UNCLE DEEDAH ... Put This In Your Pipe and Smoke It.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread


Courtesy of the National Women's History Project

1995 was the 75th anniversary of the woman suffrage movement's great victory, ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing for all American women the right to vote. This victory had been a very long time in coming, and it is fitting that it be recalled with pride and with hope for the future. Women vote and actively participate in all levels of government today because of the woman suffrage movement.

That courageous and persistent political campaign took over 72 years, involved tens of thousands of women and men, and resulted in the enfranchisement of one-half of the citizens of the United States. The campaign was inspired by idealism and grounded in sacrifice. It is of enormous political and social significance - yet it is virtually unacknowledged in the chronicles of American history.

If the suffrage movement had not been so ignored by historians, women like Lucretia Mott, Carrie Chapman Catt and Alice Paul would be as familiar to us as Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, or Martin Luther King, Jr. We would know how women were denied the right to vote despite the lofty words of the Constitution. We would know how women were betrayed after the Civil War, defeated and often cheated in election after election, and how they were forced to fight for their rights against entrenched opposition, with virtually no financial, legal, or political power of their own. If the history of the suffrage movement was better known, we would understand that democracy, for the first 150 years of our nation's existence, excluded more than half of the population. And we would realize that this situation changed only after one of the most remarkable and successful nonviolent efforts the world has ever seen.

Women won the vote. They were not given it or granted it. Women won it as truly as any political campaign is ultimately won or lost. And they won it by the slimmest of margins, which only underscores the difficulty and magnitude of their victories. Take the successful California referendum campaign of 1911, for example. The margin of victory there was just one vote per precinct!

In the House of Representatives, suffrage passed the first time by exactly the number of votes needed, with one supporter being carried in from the hospital and another leaving his wife's deathbed to be there to cast their votes. In the Senate, suffrage passed with just two votes to spare. When the Nineteenth Amendment was sent to the states for ratification, Tennessee, the last state, passed it by a single vote, at the very last minute, during a recount!

Consider this for a moment: Women were a poor and disenfranchised class when they first organized to gain political power in the mid-1800s. Their struggle for the ballot took over 70 years of constant, determined campaigning, yet it did not take a single life, and its success has endured. Compare this with male-led independence movements. Without firing a shot, throwing a rock, or issuing a personal threat, women won for themselves rights that men have launched violent rebellions to achieve. The suffragists' deliberate rejection of violence may be one of the reasons the movement has not received the attention that is lavished on other, more bloody periods of American history. But this neglect should not deceive us; this struggle was waged every bit as seriously as any struggle for equality. We would do well to consider how women were able to do what men have rarely even tried to do, change society in a positive and lasting way without violence and death.

The suffragists' nonviolent approach was a logical strategy since a remarkable number of the movement's prominent leaders, including Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Alice Paul, were Quakers and pacifists. They were committed to peaceful resistance and they were opponents of war and violence. And, they were clear about their goal: not victory over men, but equality with men.

Like the Black civil rights movement, the woman suffrage movement is a record of the experiences of ordinary citizens forced to fight for their own rights against tremendous odds and social inequities. Knowing about suffrage history gives us wonderful models of political leadership, of women organizers and administrators, activists and lobbyists. The movement involved the first women lawyers, doctors and ministers, the first women political candidates, the first officeholders. Suffrage history is an exciting story of achievement, of ingenious strategies and outrageous tactics used to outwit opponents and make the most of limited resources. The suffrage movement included many American women whose talents and abilities would have made them prime candidates for national office had their opportunities been equal. Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Frances Willard, Jane Addams, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Carrie Chapman Catt, Mary Church Terrell, Alice Paul and others proved themselves to be politically important, enormously competent, highly influential and widely respected leaders with few equals among their male contemporaries.

The 72-year-long suffrage movement offers us a unique window on the emergence of women into American political life. Since they were denied the right to participate directly in national politics, this is where most of the intelligent, active, and politically oriented women of the time went. They put their energy into attacking social problems directly and organizing among themselves, locally and nationally, for their own rights.

But despite all of this, the suffrage movement has been routinely and consistently ignored by mainstream historians. And when it has not been ignored it has been substantially misrepresented. The result is our mistaken notion that the suffrage movement was an inconsequential cause, one hardly worthy of our attention, much less our respect. The woman suffrage movement is often treated as a lone curiosity with nothing much to teach us, or worse, as a target for clever academics to critique. Fortunately, there have been some notable exceptions, but this attitude lies at the heart of the problem. But when we take a closer look at the history of the American woman suffrage movement we can see something very different. What we can see is definitely not a dour, old-woman cause benevolently recognized by Congressional gods. We can see a movement of female organizers, leaders, politicians, journalists, visionaries, rabble rousers, and warriors. We can see an active, controversial, passionate movement of the best and the brightest women in America, from all backgrounds, who, as we say today, boldly went where no women had ever gone before.

It is important to remember that men were suffragists, too. The suffrage movement both included men as supporters and depended on the votes that only men could cast. Even when state suffrage measures were lost, the question often received tens of thousands of male votes of approval. And, of course, it was a virtually all-male Senate and House that approved the amendment, along with 36 virtually all-male state legislatures that ratified it. Many courageous men risked ridicule and worse to actively support women's rights. In my opinion, those men are far better role models for us today than many better-known political and military figures in American history.

The story of the woman suffrage movement is a dramatic one, filled with intrigue, dedication, frustration, commitment, failure, and, ultimately a hard-won victory. Carrie Chapman Catt, the last president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, summed up this essential struggle to amend the Constitution with this report:

"To get the word 'male' ... out of the Constitution cost the women of this country fifty-two years of pauseless campaigning.... During that time they were forced to conduct fifty-six campaigns of referenda to male voters; 480 campaigns to get Legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 47 campaigns to get State constitutional conventions to write woman suffrage into state constitutions; 277 campaigns to get State party conventions to include woman suffrage planks; 30 campaigns to get presidential party conventions to adopt woman suffrage planks in party platforms, and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses."

"Millions of dollars were raised, mainly in small sums, and expended with economic care. Hundreds of women gave the accumulated possibilities of an entire lifetime, thousands gave years of their lives, hundreds of thousands gave constant interest and such aid as they could. It was a continuous, seemingly endless, chain of activity. Young suffragists who helped forge the last links of that chain were not born when it began. Old suffragists who forged the first links were dead when it ended."

And, thinking of the impact of the campaign on the women of America, Carrie Chapman Catt added this: "It is doubtful if any man, even among suffrage men, ever realized what the suffrage struggle came to mean to women before the end was allowed in America. How much of time and patience, how much work, energy and aspiration, how much faith, how much hope, how much despair went into it. It leaves its mark on one, such a struggle. It fills the days and it rides the nights. Working, eating, drinking, sleeping, it is there. Not all women in all the states of the Union were in the struggle. There were some women in every state who knew nothing about it. But most women in all the states were at least on the periphery of its effort and interest when they were not in the heart of it. To them all, its success became a monumental thing."

It is clear that the American suffrage movement stands as a lasting affirmation of our country's democratic promise for it re-emphasizes the importance of the most fundamental democratic value, the right to vote. In 1975, prominent suffrage historian Eleanor Flexner drew this analogy:

"Recently there has been a tendency to low-rate the winning of woman suffrage as something less than the great achievement it seemed to those who carried on the struggle. . . Yet full political citizenship was, for women - as for any other group arbitrarily deprived of it - a vital step toward winning full human dignity. [It is] the recognition that women, too, are endowed with the faculty of reason, the power of judgment, the capacity for social responsibility and effective action. As a matter of fact, the opposition to woman suffrage itself bears witness, in a perverse kind of way, to its significance. Nothing unimportant would have been so bitterly resisted. If one thinks of those, White and Black, who laid down their lives only a few years ago in order that southern Black men and women could register to vote... it seems clear that their efforts and sacrifices were no idle exercise in gallantry. ... Without the vote, no social or legal reform was either possible, or lasting."

You do not need to be female, consider yourself a a feminist or even political, to enjoy learning about the suffrage movement. For while the subject is woman suffrage, the larger story is about democracy, and how a powerless class of Americans won concessions and guarantees from those in power without the use of violence. In learning about the suffrage movement, you will find a new view of American history, brimming with new heroes.

Next to George Washington and his cherry tree we can set young Carrie Chapman Catt driving a wagon across the prairie by "dead reckoning" or brave Lucretia Mott trusting her own safety to a member of the mob roused against her. Let us honor Sojourner Truth no less than Patrick Henry, and Alice Paul no less than Woodrow Wilson.

The celebration of the suffrage movement victory holds a particular relevance now, as it has helped lead us as a country and a people to where we are today. It celebrates a substantial milestone on the road to equal rights for women, and it honors those who helped win the day. It puts women back into our national history as active participants. It reminds us of the necessity of progressive leaders, organizers, and visionaries in every local community. It is the origin of the yet-unpassed Equal Rights Amendment. It exposes the misplaced fears and prejudices of those who oppose equal rights for women, and offers a sobering reminder that too many of these same foolish, reactionary attitudes from 100 years ago still exist today. Clearly, the wider goal of women's full equality and freedom has not yet been achieved, but the victorious woman suffrage movement offers a new generation of activists a solid base on which to build for the future.

Harriot Stanton Blatch, daughter of the lifelong suffrage leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton, summarized the movement's legacy best when she wrote these words: "Perhaps some day men will raise a tablet reading in letters of gold: 'All honor to women, the first disenfranchised class in history who unaided by any political party, won enfranchisement by its own effort alone, and achieved the victory without the shedding of a drop of human blood. All honor to the women of the world!'"

Provided by the National Women's History Project.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 08, 2000


Women are only good for 3 things... fucking, cleaning house, and making babies. I don't need the latter 2, so they only serve one purpose for me. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the one thing they ARE good for!

-- conneisseur of pussy (god's.gift@to.man), September 08, 2000.

You wouldn't know pussy if it slapped you upside the head. Don't you have school tomorrow? Shouldn't you be in bed?

-- teens (should@be.supervised), September 08, 2000.

As a matter of fact, I HAVE had pussy slap me upside the head! Pussy comes in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, colors, and fits, and I've had them all (except the fat slobs). Some men are good at pretending, but I tell it like it is... pussy is the only reason we put up with women.

-- connoisseur of pussy (god's.gift@to.men), September 08, 2000.

This is pleasant to wake up to.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 09, 2000.

Maybe a name change for this fora is in order?

May I suggest "The bash all women and measure ourselves little boys Club"?

Using my well-honed analytical abilities I have unraveled all the evidence and UNK is to blame for all this...shame.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 09, 2000.

Thanks Doc, but I don't need approval and validation from "the boys". I am well aware of the power that I possess. "They" may too, but I don't think they'll be admitting to it anytime soon. {big big smirk}=)

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 09, 2000.

Jesus Doc, buy a sense of humor would ya? I was just stirring up a little tempest in a teapot for fun, and I did NOT suggest than women be banned from voting. If you take a moment and look closely at my thread you will see that the women by in large realised that I was just messing with them.

Man, some people's kids...

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

Sarcasm ring a bell Unk?

Frankly many of the responses you did not deserve. You unearth not only the A creature, but a real ugly part of our culture. Replace women with Blacks in your posts and maybe it will become clearer. And NO, I am not one of them guys who have to be PHONY and circle jerk with ya about what is heard when little boys gather as you suggested us boys do.

Women are a blessing and fathoms more together than most dudes.

Should have ripped you a new one as it appears you are unable to even get simple sarcasm. You want to play? Or is game-playing and planting sexist crapola your specialty. You think CPR is bad, don't get me started.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 09, 2000.

Yeah I like to play. Rip away friend, I can take it as well as dish it out, I am not a little girly-man who runs away. I would have very much enjoyed a thread started by women about guys, crotch holding, beltching, farting and how the resulting global warming threatens America.

I took a grain of truth and stretched it to an absurd conclusion, some poeple took it as the ribbing it was, some folks didn't get it. Mebbe I should start another thread:

Blacks, fried chicken, ribs and water melon....myth or fact?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

PS, My wife does not know what to do with me either, normally she just rolls her eyes and walks away.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

Actually Unk, I think most women (on this board) took it in the spirit you stated there; after all, we witnessed your last post on a similar topic.

What bugs me (and I think Doc as well) is the fact that the attitude portrayed in your post (regardless of whether or not you "took it to an absurd conclusion") is latent in a good percentage of the male population. (OK, in the poster "A" it isn't latent; it's OBVIOUS.)

Face it, there are many "men" out there who simply cannot handle and/or deal with "empowered women". Their "egos" are so fragile that they actually feel threatened. How absurd!! But it's there.

Worse, they absolutely cannot refuse to accept the fact that such women have not much need for them any longer, aside from the obvious (and therein may lie the rub). We handle independence just fine, thank you. We have our own jobs, our own lives; many of us raise our families; all without the "benefit" of a "man" around.

Until "male society" accepts the fact that women are equal, this is not going to change. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's only going to get worse. (Witness the "abortion" issue; why is that an issue at all? Why is equal pay for equal jobs an issue at all? Why, in 2000, are we as a society still discussing women's issues? The list goes on...........)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.


Ahem; now that that's out of my system........the following correction should be applied to the above post:

Where it reads "...absolutely cannot refuse to accept the fact that such women...", it SHOULD read "...absolutely refuse to accept the fact that such women...".


-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.


I am well aware that many men feel deeply the way I pretended(?) to feel in that thread. ;-)

I was banking on the fact that I may have enough credibilty to open up a dialog about that subject in a farcical way without too many people taking me dead serious. The subject being not that women are not strong, not they are not wonderful and smart and vibrant, not that they should have their right to vote revoked, or be second class citizens, but that in large the general tendency among women is to vote to the left. I knew I would take some flak, I knew it would cause a small uproar but to hell with it, stuff like that is what keeps this place on it's toes and interesting.

Everyone is soooooo sensitive these days. We are losing our ability to laugh. We are losing our ability to talk about sticky subjects for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Debate is stiffled by the fear of being labeled as one of the non-PC types, and being accused of intolerance.

Me, I am not afraid, I say let us look into those wounds, and see if rubbing in some salt helps it. The only group left in America that it is OK to question and to poke fun seems to be whiteboys. Enough!

Me, I say poke at em all, open em up so they don't fester.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

We would do well to consider how women were able to do what men have rarely even tried to do, change society in a positive and lasting way without violence and death.

So Unc ... what do you think? Powerful essay huh? Ready to admit we have what it takes?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 09, 2000.

Another incorrect generalization: All strong and independent women support the abortion/pro-choice agenda.

Not this one baby.

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 09, 2000.

Yes Debra, that was a powerful essay. And I will NEVER say that women are not strong, never.

Of course Ghandhi did it, but that is besides the point. Mostly what struck me was that women took 72 years to do it, 72 years of slow plodding change that guys would have fought about and changed in 3 to 5 years.

Oooops, now I've done it ;-)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

FWIW, I agree. I'm personally tired of the "PC" nonsense. I think people need to lighten up a bit; some people are too easily offended by everything. Of course there are some subjects that are "off-limits" to humor, but I think most people are adult enough to figure out what those are.

Look at what's happened here recently. I post what I thought was a neat little fable that I feel might just help people look at things in a different perspective. I get accused (basically) of being insensitive to the poor; of "romanticizing poverty"; of having "another bad day".

Then on another thread I describe my experiences with most of the women I've met in this town (all completely true), and I get accused of stereotyping all women.

Jeez, give me a little credit here. I'm not an insensitive lout. Seems that sometimes people see only what they want to see (yep, I'm guilty of this myself too at times -- it's a human thing).

Look, I realize that in this medium it's very difficult to fully know anyone's "meaning". You can't see facial expressions; you can't see body language; you can't hear the inflection in someone's voice. But we've all "known" each other for awhile now; we "know" what we're about (for the most part). Sure, we could be completely pulling each other's leg, but does anyone really buy that? It just seems like a no-win situation sometimes.

I don't always want to discuss the esoteric and the philosophical; yes, I like reading those threads and occasionally joining in, but I swear, there are times when I feel as if they go right over my head. Sometimes I just want to enjoy a serious discussion on a tangible subject. Why do I have to feel as if I'm going to "offend" someone's "sensibilities"?

Just from my experiences here on this board the past couple of weeks, I realize that much debate is stifled due to "political correctness". What some people just don't realize (or maybe don't want to realize) is that simply because one may open up a dialogue on a particular "sensitive" subject does not necessarily mean that that person agrees with the stated opinion. (If that made any sense.)

I don't have any answers. Wish I did. But if I may, we can't always be responsible for how someone else interprets our words. And if we can live with that, then we'll be just fine.

Here's a laugh, while we're on the subject of "stereotypes": it seems I've become one myself the past couple of days. I just bought a new pickup truck and it's a five-speed standard. Nope, I have no idea how to drive a stick-shift. If you could have seen Lesson One yesterday.....well, I just wish someone had filmed it. It was every stupid "women can't drive" stereotype ever dreamed of, all in the span of an hour.

And it was *me*.

I'm looking at it sitting in the driveway right now and I'm terrified to get behind the stupid wheel. How I wish I had learned to do this when I was like 18, but.............

Grumble again.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.


Who is your teacher? I have found that women who learn a stickshift tend to....ack, nevermind my non PC general observation. Sorry.

Anyhow, please have the fella....ooooops, who said the driving teacher is a fella? ACK!!! Sorry, forgive me.

Please have the non sex specific teacher of learning to drive a stickshift try the following method that Unk (non sex specific human) has found helpful in teaching others of a non-sexual specific people to drive a stick shift.

One: Sketch out what a transmission looks like and how the clutch fits in to the over-all picture.

Two: Show the relationship between the clutch and how the clutch pedal engages and dis-engages the engine to the gears. This seems to help in my experience, to show what is going on "down there". Once non sex specific people can visualise what the clutch is and how it relates to the gears and engine speed I find that they can work it better.

I have found that, overall, this method does help in stickshift understanding amongst non sexual specific humans, even though I, a man, drove my first stick shift car home right off the showroom floor without practice, or a teacher's help.

ooops, I've started into it again....sorry.

Love ya. Forgive me

You will get the hang of it, hell, if Unk can teach it, you can get it, no problem at all.


-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

Unk, thanks! The non-sex-specific teacher has the patience of the proverbial saint.

I just can't seem to cut myself a break. I hate the fact that it's difficult to learn something (never had that problem before) and that's what the problem seems to be (stubborn, stubborn woman -- oops, that was another stereotype.....oh, wait a minute; I *am* the stereotype right now.....nevermind).

Fortunately, the non-sex-specific teacher recognizes this; hence, the Saintly Patience.

I was just about to get the key and maybe, just maybe...... (Teacher is expecting me to practice while teacher is away today.)

(Besides, how long can I sit here at the desk doing the "foot motions"?)

(P.S. A female colleague of mine learned the same way you did -- she drove it out of the lot. Wish I had the cahonas for that......)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.

We adapt less as we age, I was young when I did that...everything flows when you are young and groovy. (I have just aged myself)

But time alone behind the wheel is very good. Find a big ol' parking lot and just jerk and surge and stall until ya get the feel of it....hell, guys can do it, whassa problem :-)?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

Patricia, you are learning to drive a stick-shift on your brand-new truck?! YIKES At least perhaps your transmission is covered under warranty? In that case, if ya can't find em, grind em.

Unk... have you been watching Brittney Spears videos? (oops...I did it again) =)

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 09, 2000.

Yeah, Patricia, it's your truck...just go out in a deserted area and work on getting it going until you do it. Some things you just gotta get into and DRIVE, not take a theory course.

-- helen (b@t.f), September 09, 2000.

Fantasy confession time...I really really really want to drive a tank. And fire the big guns. Maybe when I'm a pitiful old lady with a lot of money I can pay my way into one.

-- helen (b@t.z), September 09, 2000.

Me too, Helen. Don't know why (and I seriously hope "cyber freud" doesn't come around and EXPLAIN it either).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.

Patricia -- you, me, thirty years from now...geriatric Thelma and Louise reenactment, only with a tank with a big gun.

-- helen (b@t.b), September 09, 2000.

Of course Ghandhi did it, but that is besides the point. Mostly what struck me was that women took 72 years to do it, 72 years of slow plodding change that guys would have fought about and changed in 3 to 5 years.

Oooops, now I've done it ;-)

Unk -

Gotta love ya. Nice comeback. LOL

I know you were only HALF serious on the other thread. I should have put a smile after telling you to put this in your pipe and smoke it.

Just curious ... on the vote for women's right to vote would you have voted yea or nay? Be honest now and don't worry about being PC.


-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 09, 2000.

Helen, I'm there. (I may be a bit late, but I'll be there.) Do you think they'll make a movie of it?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.

Patricia and Helen,

That's an easy one. A bit of research into the theories of my Great Great Grandfather Sigmund would be most enlightening to you, but since I am quite familiar with his work, I'll be glad to help.

You're desire to drive a tank and "fire the big guns" is the manifestation of the masculine part of your subconscious desires. You want to know what it physically feels like to be a man. In your subconscious realm, the idea of shooting off those "big guns" is equivalent to the desire to possess a penis, and how it would feel to ejaculate with it.

Yes, life is strange. Hope this helps.

-- cyber freud (glad@to.help), September 09, 2000.

Seriously, I would have voted yea. But only if there was some sort of disclaimer about PMS included.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

Why the disclaimer? PMS is what keeps this country on it's toes and interesting.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 09, 2000.


-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 10, 2000.

I am back so let me chime in here.

I tend to take the Chris Rock road on these issues. The problem is all you NI%#ers! Now for anyone not into what is meant there by Chris (an African American Comic), it refers to all dumb-lazy-stupid idiots around without regards to what dam color-sex-age-or hairstyle. Stupidity is an equal opportunity for all willing to give-up seeking the simple joys of being alive. Who would rather live life according to dogma and preconceived notions having little basis in the real world-reality.

I have a problem whenever people are put into categories based on some visual quality only. The enemy is IGNORANCE always, not what somebody maybe birth and genetics.

I understand the intent UNK, I just think it plays to the scumballs like the A creature(and others)who showed as was little surprise. We need to set examples, not play to the simpleminded which is afterall, the problemo. Not being strong and clear, is a form of condoning in my opinion.

Happy Trails

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 10, 2000.

OH Hell!!! I thought this was a partyin' thread : | But it does look like you got your hands full Unk ; )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), September 10, 2000.

Most women should absolutely not be allowed to vote.

On the other hand, neither should most men.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), September 10, 2000.

cyber freud -- I have possessed a penis and felt it ejaculate. With what I got, I can have all the penises I want...

-- helen (b@t.c), September 10, 2000.

Forget Cyber FRAUD. He's a FREAKING moron! I've got something you've NEVER had before ***GUARANTEED***. Are you married?

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.

LMAO !!!!!!... nice comeback Helen, now I know why I've been missing this place :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), September 10, 2000.


Forget Cyber FRAUD. He's a FREAKING moron! I've got something you've NEVER had before ***GUARANTEED***. Are you married? -- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.

Except, of course, that I DID just say it, didn't I? My apologies, Helen, I don't know what came over me. Isn't the plural of penis peni?

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.

Ok, so let's go somewhere with a revolving door...and you can ...er...come or go as you choose.

-- helen (b@t.e), September 10, 2000.

What does it mean when a man is in your bed gasping for breath and calling your name?

You didn't hold the pillow down long enough.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 11, 2000.

All about wives


My wife dresses to kill. She also cooks the same way.-Henny Youngman --------------------

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met. - Rodney Dangerfield --------------------

A good wife always forgives her husband when she's wrong.-Milton Berle --------------------

I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.-George Burns --------------------

I bought my wife a new car. She called and said, "There was water in the carburetor." I asked her , "Where's the car?" She replied, "In the lake."-Henny Youngman --------------------

Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight.-Phyllis Diller --------------------

The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret.-Henny Youngman -------------------

After a quarrel, a wife said to her husband, "You know, I was a fool when I married you." The husband replied, "Yes, dear, but I was in love and didn't notice."

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 11, 2000.

Thanks for the laughs, Maria.

Sick trivia for the day: the pillow method is how most wives are done in, husbands are more likely to be taken out in the kitchen by a knife.

Better behave yourself there, Deedah.

-- flora (***@__._), September 11, 2000.

Mother says the plural of penis is never acknowledged by a lady. I am to apologize for ever bringing it up. The subject, I mean.

-- helen (b@t.g), September 11, 2000.

Hearkening back to an earlier time in this thread, Unc said:

>> The subject being not that women are not strong [...] but that in large the general tendency among women is to vote to the left. <<

Thus irritating the right no end, because the right hasn't figured out that they have no inherent claim to power and no monopoly on reason or morality.

Really, Unc, I think this sense of entitlement displayed by the conservatives in regard to political power is one of their least attractive traits. It is even more ridiculous than the frustration of extreme left revolutionaries in the USA, who can't figure out why the masses don't rise up and turn the wealthiest nation on earth into smoking wreckage.

Women represent half the brains and half the interests in our society. If you find their conclusions inimical to yours, maybe their interests are NOT served by your way of doing things. In which case, they have just as much right to pursue their interests as you do. And when they vote to the left of you, then that is the market at work - the market of ideas.

Use your noodle. If you have an inferior product that the market rejects, don't cry about it - improve the product.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 11, 2000.

I think this sense of entitlement displayed by the conservatives in regard to political power is one of their least attractive traits.

And very very ugly left trait is????

Their sense of entitlement to MY money!

Infants cry and hold their breath to get their way. Older infants do it buy stealing money from hard working Americans at the polls. The fact that there are a lot of older infants who vote in this country does not make the theft any less wrong.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

>> Their sense of entitlement to MY money! <<

I hate to break it to you Unc, but I pay taxes, too. Same goes for all those bleeding heart women out there who are ruining your day by voting (many of whom are single working mothers). I'd go so far as to guess that upwards of 99% of the voting public pays some taxes one way or another.

What makes you so special?

If you want to make a case that government should be run purely by volunteers and paid for purely by donations, go ahead. I don't think you'd get many people to agree, but go ahead.

But after you cross the threshold of saying it is legitimate for a government to levy taxes (and the US Constitution clearly says it is legitimate), then the remaining disagreement is the purely political one of what services we want government to provide. That is decided by voting and the democratic process. You got a gripe with that?

The way it looks to me, you are just whining about the democratic process and pretending that you are being singled out for unfair taxation. The truth is, you probably receive pretty fair value for your tax dollars, in the form of services you receive and the added value of your property.

If you don't believe me, try living in Argentina or Brazil and see how soon you start to gripe about the lack of government services.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 11, 2000.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing, whining about being singled out. I am the only one being taxed. Boo-hoo-hoo. Of course all good liberals know that we are not taxed enough, right Brian? There are so many causes that need funding in order to bandage that bleeding heart, and heal the guilt.

Yes I know that I will be taxed, and I know that it is decided by the democratic process, I am not quite so dull as to not know that. When a liberal says it's good to take my money for things they want to do it is called compassion, but if I have reservations about how much of my money is being taken and say so, it is classified as whining. Cute.

That is typical of the left, folks who complain about being taxed are whiners, not team players, malcontents, cold hearted. That is because the left is so smart that they know what is best for my money, they know far more about what's best for my money than I, tax whiner, do.

I wonder if you are self employed or try to run a small business Brian?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

>> When a liberal says it's good to take my money for things they want to do it is called compassion, but if I have reservations about how much of my money is being taken and say so, it is classified as whining. <<

Not quite.

When a liberal complains that you aren't taxed enough, that is also whining. But, when the liberal goes to the people, builds a coalition strong enough to capture the Congress or the State Legislature, gets a law written, passed and signed, that is called getting things done. Then it isn't just something "a liberal" wants to do, it is what the people want to do. If the people get tired of it, they can change it back. Them's the rules.

BTW, right now it looks like your big dog in this hunt is George W. Bush, so try not to bad-mouth "compassion" too harshly. Dubya is big on it, I hear. [grin]

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 11, 2000.




We do own a small corporation. It's not the entitlements that get me down -- it's the insurance. 100% health insurance for us and our employees is out of sight. Not to mention liability insurance, fire insurance, truck insurance, and the insurance on the contents of the building. I would really welcome a national health program. I expect you will go ballistic over that idea.

-- Pam (Sheep@thistles.the pasture), September 11, 2000.

Who said I was a Bush supporter? Really Brian, you need to pay closer attention.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

I would really welcome a national health program.

Well of course you would dear.


-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

>> Who said I was a Bush supporter? Really Brian, you need to pay closer attention. <<

So, it looks like you really have your work cut out for you, Unc, because anyone else you're likely to agree with is a l-o-n-g way from getting the country behind them. Of course, if you don't really care to change things, my advice is to fold your hands, sit on the sidelines and give us all a good talking to! How satisfying!

Now what were we saying about whining...?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 11, 2000.

Yes Brian I do have my work cut out for me. All of us people who desire more freedom from excessive governmental interference in our lives have a lot of work to do, we are afterall outnumbered by the gimmies, the less mature people who wish to have an institutional daddy take care of them.

That is why I do more than just sit and on the sidelines and "whine" about things, I am active in my local Libertarian Party, and support the national party with my wallet and time. I also try to open dialog with people I know, and here in this forum too.

I am not a right winger, despite my rants about the left, it just so happens that many things I support are also supported by the right. They at least pretends to want to get excessive government out of my life, while the left seems to feel that government is better when it controls more of it. But I have many disagreements with the right as well, (look at some of my previous posts about the drug war, religion in public life, etc.) The right seems to wish to regulate the parts of my life that the left will let slide, and visa-versa. The left tends to support the First Amendment more than the right, the right tends to support the Second Amendment more than the left. And so on and so on, back and forth. Me, I support all of it, I wish to run my life as I choose. So long as I do not hurt others I feel I should be left to my own devices, and be free to make my own choices, and be responsible for my own mistakes.

BTW, that is really a neat trick you have there. When the people in your example build coalitions to get things done, I presume they start with dialog. However, since I speak from a different view, my dialog is "whining". It's really very cute how that works! I wonder if when the southern blacks, who were afterall out numbered at the polls, complained about their lot in life they were "whining" too. Really, I'm curious, is it whining if the complainer is a minority viewpoint, or is it only whining if it's a viewpoint that Brian does not hold?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

Here is an idea that is being talked about Unk. Suppose it was voted in. Which would upset you more ... the parent (usually a woman) who would benefit from it or the parent (usually a man) who creates the problem?

Child Support Assurance

THE IDEA: To reduce poverty among single-parent families, the government would act as a guarantor for child support, ensuring that custodial parents receive a minimum support payment each month. State and local governments would continue to collect and distribute child support payments, as they do now. If support collected from a noncustodial parent were less than the minimum level, the government would subsidize the payment up to the amount of the guaranteed benefit.

THE PROBLEM: Nearly 35 percent of American families headed by a single mother or father live in poverty. This figure is more than double the poverty rate for all families. Furthermore, the number of children living in single-parent familiesand therefore at risk of being or becoming pooris large. More than 25 percent of American children currently live with only one parent, usually a mother. (Because many two-parent families will face divorce, an even higher proportion of all childrenmore than halfis expected to spend time in a single-parent household at some point during childhood.) Children in single-parent families are more likely than their two- parent counterparts to live in poverty, especially those who live with their mothers; nearly 60 percent of children in mother-only families live near or below the poverty line.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 11, 2000.

The problem is that America has waged a war on poverty for 40 years and poverty rates are the same as they were, and in many cases higher than, when we started it.

I know that this will sound a bit cold, but the fact is that I had nothing to do with the plight of that woman, nor her child, yet I am being FORCED to pay for it. Being ASKED to help is 100% different, and if the government did not take HALF of my pay in taxes I would be very likely to support more charities than what I do now.

It would also be much more likely to help that woman if the money that was given to help her was not sucked through a huge government bureaucracy, and siphoned off to the bureaucrats running it before it ends up on her lap. Studies have PROVEN beyond a doubt that private charities do a FAR better job per dollar than any government program does. So the money she needs ends up helping HER, not some nine to five government drone. More bang for the buck!

Also, while on the subject, how about this idea? FORCE the MAN and the WOMAN to be responsible for the children that they bring into this world. Stick the bastard for 100% of his pay to support his kids if need be, but I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN! (wags finger at camera)I know that it is not the kids fault for the mess they find themselves in. I was raised by a single mother, and money was always tight in our house, but she did what she had to do to keeps us fed and clothed, she did not run to Big Brother for help. The generation that she was from understood personal responsibility. This generation does not, as the high crime among youth will attest to.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.


I wanted to address a point you made on another thread. I agree with you 100% that corporate welfare must end. I resent them stealing my hard earned money as much as you do.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.

>> I am active in my local Libertarian Party, and support the national party with my wallet and time. <<

Unc, I could kiss you for that! (And considering your recent posts about women's voting, you may have to settle for me...)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 12, 2000.

get a room! =)

-- cin (cin@=0).cin), September 12, 2000.

Uncle Deedah--

I don't think you would be so patronizing if you were currently paying for 100% of your health insurance.

If you do own a business and have found a reasonably priced health insurer--please let me know the company's name. If you don't own your own business, please don't be so quick to trivialize someone who provides jobs and writes the checks each month.

-- Pam (Sheep@thistles.the pasture), September 12, 2000.

Pam's point about health insurance is a good one...and so is Cin's about you guys getting a room, ugh!

Health costs are skyrocketing because of the American tendency to sue when things go wrong. Medical tests are more sensitive, and medical intervention is more likely to be attempted in cases that would have been given up several years ago. None of this is cheap. The health costs are up, insurance costs are up, and the non-payment costs of the uninsured poor have climbed because the government requires them to receive the same level of treatment as better-off citizens. (Yes, they send cases down the road, we all know that, but there are laws on the books meant to prevent that.)

Insurance and pharmecutical companies are not charities. Hospitals are required by law to function as charities. Hospitals have a right to expect payment from the government, and that payment comes from us. We pay higher taxes and higher insurance rates.

I dunno how to fix it. I try real hard not to get sick.

-- helen (b@t.i), September 12, 2000.


Centuries ago I started a thread about women and the vote. In my over the top rant I said women want the government to give them stuff, like health care. You, I will assume, are a woman, and you say you want government health care. I was trying to be sarcastically humorous with my response to you since you supported my theory. Hence the winking smiley face at the end of my post. No harm intended.

I am self employed, and used to provide my own insurance in it's entirety, but have since signed on to the policy at my wife's work, which still costs me money, but I get a little better coverage for the money I spend.

And yes, I do have a problem believing that a one size fits all government run health plan would be all it's cracked up to be. I am not sure that I am willing to embrace the idea of having my next doctor visit resemble my last visit to the department of motor vehicles. And remember, as an employer your rates would not only cover your employees, but would by it's nature have to also cover the un-insured people who do not work for you, since everyone gets in on the plan whether they are productive or not. You may very well find yourself spending more than you do now.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 12, 2000.

Here's a thought.

Why aren't the obscene prices of health procedures regulated? Why does health care cost so much. Why are doctors allowed to overbook their practice while you wait in their offices for 2 hours past your appt time and then treat you like you should be grateful they could see you at all? Why should one family member's illness put you in debt for the rest of your lives? Why should a two day hospital stay cost an entire months salary...at LEAST?

It's called GREED. If you want to fix the healthcare problems of this country, this is where you should start.

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 13, 2000.

Uncle Deedah--

I was aware of your previous comments about ladies and the left. And nooooo, I don't want to spend even more. I'm old enough and cranky enough to want all those tax dollars I have sent in to be redirected to something I think is important. We all have our priorities.


Try walking out. It worked for me. I'll wait an hour--emergencies do come up. But once I waited 2+ hours and decided never to do it again. They were darn near speachless at the reception desk when I left after an hour the next time. I wasn't angry. I just told them I wouldn't wait more than an hour. I've never had to wait more than 15 min. since then.

-- Pam (Sheep@thistles.the pasture), September 13, 2000.

Cin -- It isn't just greed, although HMO's are businesses run for profit. It's a fight between the government mandate that health care be a charity and the business mandate that it turn a profit for investors.

Do walk out. I sat for over an hour in an examination room when I was pregnant. It was past lunch time. I decided to leave and there was no one to tell. All of the staff had gone to lunch, including the receptionist. I went home, ate lunch, waited a couple of hours, and called the HMO main office to complain.

It turns out that the HMO doctor's office staff finally remembered me and had discovered I was missing. They assumed that I had gone to the bathroom and died or something. It never occurred to them that anyone would walk out. Security had been frantically searching the building. They NEVER made me wait again.

-- helen (b@t.o), September 13, 2000.

Cin, I just needed to jump in here. Everything (well almost everything) is motivated by greed. Charity comes from your heart and it doesn't mix with business (even though Bill Gates has made some enormous contributions). I agree with Helen but want to add that without this "greed", we wouldn't have advances in communications, medical equipment, wonder drugs, and other technologies. Would you rather be given a rag to bite on while the doctor pours alcohol on your wound to "fix" it? Someone has to pay for these medical advances, it's not charity, it doesn't come free.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 13, 2000.

Pam, You Go Girl! Let them account, for themselves......

-- Won't lie down (andwon't@goeasy.com), September 15, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ