with makeup since the dawn of time. It’s like dress up. Long before tv influences. Why is it a bad thing for girls to try to attract boys in the girly way they do, but it’s just fine for boys to do what they do to attract girls? How many girls does a young man have to bother, harrass, & try to bed before anyone questions his behavior attracting the opposite sex?
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
First, dress up is in the privacy of ones home - not out attracting people at the mall purposely.
Second, Why is it a bad thing for girls to try to attract boys in the girly way they do, but it’s just fine for boys to do what they do to attract girls?
You convienently ignore the reality of my post: They are purposely attracting men by looking like an older person than they are.
Third, Just as trying to grow facial hair, acting tough, & trying to get the attention of girls is what boys do. What the boys are doing is not altering their appearence - they are not taping on facial hair - or taking steriods. Besides, if they were, they would be attracting women which you seem to have no problem with - otherwise it would be an even keeled issue.
Fourth, trying to get with someone your own age is normal - when that person decidedly choses to decieve other of their age - we are talking about another issue that your refuse to face: Kids are already developing faster physically, to make it more difficult or impossible to tell IS part of the issue here. To condone it makes it worse.
And fifth, The number of women “bedding” and “trapping” boys is significant and to rule it out shows your bias. You admitted this yesterday, but that is where words like “idiot” come in: you have purposely put aside what you learned for a biased agenda.
I know of 15 women that claimed that they were pregnant by a young boy in order to marry in Alabama. Then they began bashing the boys for not being able to support the “family.” This number does NOT include the others in the news that are either fooling around with boys or “in love” with one.
If you are going to repeat your biased notions that you have already admitted to understanding on three/four instances, and return to some BS notion of ignorance, we have no need in furthering this. Just walk away with your ignorance - it bothers me none.
By Whiley
December 30, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
My dear, if those horny little irresponsible boys took care of their OWN contraception, they couldn’t be TRAPPED. Poor whittle sexually taken advantaged of boys. Still putting all the blame on the girls aren’t you. The burden is on the much older person not to be “used against their will” even if they DO observe some lipstick & blue eyeshadow.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
My dear, if those horny little irresponsible boys took care of their OWN contraception, they couldn’t be TRAPPED.
They did and were LIED to - none of the WOMEN were pregnant.
And now talking like a child? Fitting.
That is as civil of a conversation that you are capable of? You have no intelligence better than that to reply to a rational decent post?
Still putting all the blame on the girls aren’t you.
Nope - I put responsibilty where appropriate, and you put NONE on the females (old or young); which is wrong and is what I am pointing out.
Given your response was a snotty sarcastic, incorrect, one - I guess this is all one can expect from you. Dissapointing - again.
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
Chuck, dear, surely you know that people - even Christians like you and Christ-followers like me - make mistakes and that the best thing a person can do (Christian or not) after they make a mistake is to apologize. You do know that, right? In fact, that’s pretty much the foundation of Christianity - repent and be forgiven. Go and sin no more, right? Right.
Good. So, in a moment of frustration, I called FM an idiot, and first thing the next morning, I apologized. Only the devil or one of his workers would go to the grave to dig up a dead sin or transgression. If I repented of it, why on earth would you bring it back up? What does it profit you, me, FM, the other bloggers, the body of Christ, or anyone? It doesn’t really profit anyone - all it does is make a demon rejoice over digging up the grave of a dead transgression. Remember “as far as the east is from the west…” I guess you forgot about that one. No prob, dear.
Oh, and where did you see me fighting with Whiley? Not once did I disrespect her, call her any names, or commit any other wrongdoing toward her… did you think I was “fighting” with her because I passionately disagree with her?
God bless you, Chuck. Happy New Year and be safe.
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
My dear, if those horny little irresponsible boys took care of their OWN contraception, they couldn’t be TRAPPED
And if those horny little irresponsible girls took care of THEIR own contraception, they wouldn’t get knocked up out of wedlock.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
A brief moment of being awake by Whiley happend yesterday: You’re correct FatMoose. Any PERSON that tries to have sex with a minor is disgusting & should do prison time just for being nasty. It is the responsibility of the ADULT to find out their age. My opinion if there is any question, they are too young to be having sex anyway. I just don’t understand the attraction to boys if you are an older woman. yuck!
But, now is gone…back to crazyness…
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Its Whileys purposely snotty posts and double standards that floor me.
No matter how rational one is with her, she wont be that way back, and IF she does understand, it is only for a short span. Then it is back to all men needing to be locked up or curfewed; or teaching girls how horrid males are. And to top it off she is a minister to these kids!
{if she is a minister, that is a grave wrong}
By Whiley
December 30, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
You are dead wrong, what I would like to see is society expecting more out of males, expecting more sexual responsibility instead of always blaming only the female when sex occurs between two people. It sounds like the general public isn’t ready to do that quite yet. So forgive me if I B!@#XCH a little about it.
I’m a minister? Since when? Minister of love ! lol
By Whiley
December 30, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
lol FatMoose you are quite the amusing one. You won’t admit any little horny male boys do anything wrong do you. They are innocent victims of makeup wearing, over developed young girls that only want to give birth & be supported before the age of 17. lol Have a good New Year, & try not to molest anyone.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Your posts PROVE otherwise:
Shouldn’t there be required classes in school to teach young girls the danger of males? Shouldn’t we put all boys away in different schools so that girls will be safe? Shouldn’t all males have a curfew of 8pm?
My dear, if those horny little irresponsible boys took care of their OWN contraception, they couldn’t be TRAPPED. Poor whittle sexually taken advantaged of boys.
Interesting how those 3 pigs that murdered Natallee admitting to having sex with her while she was unconcience. Innocent till proven otherwise…but you have an agenda of hatred.
As JBM posted: By Just Being Me
December 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Well then your understanding is lacking, Whiley. You state that you’ll have more sympathy for “boys� when all males who are victim of crime’s are also publicly blamed for their own deaths due to being “promiscuous.�
Then, I state that homosexual men fall into this category, so this is a start.
And, you then say that it’s not a start until ALL guys experience constant badgering and judging…
That means that either (a) you’re not interested in a start (progress), only a finish (the completed task); or (b) you have no idea what the word “start� means.
It also means that your would have all people feel the pain of the lowest common denominator before looking at the reality of an issue.
You are dead wrong No, I am absolutely correct - and you are in complete denial. You have stated repeditly that ALL guys are guilty for the 2% that commit violent crimes.
You are a hate filled person - but you carry that bag, not I;)
Good day;)
By Whiley
December 30, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Honey, I’ve been dealing with sexist men like you my whole life, & THAT’s A LONG long time lol. You don’t scare me & eventually guys like you WILL have to deal with your own better. Why? Because we’ll make you.
Now have a nice day ! :)
My vote for the most admirable woman of 2005 is STILL Beth Holloway !
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Whiley, you are way off the deep end.
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
You won’t admit any little horny male boys do anything wrong do you. They are innocent victims of makeup wearing, over developed young girls that only want to give birth & be supported before the age of 17.
I never said anything to that effect or close to it. You have had to polarize every issue that concerns a female by blaming men for it all.
Tori Amos said it best: “Although I was raped, I love men and know the good ness in most mens hearts. I will not let one man control me further by warping my view of all men - only then would he do me perminent damage.”
But to know such things takes stregth, wisdom, and love; none of which you exhibit.
I feel sorry for you. It must be lonely in that paraniod and hatefilled head; which I understand is why the denial exists in the first place. Otherwise you would crumble.
Happy new year! Make some good resolutions, you will be better for it;)
By FatMoose
December 30, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Whats your take on the volly over the last hour?
Critique me - you have my permission (not being snotty).
By Just Being Me
December 30, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
In short, I think Whiley is really so passionate about her issue (and her issues… lol) that she is deaf to reason. I don’t think she can discuss any subject related to women and/or men rationally, logically, intelligently, and unemotionally.
Also, at the risk of sounding condescending (which isn’t my intention), your posts on this subject have been very easy to read and logical. I still think that you can be VERY, VERRRRRY condescending to others when they don’t debate the way you think they should. That’s kinda ugly.
I’ll come back to see if you responded, but other than that, I’m probably gone for the day!
Have a wonderful and very safe celebration weekend!