1. Madeleine Albright received her college training at the same college as Hillary Clinton. Both think that anyone who doesn’t vote for a liberal Democrat is an idiot.

   Both have unjustified, snarky attitudes about politics…especially Hillary, whose facial expressions while listening to a Republican leader’s speech make me wanna puke (eg. G. W. Bush’s State of the Union addresses).

2. The older I get, the more I believe that for Dems and the Left, it all comes down to abortion. A pol can be a total scum (Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Edwards) but as long as he is for abortion, he is the “women’s” candidate.
   And a Republican can support all manner of issues that support women (because they naturally see women as more than needy vaginas), but as long as they’re pro-life, they are declared “anti-woman.”

3. Lizzy: yes, abortion is considered the women’s issue par excellence.

   But if I were to ask Madeleine Albright if she could understand—not agree with, but understand—how or why a woman could possibly think abortion should be outlawed, or at the very least think it should be left to the states, would Albright really say, “No, I don’t understand?”

4. Neo: I honestly don’t think so. I think the abortion issue has become so crystallized in their minds after 40 years post Roe v. Wade that any argument about the life of the baby no longer computes. They freak out over any possible limitation, even things like legislation to protect late-term babies who survive an abortion. On the Left we’ve seen the devaluation of life in other areas, too, including euthanasia of the old, the defective, and the brain damaged. It’s become this sort of paternalism, an ability to pronounce which lives have value, and which don’t.

5. I’m going with the first one on your list. Madeleine Albright has spent most of her life around very liberal people, and she has probably never given any serious thought to republican ideas.
   The irony of her statement is that she isn’t trying to understand why women would vote for Romney. Its nothing more than a rhetorical point. She’s trying to say that all decent women should vote Democratic as if that alone were sufficient to make it so.

6. Of course, Albright’s statement isn’t surprising to me, just very, very sad. More than anything, her coercion connotes that women shouldn’t need to think for themselve so much as follow a party line that’s set up straw men (women) issues and then, like Don Quixote go out in mass battle to defend without questioning.

   For instance, my stance on abortion has changed dramatically in the last 30 years; however do any of us really think abortion will be de-legalized? Yes, some states will ban or put more restrictions on it, but abortion in this country is here to stay. This is truly a straw man as are many other ‘war on women’ obfuscations promulgated on the war of words trail.

7. Just ordered the Sowell book you recommended. I even remembered to order it through your Amazon button. I have read, and learned from, other of his books and appreciate his knowledge and excellent writing skills. Thanks for the heads up.

8. “Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”. I like that subtitle. Isn’t that exactly what’s happening every time someone describes himself as a “progressive”? Do you think they look in the mirror each morning and preen saying “I’m a progressive”?

   Sorry for the over the top snark, but it’s hard to resist at times.

9. It’s a failure of empathy.
   Many hardline ideologues have a deficit of it ( if you believe that the only reason you have ideological foes is because they are all dishonest or stupid, you have it as well) but “progressives” and movements sprung from them (most of the political activist branch of feminism as an example) have made an art of denying it to people who fall outside their Approved Victim Group schema. Women who are Republicans are brainwashed or stupid or kept in line by their husbands fists – shorter Albright.

10. Webutante brings an interesting question: do any of us really think abortion will be de-legalized?

    The immediate response is no.

    But consider that some countries (Russia, Iran, Turkey) are adopting pro-family policies because their populations are old and dying.

    Apply the same question to economic policy/small government: does anyone think we can actually reverse to pre-WWII days?

    Again, the answer may come more from reality than ideology.

11. appointed for ideological reasons
    promoting ideology as the ideological reason
    anyone not voting for what the doyen say, is not a real woman, and so on… its called mass manipulation and women being more homogeneous means they vote more as a block. vanity, gullibility, easy to manipulate, collective ego, etc… the left represents them for those reasons, as they are a means to an end (once obtained the means are no longer needed – you finish destroying them if using them hasn’t destroyed them)…

    once they discovered this stuff last century the game has been to deny it exists, then use it to your advantage… (knowing that their egos wont let them out of the trap once they are in it, as they would have to admit it, which they wont. they would rather collapse society and blame another than admit and put a halt to the game!!!!!!!!!!!)

    go ahead… take a look at what the defenders say… they are willing to give up just to have the shadenfreude…

12. Brad It’s a failure of empathy.

    “Women have no sympathy… And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so.” — Florence Nightingale

13. But consider that some countries (Russia, Iran, Turkey) are adopting pro-family policies because their populations are old and dying.

    yes they are curtis, since what they did is exactly what we did, but years AFTER they discovered how it self exterminated them

    in 1968, we had the sexual revolution..

    Soviet Woodstock; The ‘Free Love’ movement of the Bolsheviks
    http://russophilia.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/soviet-woodstock-the-free-love-movement-of-the-bolsheviks/

    [its intereesting to note the image on this page given that a drawing of it is famous, and most people dont know there is a photo of it]

    When I say “free love” and “sexual liberation” the image that comes to your mind might be one of nude, long-haired beauties with peace signs and flowers painted on their cheeks, rockin out to the tunes of Joan Baez and the Who, while smoking joints, wrestling and engaging in sex acts in the mud.

    right? we think 1968, summer of love, and we ignore people like me who tell you the history of what happened when this was done before, (and how it was done).

    Had the ‘free love’ movement in NEP-era USSR been only a 3-day concert it might have painted a prettier picture in history’s mind. But the real image is one of a confused social experiment gone wrong. The image of “free love” took on the face of Komsomol pimps, student orgies in bleak dorm rooms, impudent randy revolutionary soldiers, Lenin-praising prostitutes, swarms of orphans, and bestial sex-zombies.

    then someone said… look how it turned out, iw ouldnt wish that on our worst enemies… then an exclamation point appeared above their heads, and they convinced american mostly white middle class women, that to do this, would be to make the utoipia they thought woudl happen (but in reality give them the curse… with no cure, since those giving it, wont let them know it was given!!!)

    you see… what you all dont understand is how this all fits into the framework of totalitarianism.

    as i explained before, in order to eradicate the inequality of the people, one has to take control of said people. but to what degree? to EVERY degree as one degree left untouched becomes the new market.

    After the Communist revolution in 1917 in Russia, Soviet “flower children” lived in a perpetual theoretical Woodstock.

    As a result of the Bolshevik revolution, all property was ‘communalized’, women were given equal rights, as well as easy and free access to divorce and abortions.

    and the reasons?

    The concept of ‘privacy’ in all spheres; of land, relationships, body and self was anihiliated, and replaced with The Communal.

    ie… womens sex was to become communal… hows THAT for not telling you where they are taking you and your daughters…

    that is… if property is to be communal, and women were once sexual property, women become the sexual property of the state and so become the sex source for communal needs.

    each according to their needs eh tovarish?

    thats why the daughters are primed to want sex, but not want somethign for it. ie. give it away communally, the way that Meade reported (falsely) that polynesian girls did…

    their idea of common woman is a bonobo pulling 20 men as the local nintendo without batteries!!!!!!!!!!!! (from moses harmon onwards!!!)

    now… do you think if they told women that the purpose of feminism was NOT liberation from some concept the women knew, but liberation from their husbands, family, and from the modesty and such that kept them from being communal sex vessels for the needs of the men…

    thats why women who have a husband and so on are hated… this is supposed to end up as a commune, were everyones needs are met, and some needs are sexual… and so, like men have to back out of business to make it equal for women, they are turning women into what?

    not whores… whores get paid…

    The 1920′s, also known as the NEP(New Economic Policy) era was a time of social extremes and experimentation.

    After the civil war purged the USSR of enemies of the Revolution, the big task of the Bolsheviks was to create ‘real life’ communism, and to shape the every day behaviors of its citizens.

    Bolshevist theorists were dreaming up ‘Woodstock’-like communities, wherein women were free to work and copulate without the chains of wifehood and motherhood.

    A revolutionary nirvana where the citizens’ sole concern would be ‘the whole’ and building communism, where jealousy, greed and selfishness would cease to exist. But as was the case with much of the utopian dreams of communism, the gap between theory and reality was far too wide and the Utopia quickly turned to Dystopia.

    each according to their needs and each according to their abilities..

    women have the ability to have serx with 100 men who have needs.. no? and if you dont think so, then tell me where the ideological boundary is… where is it written anywhere that such inequalities would remain ladies?

    welfare women with 7 kids by 7 men are socialist heroes of the people… they are being used to outbreed the more modest women!!!

    aint it fun, went from love and treasured part of family… to what? well they also neturalized the bad words, like skank, we would use to describe such people, eh? and their children, bastards, we also were denuded of.

    The ‘sex question’ that later torment the Bolshevik theorists first appeared in the works of Marx and Engles.

    The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, expresses disgust for the privy and religiously prudish attitudes of the bourgeois(the middle class/upper class)toward sex.

    He points out sexual licentiousness and perversions, adultery and selfish pursuit of pleasure:

    “Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.”

    most people here are in the position of a german who had not bothered to read mein kampf, and so, did not know what the leaders imagination would take them…

    though you can see the simplistic leftist thing… the deep wish to have equal access to womens sex!!!!!!!!

    how would you do that? how would you get women away from people who taught them to respect themselves and debase them enough that they become a supply of a needed resource, and does NOT want recompense for it in either marriage, or prostitution?
    [they are bribing gay people with access to each other which they already have… but also with access to new people who would be made gay by policy…while denying its possible]

    Marx was especially critical of the institution of marriage and the exploitation of the wife by the husband. He talks about ‘private prostitution’ which he claims is essentially what’s happening in a bourgeois marriage. The bourgeois man views his wife like he views the proletariats, as a ‘mere instrument of production’. The woman is uneducated and completely economically dependent on the man, who is paying her for her ‘services’. If she doesn’t put out, in one way or another, if not in all ways, she is put out on the street.

    ah… so marx saw the marriage a sham… as feminists do… that women were just made sex slaves of one man… when they could, like money, be sex slaves of all men…

    HOW DARE The heterosexual man limit the supply of pudenda in the world by selfishly holding it to his own… if we can jist educate women, give them money from the state, then this exchange woudl break down, and women would become the sex harem slaves of the society..

    he doesnt quite say that, but thats how you figureout who is follower and who is leader.

    leaders see the lie and help anyway…

    Engels proposed a plan to eliminate the exploitation that was going on within a bourgeois marriage. First and foremost a woman has to be freed from the yoke of womanhood and this can be done when “private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children become a public matter. Society takes care of all children equally, irrespective of whether they are born in wedlock or not.” *

    and so THEY INVENTED FEMINISM AS WE KNOW IT… forget any other kind or what it might have been, etc… to think that way, is to think what the democratic party would be without soviet communism and collusion!!!!!!!!

    the thing you learn from history is that the people who are given feminism, whether russians or americans… end up self destructing!!!!!

    they originally gave it to the russian peasants and peoples… but that nearly destroyed them… so they stopped it, as curtis is saying now… and now they are trying desperately to stop what they have started!!!!!!!! (trying to even pay women like germans tried!!!!!!!!!!!)

    once the soviets realized that this was exterminating their peoples… they halted it.

    in all meaninful ways, feminism is not allowed in russia, china, cuba, etc… no socialist state allows it. that is not to say it doesnt hav female leaders and such for the sake of mass control… but it has no such thing as what we have. note how they boo and hate madona, and put pu**t riot in prison (while other members fled). why? they are just doing the western feminism thing..

    now…

    do you think you can prevent a socialist revolution if you refuse to get rid of their largest army?

    This idea is exactly copied almost word for word in the Family Codes of 1918 and 1926 was repeatedly echoed in Lenin’s own teachings. Engels explains that the ‘free love’ movement will be a pleasant consequence of the ‘free women’ movement:

    ”Thus, the anxiety about the ‘consequences’, which is today the most important social factor — both moral and economic — that hinders a girl from giving herself freely to the man she loves disappears. Will this not be cause enough for a gradual rise of more unrestrained sexual intercourse, and along with it, a more lenient public opinion regarding virginal honour and feminine shame?“

    if you read their papers and ideas on it, you find out that all this stuff is about removing from women as a mass, the things that prevent them from having “free love”…

    ie. women control the means of production for sex… and communism seeks to control all means of production..

    so under the guise of liberating one from sexual imprisonment, they free women up to be sex toys…

    the sexualization of women and children all this time is a given from DAY ONE… not an accident, but a feature…

    how much more fun is it today to be a amoral leftist with lots of mony and power among college women who have self trained in stuff whores of babylon would not do (loving fisting anyone), all for one night on the outside chance they can hook him like a trout..

    what do you think the naked girls with the prince were doing?

    back in the days of the french court a fatehr had to send his daughter away to be trained like that. today, most girls have STDs and most with the best to offer, are hookup girls, and players footballs.

14. Many men, and women, just want to have fun. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize that the prerequisite for liberty is individuals capable of self-moderating behavior. Instead, greed or vulnerability, motivates them to exchange liberty for submission with benefits.

    As for abortion, the choice is to have sex and accept responsibility for any and all potential outcomes, including the conception and development of a human life. There are no Republicans or conservatives who desire to take away that choice from women or men.

15. Artfldgr:

    I was not aware of that history. My parents were born in the 40s, so they probably missed participation in that particular experiment. However, my grandparents lived through it, and they never mentioned it. To be fair, they never or rarely talked about Soviet politics. It has only been my father, and mother, who with some prodding from myself, have relented and spoke of their experiences. They weren’t all negative. Perhaps because communism experienced radical reform to approximate a Western outlook on individual dignity by the time they were adults. Still, the Soviet’s neglect of their domestic economy in preference for their global ambitions, and their need to maintain a strict order, was stifling and degrading to the point it motivated people with an awareness to leave.

    In addition to recognizing the consequences of the sexual revolution, I would also suggest the ill-effects which followed from the self-esteem movement, which was a promotion of unearned self-confidence. Both were examples of cultural corruption, from which corruption of individuals and society was inevitable. They were the premise for normalization of involuntary exploitation, devaluation of human life, and, in general, the entitlement mentality. Everyone was promised anything and everything, anytime and all the time. They, like the Soviets, promised outcomes which were simply not possible in a world with finitely accessible resources, with a hope of preserving individual dignity, and with a chance of remaining compatible with the natural order.

    That said, it is necessary to recognize reality, and specifically the situation in America. There is a large minority of “Americans” who are not American. Whether by circumstance or choice, they are not in America to contribute to its development; but, to enjoy the fruits of past labor, for as long as they are available. Then there are people who by circumstance or choice are left vulnerable and incapable of coping with life’s challenges. The first group cannot be appeased. The latter of the second group can similarly not be appeased nor reasoned with. The former of the second group can be rehabilitated, which is why we have social policies to facilitate a correction of their circumstances.

    Anyway, this fall, we will learn just how many Americans there are in America. Ironically, we will also learn if America will fall and fail.

16. Are women more ideological than men? More susceptible to feel goodism of liberalism?

    Just in my anecdotal experience, the answer is no. But then I don’t know a whole lot of single under 40 women. So . . .

    But may even they be learning? May even they be observing and learning the lessons our economy is teaching?

    I think the answer is yes. Slowly, but then it takes a lot to change a mind.

    Look at California. I think it is actually in play and Romney ought to go on the offensive in California and maybe that is what he did at the convention. The message of “it’s okay not to vote for Obama, even if he is a nice guy, the truth is he hasn’t done the job” is just the message for those young, single women getting a real education in the real world.

    The latest field poll shows Obama dropping fast. The only above 50 stat he has is his likeability (55%), which has dropped as well. So one sees the “message” was aimed at allowing Obama’s likeability to remain, but not him. Ryan was aimed at the youth vote (and included, as a bonus it seems, the senior vote as well.) The Convention aimed at the women’s vote. If Obama is challengeable in California, and has to prop up his base on the Left Coast, hysteria will ensue.

    Excerpt:

    With Californians, by a greater than three to one margin, saying the country is now seriously off on
    the wrong track, President Barack Obama’s standing with voters has declined. The current
    proportion approving of his performance (46%) is now only slightly greater than the proportion
    disapproving (44%), a big change from three months ago when Californians approved of the job hewas doing 54% to 37%. In addition, those who are inclined to reelect Obama outnumber those not
    inclined by just five points (49% to 44%).

17. The Field Poll:

    http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2384.pdf

18. Man oh man…if Romney and Ryan win California, you will be able to hear me whoop all the WAY to California.

19. Curtis – Are women more ideological than men? More susceptible to feel goodism of liberalism?

    no… if you take the time to read the histories, you will find that they are not following the ideology because they understand it, quite the contrary…

    what they are doing is being used by their own biology which is denied. that is, we deny that women and men are different and then we pretend they are not, and so pretend that differnces dont exist.

    this HIDES the differences that are exploitable. to reveal them, is to then accept the differences, since we cant accept that, we pretend that they dont exist.

    but they do..

    so what your seeing is not their being ideological, but social. ie. women inanely believe that they are in it together and that women dont lie to women, and so on. oh, ask them up front and they will say otheriwise, thats ego, but watch, and see what words cant hide.

    women are also more homogeneous as a group, so as a whole they tend to like the same things…

    its actually pretty basic stuff..

    one is to create the bothersome other… that is the scapegoat that will sink all your problems and then couch things in terms that would require a strong ego to stand up and accept.

    to read of the early days is to see the process at its begining… i even detailed it all, but NO AMOUNT OF PROOF short of extermination and death camps will be believed.

    once you learn the process, then you can see how it was applied.

    women like safety… they want to be safe… which is why there are so few women firsts but tons of women seconds described as firsts.

    but see.. right there is a tiny example of the social game. side with men, and what you dont count… as your not first and you didnt risk your life (as much) and so on.

    but join or give lip service to the feminsts, and voila, being number 2 is like being number 1… now you can run around trying things you never wanted to do before, and claim your first… first to climb a mountain, first to fly, first to x, first to this…

    but they are mostly lies… as one can find uncelebrated women who did more with less.

    side with the real world, and your a bad mom for dropping your kid off with abusive strangers… under feminism, its the hip thing to do..

    and in a nutshell, you have the secret. the womens magazines and other stuff GIVES THEM PERMISSION TO DO WHATS WRONG!!!!

    and that is much more exciting than being a ‘good girl’,,,

    you want to be naughty and have sex with the neighbor for fun… but you know that wont work out well… and so on… but here comes the feminist rags, the view… and they say… when he cheats its animal evil lust, but when you cheat its love… so go love him.

    its pretty easy
    first deny differences, as you exploit differences to do things selectively to one group and not another!!!!

    then find the other in their lives. all others are annoying… so its easy to show how less annoying and so forth yrou life would be

    evoke replacements.. you can work, the state will help, look at the taxes and loans… etc..

    validate what they do wrong as right..

    oh, and my favorite. do not actually have a stated belief system that is easy to look up, and pretend to support people who any real group cant support. once you get opposites under your umbrella, then as a leader your free to do what you want then point to the group in your midst to justify it.

    however curtis, the main point to understand is that the one withe the more fragile ego… women… (who are told theirs is stronger), would have to admit they been connned.

    but no matter how miserable they are, how bad it gets, of if the state changes to something else. they wont. ie. even the bible says so…

    look to the garden of eden to get a social lesson… the serpent talks in neurolinguistic patterns and is a player of eve.

    but why did the serpent target eve? why not trick both? because eve was more gullible and can be more easily manipulated.. and as such could deliver unto adam what could not be delivered otherwise.

    ie… adam served god, eve served no one but herself, and adam served eve as his living right under god… (he ignores his first wife, lilith – whome feminists love and celebrate… which is quite fitting given her and her baby thing)…

    when you convince a wife or mate of something, and she brings it home, yhou set a spike between them…

    so what then happens is that the husband is stuck between a rock and a hard place… he can prove he is the evil oppressor and save the family, and so on… or he can just go with it, or as is mostly the case, tries to split hairs.

    most wont take the time to build up an image of what it is from the parts and fit the pieces together…

    but it was figured out that once you had nuclear weapons, there was no way to take over a nation state as no one can close the deal.

    that is… the last move which would get the prize woud negate its obtainment…

    so how do you change nuclear states? how do you take over an oppositional nuclear state?

    you need someone on the inside…
    how do you place someone on the inside of the main powerbase? what is the main powerbase?

    stalin said what it was, that the US was like a healthy body..

    so the family and men were the distributed power base of a free country…

    who would rise up from bed and defend it? women? children? pets? no… the free men…

    so, you had to negate the power base of the western man… and since he has nuclear weapons, you cand do it by murdering him and taking his women… (as is what happened after wwii in germany… the unprotected women got what from the soviets?)

    the men had just fought a war against socialism… and the men are not as homogeneous… that is, we vary more, which is why we invent more, and other bad things mroe too… but with men, you cant sweep the elections.

    so the ways was to turn the nation by turning the men, and you turn the men by controlling the women as they controlled men..

    did you really think that men invented the idea of a two car garage and a white picket fence they have to paint and a yard to maintain for themselves? no… 1950s lifestyle was what WOMEN Wanted..

    women get what they want, or men dont mate
    so men were made to make women happy
    so to collapse a nation, you only have to make momma unhappy at the outcome of her own actions, and pin the blame on the men for failing to save them, and voila…

    a social trap that cant be reversed as it requires the lesser to be more than she is..

    its called a double bind, a double block, etc.

    as long as she refuses to place herself in the heirarchy of the real world, she is no the lesser… but if you combine that with blame the other..

    then what you have is the same thign you compain about in the effeminate obama. the refusal to place themselves in the operative heirarchy… never lesser… and all errors and mistakes are someone elses fault.

    ie. you have someone that wont take the blame for their own actions they blame on someone else.

    its a fait accompli as its built on biology…
    she wont admit that she can have family, society and such without he who she blames.
    and he cant be there, as long as she does that

    so… the exterminatino of their chidlren and the demographics will change..

    until when?

    easy.. in about 15 years the minorities will be majorities.. they have already had more babies…

    and its going to be a big hateful majority that will really hate the scapegoated white middle class male… he will be gone, and she will have no choice.

    in fact… in can see the US being an islamic state in 30 years simply by virtue that islam offers the men a place in family.

    when its feminist women vs islamic men who do you think will win? so in essence, she was used to crush her mate… when her mate is gone, then who is she going to blame, attack, take from, justify unfair fairness, etc?

    so its that easy..

    but then again, anyone who takes in messages and lives by them, and does not question them, and gives strangers more fealty than family, the end result is a done deal in a reality in which we have to have families and children to have a tomorrow

    all they had to do was get everyone to hate the concept of woman so much we tried to erase it… (to replace it with what? men… even socialists recognize that if your going to convert society into slave workers, men work more than women… so converting the women to men, is better than converting the men to women… except when trying to take the place down)

    read the stuff from erin pizzey… she describes the early meetings. meetings that today people would barely believe… with heavy set lesbians as the muscle… and threats… love bombing, and more..

    out of all of it there was one question that if it failed woudl have caused all of it to fail.

    would women betray their own mates and children for material reasons?

    if no… then none of it woudl work

    sadly, its yes… make them unhappy, direct their blame from them to someone else, then pay them to hate what they blame…

    and they will betray their own kids, their own men, and so on.

    its why prior to the modern age, harems were the way…

    in fact… Islamic harem solved the problems that women brought to western monarchy.

    and if you study these political ways, you find out that they are very aware of the harm women can cause to their own… (because the enemy other is too far away)

    you name a dynasty of rule in the west with one family for 400 years… dont happen… the women of the court destryed families and such.

    but in islam… the women were put into harem. the ruler was not allowed to be with them more than once… they were not to have more than one child, as every royal child should have a devoted mother and not have to share…

    in this way… the women did not dirty the family line… did not cause court intrigue and such.

    hey… care to know when the caliphate fell and all that ended?

    the big thing eventually fell down once the leader took up western ways and married a harem girl, rather than keep the old way.

    the larger point is that if you look to the history of the oppressed by the people aristocracy, you will find that they want the kind of thing that they lost.

    Montezuma II, who met Cortes, kept 4,000 concubines

    Ashoka, the great emperor of the Mauryan Dynasty in India, kept a harem of around 500 women.

    Moulay Ismail, Alaouite sultan of Morocco from 1672 to 1727, is said to have fathered a total of 525 sons and 342 daughters by 1703 and achieved a 700th son in 1721.[3] He had over 500 concubines.

    Yongle Emperor ordered 2,800 concubines

    just think… if this feminist has her way, wouldnt that turn the rest of society into a harem?

    and woudlnt these changes, remove the owner from the sexual equation? that is, if women own their bodies, and have say as to who they have sex, then who protects that right?

    prior to the changes it was FAMILY…
    now its supposedly the state.

    but if the state cahnges, then what?
    womens status change too. how would they prevent this? appeal to the mates they removed?

    so… its a series of moves like chess..

    you first create a divide between men and women, to destroy family, which educated, and taught, and raised kids according to what they thought was best for them, not what was best for the aristocracy.

    you then fund it… fund science to pretend to confirm it, rewrite history, ignore the fact that cady Stanton was a college girl, and claim they couldn’t go to college… and so on and so on.

    eventually, they will stop having as many babies. this will cause demographics to play next… keep it up… and their numbers will drop, their voting representation will drop, suddenly, they will find themselves with no power… ie. their power was from the promise of the chidren they didnt have. without the children, there is no future for the politiians to have to pay for

    so… now that they didnt have kids, are going to be elderly, have pushed a lot of their mates into not bothering.. their resources are used up in courts and buying binges not dynasty and children… and generally ignore the decline they cant easily percieve.

    eventually, like now… the demographics will flip… they will no longer matter. the state wont fear their children carrying on the family beliefs, they either were in daycare or the family had none. the numbers of white feminist women will drop..

    non feminist welfare moms, spanish tradionatlists, islamics immigrants and such are the group to care about, they WILL have kids, the kids will remember how mom and dad were treated… and so on…

    so tahts all the dems are doing. looking to the demographics to get in good with a minority before its a majority…

    the women, on the other hand are exterminating themselves… their power base, and so on..

    once that is low, then what? ask the men to change it? how? 10k per woman is not changing the situation in russia… they, like these women, have fallen below replacement level.

    for every feminist who has no kids (on purpose or by accident) another of her group has to have 5 to keep a steady population.

    they havent been doing that for 40 years.

    about as long as happend in russia to make it permanent… ie. they have been exterminated and dont know it yet.

    unless they turn around and start having 12 kids per woman in htat group, there is absolutely no way to prevent it.

    in order to get women to self genocide, you only have to tell them its the forward thinking modern way to live… and the future is theirs.

    then they self exterminate…

20. So, is Albright suffering from a failure of imagination?
    A failure of intelligence?
    A failure of auditory or written comprehension?
    A failure of empathy?
    A surfeit of partisan spin, otherwise known as propagandist BS?
    Or perhaps all of the above?

    What if half the population really is certifiably crazy?

    So, maybe it is all of the above which is might be described as the mass existence of a false reality or mass autism or massive failure of science:

    “That being the case, one side is castigating the other for failing to inhabit their “false reality,” or what Voegelin calls a “phantasmagoria of deformed existence.”–Gagdad Bob

    This absolutely great post by Neo:

    http://neoneocon.com/2008/03/26/the-demon-haunted-world-part-ii-autism/

    with an apropos comment from SteveH:

    The success of science is turning out to be its own worst enemy.

    and amplified by Sergey:

    In my experience, general public can not adequately appreciate neither virtues of scientific method nor its inherent limitations, so, at least in Russia, becomes more and more sceptical about it, turning to magical thinking instead of, or, in more educated circles, overestimates its capabilities in realms that are completely out of reach of any science, contemporary or future. Some militant anti-theists like Richard Dawkins or Vitalij Ginsburg only make things worse, by their Nobel prize authority, asserting weird claims on ability of science resolve metaphisical problems. These guys never read Kantian arguments from “Critique of Pure Reason”, or do not understand them.

    And Sergey had a much later comment about half the population being schizophrenic, which comment I could not find.

    What if half the population really is certifiably crazy?

    That kind of sounds like end of the world scenario.

21. Man oh man…if Romney and Ryan win California, you will be able to hear me whoop all the WAY to California.

    I certainly hope California doesn’t go for Romney/Ryan, because my boys still need their father, and I would die of joy.

    But seriously, I see no sign that the liberal infestation here is abating.

22. Progressive liberalism is beginning to look like a pair of chinese handcuffs. The more wrong it is demonstrably proven to be, the more ensnared its followers seem to get.

23. As someone who actually spent 5 interminably long minutes with Ms. Alnotsobright, my professional assessment is she suffers from a lack of vision coupled with an education beyond her intelligence. Simply put, if the data doesn’t fit her preconceived notions the data isn’t relevant.

24. Compliment
    What she does
    Send her roses
    Just because

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwDQBg-7mXI&feature=related

    Ummmm, so good.

    Well,

    There’s a secondary consideration!

    and

    I guess not.

    Gentleman’s perogative.

    Not this time around.

    Thank you.

25. Berkeley, squeezing tight, is the rectum of liberal discharge, and reflects that discharge.

26. Curtis . . .

    Such imagery!!!!

27. Thank you.

    Gettin four exclaims is . . . . well . . . are you sitting forward?

28. I went out for a gift tonight.

    Just for pussies who are afraid to fight.

    All words and no show.

    To give pussies a chance to grow.

    Let me describe to you initiates how easy it is hurt someone, without a gun or a knife. A rock will do. A branch will do. A powerful committment to truth and family will do. Truth does. Donating to the right cause does. It is very easy. Don’t tell me you lack ability!

    It only takes the committment to make the strike to hurt, main and even kill if necessary.

    We must counter what the illiberals attempt with the media war, which is a real war of physical confrontation and much different on the front lines than the pussy pundits making money just like their counterparts.

    Un hunh.

    Not to say they are all the same but some lack courage and skill. They quickly fold and retreat! I don’t think Sowell and Prager and Norris are among them. No way.

    Tonight, I, like you, can make a difference, by daring that broadside, that fake threat, which is much less than what their jump around declaration is. Make them declare what their beliefs are. Hold a wooden stake to their chest while they do it and do not be swayed by their terror or lies. It is up to you, yes you, finally, to destroy lies. Not the government, not the police, not the beauracracy, but you, because the power of government ultimately resides in YOU! So decide. Stop sitting on the fence and being a coward.

    In the Revolutionary War, the battle proved how less than awesome their forces were, so decide!

    Fight! Advance! Confront. You will Win!

29. Is there any woman who has survived an AQGEY Seal’s training?

    No. Not really.

    Why not?

    The endurance required, often where a mission demands months of invisibility, takes the woman past her natural ability.

    Women have an advantage in killing, but it is very narrow; Women make the decision easier than me but cannot make the decision past that point.

    The kill is relatively without choice for women. So, no big deal. What is important is the woman’s ability to concentrate for relatively short periods of time. ‘A man’s ability is more. He’ll stay there forever.

    This has proven a challenge and social societists say it is due to the female’s natural connection to the left side of the brain which controls imagination, hence, the lady begans to image when the man does not.

    Make your own conclusions.

30. I meant to say that “Women make the decision easier than men,” not Women make the decision easier than me.” Obviously, the statement was general and not personal.

    Correction noted.

31. The accusation!

    Why?

    Because we want that Obama should continue.

    Will the majority demand it?

    Yes.

    We support champions against the tide, but which tide are you claiming?

    The tide that makes us “Obamavators”

    Sorry to say but Obama has deceived you. We do not want you anymore.

32. Naming her Albright was half-right.

33. What the hell ever happened to Sergey? He struck me as one of the great unpolished gems of the internet. If could be compelled to write he’d sit along side de Beste and the Belmont Club.

34. The above-linked California Field Poll re Obama’s approval/disapproval numbers is, unfortunately, from September 2011!!

35. Madeline Half-Bright, the self-hating, anti-Israel Jew making a statement about women’s rights… She is not worth listening to. Perhaps she and Helen Thomas can play bingo together sometime.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>