Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - rantmeister
16
Well fuck a damn duck! But only if you have permission. I'd say the biologists at Yale University in Connecticut and the University of Sheffield in Britain are themselves a bunch of... quacks. There, I said it!
17
Or, how about...
Todd Goldman is stupid, throw lawsuits at him!
18
We are in agreement here. Sorry isn't good enough. This perfectly illustrates the point.
She should resign or be fired. That's what's called accountability.
19
In her speech on April 20 2007 entitled "Women and Public Leadership" at Rutgers University, Hillary served up a lot of the same old feminist rhetoric proving that she is a radfem to the core. I suffered through much of it on c-span. Some points she made:
- Concerning the "wage gap," she brought up how women are still only paid 77 cents (or whatever the figure is this week) for every dollar men earn, but with a twist. She said she knew there were people saying that women work less hours and have less qualifications that men in some cases, but that "new studies have been done at universities" (didn't name them, I'm guessing from women's studies departments) showing that 20% of the discrepancy cannot be accounted for except by "old fashioned discrimination," and that these are women doing the same work as men.
- Practically in the same breath, she proclaimed that Wimbledon is a sign of progress, since they are finally paying the women's champions the same as men. Apparently, women doing 3/5ths as much work as men is her idea of equal work for equal pay.
- Riding on the wave of media hysteria about Imus, she proclaimed that we cannot tolerate acts of disrespect toward women - leaving us to conclude that disrespect toward men is not only acceptable, but still fashionable.
I would be very surprised if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee. Perhaps she will be grilled on these and other issues in open debate. I don't like any of the candidates of either party, but compared to Hillary in the White House, Giuliani, McCain, and hell - even Gore and Obama are starting to look pretty good to me.
21
Jon Stewart totally ripped Nancy Grace a new one on the latest Daily Show. Be sure to catch one of the re-broadcasts if you can. The fun starts about 10-12 minutes into the show.
I won't give too much away, but his final comment about why she didn't appear on her own show to retract her many bigoted foul statements was that "she was out raping puppies at the time. What? Prove she WASN'T!"
22
Yeah, no charges. The Attorney General was explaining that since it's only a misdemeanor it wouldn't be worth it. That is, another media circus and she gets a slap on the wrist. The families would have to travel back to NC for it and be in the headlines again. So, it sounds like it's time to make false rape accusations a felony.
Even though the AG said that the families want nothing more to do with Mangum, at some point they will have to sue her to prevent the inevitable (ghost written) book deals from allowing her to profit from this crime.
I'm sure Nodong will be disbarred, but he deserves jail time. I'm thinking at least 5 years. Ten would be better, but I doubt he'll serve any time at all. CGM should be in jail for at least 10 years. The accused young men faced up to 30 years, so that would not be excessive. No, her false accusation wasn't a violent crime, but women are very good at causing great harm in passive aggressive ways. Unfortunately, there will only be partial justice here.
23
I've just spent the evening basking in the glow of TV coverage of the official declaration of the Duke players' innocence.
Now, bring on the lawsuits! That is how change occurs in our culture. Institutions such as universities and governments will change policies only when they are sued in a huge way. I hope that includes some of the MSM. These guys could start an awesome lawfirm: Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans.
I noticed that COWARD Nancy Grace had a stand-in deliver a basic summary of the Duke developments before quickly switching to Imus and Anna Nicole topics. It was Nancy Grace who emphatically proclaimed that a gang rape had taken place. Why is she not held to the same standard as Imus? Will someone please fire HER ass?
I enjoyed watching Jesse Jackson on CNN doing a backward tap dance when asked if he still intended to pay for "the accuser's" (CNN is still not naming her) college education. Jackson tried to dodge by claiming she wasn't in school now. Pressed by Anderson Cooper, he absurdly claimed that if the victim had been white, he would have made the same offer. He then refused to apologize on air to the Duke team. My question is, since Jackson's job description is apparently demanding apologies from people who make offensive comments against black people, WHY CAN'T HE APOLOGIZE WHEN IT'S HIS TURN? What a fucking hypocrite. He went on to express pseudo-outrage at the duke team for the "misogynist" act of making a girl strip naked for them. Never mind that she's actually a prostitute. He then stated that attending strip joints is the first step toward domestic violence. Oh really? I must be a very violent person. Still, it was gratifying to see Jackson transform from his usual pompous ass into a squirming idiot.
And where is that wench Wendy Murphy? Anything to say there Wendy? Why do I hear crickets? You can't even say that there was just "insufficient evidence" since they are declared INNOCENT.
Although I am no fan of FOX News (the Republican News Network), in this case they have shown their value. They are now (finally) displaying the name and photo of Mangum. Too bad the Attorney General didn't have the balls to announce charges against her. Does he fear the black community? Or is it the same PC influence that blinded the Duke administration? How often will the claim be repeated that the prosecution of false accusers will discourage real rape victims from reporting crimes? No, it will only discourage false accusers. People's brains have been saturated with this BS.
Now let's hope for some change in laws, and somewhere down the road, people's minds.
24
Feminism certainly exploits the concept of homosexuality for their own benefit. The key word in their jargon is "homophobia," which they use to justify the ideological attack on heterosexual males. This includes attempts to feminize boys as they grow up, active encouragement of homosexuality (as opposed to acceptance) and the promotion of gay parenting as equal or superior to traditional parenting.
The challenging part is for us to accept who choose the gay lifestyle, while protecting boys (and girls) from gay propaganda. As a radical centrist, I think the left and right should come to an agreement to keep both gay and religious propaganda out of public schools. Schools should teach that homosexuality is aberrant behavior that a minority of people engage in. It should not be glorified. Boys should be allowed their rough competitive activities without interference from any heterophobes.
If adults choose a same-sex relationship that is their business. If men is what makes your dick hard, then that's what you have to go with, regardless of how you got that way. The issue to be decided is how to recognize these relationships.
Personally, I believe the terms "gay marriage" and "gay wedding" should be completely dropped. The language of "marriage," "bride," "wedding," "husband," "wife," and even "divorce" should be reserved exclusively for heterosexual unions. There should be new terms for homosexual unions. I would suggest "pairage" to replace "gay marriage," "union" for a male "gay" wedding, and "pairing" for a female "gay" wedding. Lesbian couples would say they are "paired" rather than married. Gay male couples would say they are "unioned." A "gay" divorce would be a "division." I think there will be much more support for recognition of same sex relationships if the terminology is changed in legal documents. I also think there should be one standard for the entire nation, not different definitions per state.
Paired and unioned couples would have most of the same rights as married couples. The only difference I can think of would be for adoptions. Heterosexual married couples should get preference as it is beneficial for children to have influence from parents of both genders. If anyone wants to whine about that, yes I know that homosexual couples can raise children. But then, so can single parents, and I can't go out and adopt a child as a single male. I'm assumed to have no parenting skills, or I must be a child predator. So your tears will fall on my deaf ears.
25
First, a few points. The use of the term "sex offender" is deliberately vague, and not only includes those who prey sexually on children, but also those who have been convicted on minor offenses as the legal definition of "rape" and "sexual assault" continue to be expanded. The hysteria has grown to the point where "sex offenders" are often punished more severely than murderers. Why aren't murderers required to remain 2 miles away from other human beings? No one ever suggests that murderers be required to have "Murderer" writen on their license plates. Neighborhoods are not notified if a murderer moves in. When men are denied access to sex, bizarre behavior will ensue. This is evident in environments like prison and the priesthood, but it can happen anywhere. If sex as a service were legalized, I think we would see a lot less men looking for any type of outlet. We would see a lot less men showing up on the MSNBC "Predator" show. Of course, that's politically unacceptable by both the left and right as either exploitive of women, or immoral. The result is that the male libido continues to be framed as something pathological, when really it is sexual deprivation that produces depravity. Certainly, putting men under bridges is not a solution.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/index.htmlBy John Zarrella and Patrick Oppmann CNN
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- The sparkling blue waters off Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway look as if they were taken from a postcard. But the causeway's only inhabitants see little paradise in their surroundings.
Five men -- all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children -- live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami's least welcome residents.
"I got nowhere I can go!" says sex offender Rene Matamoros, who lives with his dog on the shore where Biscayne Bay meets the causeway.
The Florida Department of Corrections says there are fewer and fewer places in Miami-Dade County where sex offenders can live because the county has some of the strongest restrictions against this kind of criminal in the country.
Florida's solution: house the convicted felons under a bridge that forms one part of the causeway.
The Julia Tuttle Causeway, which links Miami to Miami Beach, offers no running water, no electricity and little protection from nasty weather. It's not an ideal solution, Department of Corrections Officials told CNN, but at least the state knows where the sex offenders are.
Nearly every day a state probation officer makes a predawn visit to the causeway. Those visits are part of the terms of the offenders' probation which mandates that they occupy a residence from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
But what if a sex offender can't find a place to live?
That is increasingly the case, say state officials, after several Florida cities enacted laws that prohibit convicted sexual offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks and other places where children might gather. (Watch one sex offender describe how he was forced to give up an apartment Video)
Bruce Grant of the Florida Department of Corrections said the laws have not only kept sex offenders away from children but forced several to live on the street.
"Because of those restrictions, because there are many places that children congregate, because of 2,500 feet, that's almost half a mile, that's a pretty long way when you are talking about an urban area like Miami, so it isn't surprising that we say we are trying but we don't have a place for these people to live in," Grant said.
For several of the offenders, the causeway is their second experience at homelessness. Some of them lived for months in a lot near downtown Miami until officials learned that the lot bordered a center for sexually abused children.
Trudy Novicki, executive director of Kristi House, said the offenders' presence put the center's children at risk. "It was very troublesome to learn that across the street there are people who are sex offenders that could be a danger to our children," she said.
Keeping the rats off
With nowhere to put these men, the Department of Corrections moved them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. With the roar of cars passing overhead, convicted sex offender Kevin Morales sleeps in a chair to keep the rats off him.
"The rodents come up next to you, you could be sleeping the whole night and they could be nibbling on you," he said.
Morales has been homeless and living under the causeway for about three weeks. He works, has a car and had a rented apartment but was forced to move after the Department of Corrections said a swimming pool in his building put him too close to children.
The convicted felons may not be locked up anymore, but they say it's not much of an improvement.
"Jail is anytime much better than this, than the life than I'm living here now," Morales said. "[In jail] I can sleep better. I get fed three times a day. I can shower anytime that I want to."
Morales said that harsher laws and living conditions for sex offenders may have unintended consequences.
"The tougher they're making these laws unfortunately it's scaring offenders and they're saying, 'You know what, the best thing for me to do is run,'" Morales said.
A Miami Herald investigation two years ago found that 1,800 sex offenders in Florida were unaccounted for after violating probation.
Florida's system for monitoring them needs to be fixed, says state Senator Dave Aronberg, who proposed a bill to increase electronic monitoring and create a uniform statewide limit that would keep them 1,500 feet away from places where children go.
'We need to know where these people are at all times," Aronberg said after CNN invited him to tour the bridge where the sex offenders live. "We need residency restrictions, but just don't have this hodgepodge of every city having something different."
State officials say unless the law changes their hands are tied, and for now the sex offenders will stay where they are: under a bridge in the bay.
26
Well, I believe Eve Ensler has clarified all this for the courts: "If it was rape, then it was good rape."
27
At my supermarket here in Austin, they have little paper tags for 1, 2 or 3 dollars you can tear off and add to your bill. They always used to be for the Salvation Army. In the last few weeks they've changed them to donations for women's heart disease research, because that's the number 1 killer of women. Who cares that heart disease kills more men than women? Who cares that women outlive men by several years? Who cares about men at all? Our culture is still stuck on the idea that concern for women must supercede all concern for men. Bring any of that up and you're an evil oppressor.
28
Apparently, some of us have become so used to seeing men getting hit in the groin to sell products, that mildly anti-male ads like the ping-pong commercial seem acceptable. These ads that ridicule men have been thrown at us for years and years and it's time we speak out. Notice that mothers are rarely ridiculed in ads. And women are certainly NOT sexually assaulted to sell products. Part of the larger goal is to get our culture past the mindset that women are to be respected and men ridiculed. We should challenge the concept that embracing our own denigration somehow helps women. It serves only to validate the idea that men are incompetent and irrelevant.
I have no doubt that these ad agencies think they are doing good in the world. They think that by constantly demeaning men, they elevate women. They think they're "leveling the playing field." They think that women still are oppressed and need to catch up. We can't hinder them with any disrepect. They are willing to ignore the lower self esteem of boys, and that women now make up 58-59% of college enrollment. They ignore the high numer of divorces, most of which are filed by women who view their men with the same contempt as presented in the TV ads. No, not funny.
29
Men need a new type of courage. How is it that we'll walk into bullets if society demands it of us, but we won't stand up for ourselves? We've been so conditioned to defend and protect women that we won't call them on their bullshit on issues like this. The male tennis players should refuse to play more than 3 sets, because that's all they are paid for. Of course, they won't speak up or they would be subjected to extended media hysteria. At least a bullet is quick.
Now, I fully agree that pro athletes are entertainers and in that sense it doesn't matter to me that men are physically stronger and more capable than female athletes. In sports where women maintain their femininity (unlike basketball and some others), I've watching. When I watch Maria Sharapova play, I'm highly entertained - albeit in a way probably unintended by the All England Tennis Club. I like it that women have their own sporting events and we should encourage them to participate. This is one of the few areas I strongly disagree with Dr. Evil about. In fact, I think that calling for the elimination of women's sports in events like the Olympics damages us and generates sympathy for the poor victims of our terrible oppression. If I had a daughter I'd want her to be strong and coordinated, and I'd be happy if she had an interest in sports. That women are not as good as men is not something we need to constantly throw in their faces.
That said, I consider it completely absurd that women (driven by years of feminist influence) consider it discriminatory if female tennis players are paid less for playing fewer sets. Sure, they provide entertainment, but only about 3/5ths as much. Often times less than that. Aren't they capable of playing 5 sets like the men? Of course they are. Female runners wanted the right to participate in marathons because they claimed they had just as much endurance as men. When women demanded their own marathon, they didn't demand a marathon that was 15.7 miles instead of 26.2 miles.
This issue of paying equal amounts to both male and female tennis players is the result of the non-stop onslaught of feminist propaganda. It's part of the "comparable worth" concept that justifies equal payment for lower levels of contribution. To any men who actually buy into that, you may as well have your testes removed cause they're just dead weight you're carrying around.
And to Maria Sharapova who supports equal pay for fewer sets of tennis, yes you are really cute, but in this case you are completely full of bullshit. I am not entertained.
30
Great clip. Normally O'Reilly drives me up the wall, but occasionally he's spot-on. I hope they continue to track down the gang of 88 and rub their smug little noses in it. Apparently not one of them has expressed regret at signing that biased statement.
The true sign of a radical is that facts have no effect on their opinions.