Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

by **havanagilla** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:27 am

My shock was not so much from the americans as such, although that too, after all the crap we were fed in TV, to think these are gods and not humans. But I was shocked by the american Jews I met, and not one, who internalized the ethos so well, to be able to cynically use their influence in and on Israel to their favor and our detriment, using the "ethos" of "all jews are obliged for one another as one" in order to throw sand in the eyes of the dupes. That's part of the ethos, while outwardly, marketting a "hollier than thou" front. That's what I call the American "shadow side" of the great "Liberty" flag. Its the duplicity and the hypocricy and the blatant sense of entitlement to feed on the corpses of others. However, I always remind others, who "love to hate america" that the place opens itself wide to ANYONE wishing to join that "pillaging/self righteous HAPPY and creative club" . which is more than other oligarchies do, usually there's a birth entitlement, race, education something that makes the entrance blocked or filtering so that "only members" are welcome. So, you have a country which is opened to anyone who adpopts the creed - Winners, Lynchers, inc. -- Aside Lilp, the email was in Heb of course, you can ask Avi to translate, nah, just kidding. I don't agree with you, btw, that releasing MC survivors is a "program" to see how others respond. I think the numbers are large, most are eliminated by death, others insanity, others destitute, other are successfully coopted in, (I've seen several), and others are pain in the ass for the "programs". Why should you think you and I are "trial baloons" whereas PW, or SW are ..what? them too ? that's giving the creeps more power than they have. I think, as in all governmental crimes, they are testing the "damage control" and the control of social outrage, not limited to MC, but other atrocities, either committed on citizens or foreigners. While the info is released, gradually, there are social mechanisms to numb, create acceptance, prepare "guilt laundering" slogans, quash all resistance, make everyone accomplices. The usual social and political engineering. In that respect, everyone is a "trial balloon" and a "spectator" in a huge experiment. But that's not limited to MC. There are as much chances to break through denial in that dept as in other dirty black ops, like drug commerce by gov, false flags, torture machinations, war crimes, weapons testing, etc. the works. oh and bribery as well. I think what makes MC unique is the level of cruelty and the sexual elements (sex slavery to such extent and depravity), it is a little "block 10" (the medical block in auschwitz) among other political crimes of our respective CRIMINAL governments.

by **LilyPatToo** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:47 pm

I dunno, havanagilla--I have no way of knowing if all MC survivors are or are not part of a follow-up program that uses us to discredit the idea of MC or not. And I don't know the survivors here well yet, so will not speak for them. But I have these repeating dreams where I'm drugged and tranced-out and the guy I believe is my handler keeps leaning close to me, looking into my eyes and repeatedly telling me how he's a humanitatian and that without his monitoring of me and frequent "tune-ups" I'd be on the street or in an institution or dead. He paints what I'm in now as a "follow-up" program and that my government really does care about what happens to me....blah, blah, blah<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> That's true only insofar as it talks about the tune-ups, but those, I suspect, are more for the Controllers' benefit than they are for mine. And I also suspect that since we're part of a huge, long-running and expensive psy-ops program, there would be some attempt to exploit us right to the end, even if only for sociological data on how well the "snicker factor" campaign is working...ie. monitor some of us as we post online or write and self-publish and see other people's reaction to what we say. And a lot of that can be done with software, I suspect, so it's not even terribly expensive. NEVER underestimate the energy that any bureaucrat will devote to "CYA" stuff<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> And re: Americans -- don't tar us all with the same brush. A few are awake and we do see the evil that's done in our name and we work daily to wake up more of the Herd and to unseat the Bad Guys. But it's an uphill battle that no one I know believes will succeed within our lifetimes. LilyPat

by **havanagilla** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:30 pm

oh, yes, all mc survivors are monitored for obvious reasons, i am not sure though that its from "care" or for "usage", its just the usual damage control. I know from people who were privy to incriminating corruption info in high places, just the usual corruption that they too are monitored for life by the corrupt higher ups or their co-conspirator mafia. Criminals always attempt to maintain control over witnesses, that's not specific to MC victims. Even private crime has that aspect, and certainly family abuse. Its normal for all perps to want to prevent being caught and prosecuted, or even talked about. I don't think the Israeli gov, in my case, has any benevolent inentions for me, or any survivor, however they would want to make it appear that way, as any perp would work their victims psychologically. That's basically the usual pattern of crime. There's nothing emotional or unusual in that, we would like to see people, government etc., as human beings, but they are doing a job, and the gist of it is to keep a secret, secret, whatever it takes to do that, is ok for them, with the aim of leaving as little evidence.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You're talking about 'words'. I'm talking about the concepts behind the words. <hr></blockquote> Not sure where your evidence is, there Roth. I showed that in WORDS they discussed founding a new government. And then they went out and founded one...and wrote the Constitution...lot of the same cats involved. So the words say it...the deeds say it..even educated fleas say it...and yet you want to cling to some mythos about the concepts they really MEANT. I guess there's a Platonic U.S.A. out there somewhere living up to your ideals. Hey, and about that freedom from coercions..I guess you meant freedom from coercion...unless you were a slave. Or freedom from coercion unless you were a Native american. Our Founding Fathers found slavery and forced removal of Indians to be just dandy. That's not news, I realize, but I add it to the evidence about what they really "meant". So we have their words, we have their deeds, we have a system of government they created...and THEN, that same system is the one YOU are condemning as coercive. So you can talk about what you think they meant to do...but all we have to go by are what they said and what they did. Now, back onto the topic. Here's a caller's comment on, of all things, the sports talk show hosted by Jim Rome. He was alluding to Gibson's receding hairline...kinda mean but it was funny. "Yeah, Mel. There is a Zionist plot. The Jews are putting Nair in your Rogaine." Made my day.

by **rothbardian** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:54 am

DreamsEnd-- Don't know where your confusion lies. The Declaration allows for a removal of tyrannical government and a reorganizing of the community in terms of non-coercion and non-tyranny. That IS anarcho-capitalism. That IS Libertarianism. That IS anarchy, as defined by classical Libertarianism. Don't know what else to tell you. Libertarianism loves those statements, embraces those statements and find those statements to be a 'spot on' description of everything liberty and Libertarianism is about. And I certainly don't answer for slavery or the native Americans. I wasn't there when those things you described were happening. And I give no blanket endorsement to the Founders. In that regard, there may be a little misunderstanding here-- Libertarians (myself included) are not scrambling to show that our philosophy conforms to the Declaration of Independence. It's the other way around. I believe in the self-evident principles of freedom REGARDLESS of any 'declaration' that may come along. It's just that the Declaration of Independence has had the good fortune and the good sense to rise to the level of liberty. It certainly is convenient to have a popular reference such as the Declaration...but it is the Declaration that matches the principles of freedom. Not the other way around. Whether the system was bad from the beginning, and meant to be so (you referred to slavery and native Americans)... ...or became bad (as with Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and LBJ/Nixon who, as PTB dupes, became accessories to the murders of millions)... ...one thing is for sure--it certainly is bad now. With widespread pedophilia, mass murder, drug-smuggling and 'mind control' slavery perpetrated against thousands of American citizens...how can it not be time to invoke the Declaration? With the world on the brink of a totalitarian dark age, how can it not be time to abolish a tyrannical government? I'm with the Revolutionaries-- anything over a 1% tax, and it's time to pull the plug.

by **rothbardian** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:37 am

By the way, don't let me keep anybody from discussing Mel Gibson and some of the other topics that have come up. I am very much interested in the whole Jewish/Israeli/ Christian/anti-semitism thing. As I said before, the PTB have advanced under a false Jewish front causing an anti-semitic backlash...and they also advance under a false Christian front, causing a backlash there also. There's no doubt in my mind that Bush is a cynical and thouroughly counterfeit 'Christian'. And I've tried to point out other counterfeits in the past. In fact, whatever happened to that thread about 'Christian pop singer Michael W. Smith? Can't find it anywhere. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/7/06 5:41 am

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:57 pm

The Founding Fathers DID NOT revolt against a 1% tax, they revolted against "taxation without representation". James Otis (February 5, 1725 – May 23, 1783) was a lawyer in colonial Massachusetts who was an early advocate of the political views that led to the American Revolution. The phrase "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" is usually attributed to him, along with the phrases "If we are not represented, we are slaves" and "A man's house is his castle". As to your Anarchist Founding Father fairy tale, I suggest that you read the Federalist Papers, which shows the true attitude of our Founding Fathers was simply to establish their own autonomy, and that they should then direct the affairs of men. They were rich landowners who wanted autonomy over their money, land and slaves. They were NOT anarchs who wanted to overthrow the King; they were statists who wanted their own kingdom. Also, your revisionist version of Anarchist Libertarianism, like most of your argument, does not agree with the actual historical facts. Read this and see the truth. <a href="http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_3.htm">www.anu.edu.au/polsci/mar.../sfb_3.htm</a> THE MYTH OF ANARCHIST LIBERTARIANISM ANOTHER RADICAL doctrine developed during the period of the 1830s-- anarchism. Anarchism is often considered to represent current of radical thought that is truly democratic and libertarian. It is hailed in some quarters as the only true political philosophy freedom. The reality is quite different. From its inception anarchism has been a profoundly anti-democratic doctrine. Indeed the two most important founders of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Michael Bakunin, developed theories that were elitist and authoritarian to the core. While later anarchists may have abandoned some of the excesses' of their founding fathers their philosophy remains hostile to ideas of mass democracy and workers' power. It is certainly true that anarchism developed in opposition to the growth of capitalist society. What's more, anarchist hostility to capitalism centered on defence of the liberty of the individual. But the liberty defended by the anarchists was not the freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society. Rather, anarchism defended the freedom of the small property owner--the shopkeeper, artisan and tradesman--against the encroachments of large-scale capitalist enterprise. Anarchism represented the anguished cry of the small property owner against the inevitable advance of capitalism. For that reason, it glorified values from the past: individual property, the patriarchal family, racism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, widely proclaimed 'the father of anarchism', is a case in point. A printer by vocation, Proudhon strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France. But Proudhon's opposition to capitalism was largely backward-looking in character. He did not look forward to a new society founded upon communal property which would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution. Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working class, but for the disappearing petit bourgeoisie of craftsmen, small traders and rich peasants. In fact Proudhon so feared the organised power of the developing working class that he went so far as to oppose trade unions and support police strike-breaking. Worst still, he violently opposed democracy. 'All this democracy disgusts me', he wrote. And his notes for an ideal society involved the suppression of elections, of a free press, and of public meetings of more than 20 people. He looked forward to a 'general inquisition' and the condemnation of 'several million people' to forced labour. The masses, he wrote are 'only savages ... whom it is our duty to civilise, and without making them our sovereign.' Consistent with this outlook, Proudhon supported nearly every backward- looking cause available to him. He was a rabid racist reserving his greatest hatred for Jews, whose 'extermination' he advocated. He opposed emancipation for the American blacks and backed the cause of the southern slave owners during the American Civil War. Likewise, he denounced women's liberation, writing that 'For woman liberty and well-being lie solely in marriage, in motherhood, in domestic duties ...'  George Lichtheim, in his book The Origins of Socialism, has written quite accurately that  It is difficult to name a single author, alive or dead, of whom Proudhon ever found anything good to say. His other crochets included antisemitism, Anglophobia, tolerance for slavery (he publicly sided with the South during the American civil war), dislike of Germans, Italians, Poles--indeed of all non-French nationalities--and a firmly patriarchal view of family life ... After this it comes as no surprise that he believed in inherent inequalities among the races or that he regarded women as inferior beings. The Russian 'father of anarchism', Michael Bakunin, shared most of Proudhon's views. Indeed, Bakunin was fond of claiming to his fellow anarchists that 'Proudhon is the master of us all'. Bakunin shared his master's anti-semitism--he was convinced that the Jews had constructed an international conspiracy that included Karl Marx and the wealthy Rothschild family. He was a Great Russian chauvinist convinced that the Russians were ordained to lead humanity into anarchist utopia. And what that utopia might have looked like is hinted at by Bakunin's organisational methods, which were overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian. As one historian has written of Bakunin, The International Brotherhood he founded in Naples in 1865-66 was as conspiratorial and dictatorial as he could make it, for Bakunin's libertarianism stopped short of the notion of permitting anyone to contradict him. The Brotherhood was conceived on the Masonic model, with elaborate rituals, a hierarchy, and a self-appointed directory consisting of Bakunin and a few associates. These characteristics of Bakunin and Proudhon were not mere quirks of personality. Their elitism, authoritarianism and support for backward- looking and narrow-minded causes are rooted in the very nature of anarchist doctrine. Originating in the revolt of small property owners against the centralising and collectivising trends in capitalist development (the tendency to concentrate production in fewer and fewer large workplaces), anarchism has always been rooted in a hostility to democratic and collectivist practices. The early anarchists feared the organised power of the modern working class. To this day, most anarchists defend the 'liberty' of the private individual against the democratically made decisions of collective groups. Anarchist oppose even the most democratic forms of collective organisation of social life. As the Canadian anarchist writer George Woodcock explains: 'Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it ... Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics ...' That is to say, anarchists reject any decision-making process in which the majority of people democratically determine the policies they will support.  There is, however, another trend which is sometimes associated with anarchism. This is syndicalism. The syndicalist outlook does believe in collective working class action to change society. Syndicalists look to trade union action--such as general strikes--to overthrow capitalism. Although some syndicalist viewpoints share a superficial similarity with anarchism --particularly with its hostility to politics and political action--syndicalism is not truly a form of anarchism. By accepting the need for mass, collective action and decision-making, syndicalism is much superior to classical anarchism. However, by rejecting the idea of working class political action, syndicalism has never been able to give real direction to attempts by workers to change society.

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:11 pm

I forgot to add this little tidbit about the aforementioned James Otis and writs of assistance. In 1760, Otis received a prestigious appointment as Advocate General of the Admiralty Court. He promptly resigned, however, when expected to argue in favor of the “writs of assistance.” These writs would enable British authorities to enter any colonist’s home with no advance notice, no probable cause and no reason given. In a dramatic turnabout following his resignation, Otis instead represented pro bono the colonial merchants who were challenging the legality of the writs before the Superior Court, the predecessor of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. James Otis considered himself a loyal British subject. Yet in February 1761, he argued so brilliantly against the writs of assistance in a nearly five-hour oration before a packed audience in the Old State House that John Adams claimed: “Every man of a crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did ready to up arms against the writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of the opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child of Independence was born.” The colonists were fighting for independence from tyranny, not anarchy.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:13 am

It was actually a one penny tax that I had heard about. I knew it was "one" something. The Stamp Act imposed a one penny tax on a wide variety of documents. The Tea Act imposed a three penny tax (per pound) on tea. Those two taxes were the major catalysts in sparking the war. So the fighting DIDin fact, break out over these minuscule taxes. I didn't say it didn't include the issue of "taxation without representation". You're searching for contradiction where none exists. By way of tangent-- there is no such thing in the real world as "taxation WITH representation". All coercive centralized bureaucracies are looking out only for their own benefit in the long run. It is incredibly and tragically pollyannish to think otherwise. In fact , the world as we know it is about to end, and a grim, evil dark age of totalitarianism is about to begin...precisely because "taxation WITH representation" is a complete myth, a cynical scam. The evil power elite of the Western world have taken our tax money and not only NOT represented us...they have used the monies to build us a huge worldwide dungeon. But hang on. Howard Dean's a-comin' (or someone similar?). He's going to rescue us from this massive worldwide power elite, with it's worldwide drug-smuggling, pedophilia slave rings and it's thousand-tentacled organizational structure, and thousands of heavily blackmailed and mind-controlled personnel in key positions throughout the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, Congress and the White House.. Go get'em, Howard! (Don't take the bubble off the top of your limousine.) And ignore those 'worry wart' Founders with their 'hair trigger' government-abolishing ideas. About Bakunin Nemo, you can 'cut and paste' entire books (if you'd like) quoting descriptions of your favorite anarchists. Classical anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians do not answer for your hand-picked "anarchists" any more than Protestants answer for the murdering Protestants in Northern Ireland, any more than socialist-leaning liberals (like yourself?) answer for the mass murder of Stalin and Mao, anymore than 'average Joe' Christians answer for the psychopaths who perpetrated the murderous "Crusades" centuries ago. But...if you want to continue to cut-n-paste acres of your favorite mainstream media propaganda, that's your prerogative. Meanwhile, your references to this Bakunin guy might have you wading into 'deep politics' a little deeper than you may have intended. Let's just say, for openers, that Bakunin believed in "anarchy" about as sincerely as Bush believes in Christianity. IN FACT, your own choice of quotes indicates exactly that. So it seems to raise the question of just how much 'fudging' you are willing to do in your argument with Libertarianism...such that you select a guy (Bakunin) to represent "anarchy" who, by your own sources WASN'T an anarchist, but rather a fraud. You're giving me ideas, Nemo. I'm going to carefully select some quotes from 'white supremacist' David Duke that reflect his (at least partial) support for many of the neocon Trotskyite socialist ideas. THEN, I'm going to turn around and claim that since he apparently espouses a number of socialist views...socialist liberalism must now answer for this...socialist-liberalism is shamed and besmirched. Or...maybe I shouldn't do that. Bakunin was quite the lovely chap. A fire-breathing Satanist, among other things. And very awkwardly, he was a close associate of Karl Marx. He partnered with Marx at the First International. (An odd couple indeed.) A little bit like George Bush attending a Billy Graham crusade. And his "denunciation" of Marx is pretty entertaining stuff. It's along the lines of Bush Sr. and Clinton being apparent political 'enemies' at each other's throats, but behind the scenes they were big drug-smuggling buddies. Here are a couple of quotes from Bakunin's book "God and the State" -- In one passage he expressed support for a "satanic revolt against divine authority" and later on in the book he states "Satan is the eternal rebel, the first free thinker and the emancipator of worlds". ------- Anyway, as I said to DE, you guys can have as many 'words' and 'terms' as you like because... ...the FACT OF THE MATTER is that anarcho-capitalist/Libertarians love, love, love the Declaration of Independence and it's advisory to completely wipe out a tyrannical government, and to reorganize our community in the aftermath ANY WAY WE SEE FIT, just so as to truly secure our freedom. If you want to insist that this makes me (and all these Libertarian academians/scholars/intellects over at LewRockwell and Mises.org) something other than truly Libertarian, and that this actually makes me out to be a...uh..."Declaration-of-Freedomian"...then give me any label you want. You can have the labels, the tags, the terms, the words and all the quotes from Bakunin you can stand. I just want the freedom and I want the liberty. I want to live in a world where I don't need to worry I'll be taken to a FEMA prison camp because I posted at this discussion board. And I want to live in a world where there isn't a Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Kerry or Howard Dean coming to my door saying something like this: [This is actually an imaginary Howard Dean quote] "Look, I'm really sorry about this but...we need to coercively remove your son from your home, so that we can take him overseas to have his head blown off in another PTB-contrived war." "I know I promised to the high heavens that I wouldn't get us embroiled in any wars. But...two of my political heroes (Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt) also made those false promises...so I'm in 'good' company." "Here's my problem-- I was too stupid or intimidated to see through the 9/11 scam. I never had the first clue that is was PTB-originated. Therefore, when the PTB recently created this "9/11 Part Two" [Again, I'm time-travelling just a bit] which dwarfed the first 9/11, I stupidly bought into that also." "So now it's obvious to political dunces like me that we need to go ahead (as much as I hate to) with this great big bloody war...and we need your son. Thanks, man." "Oh, one more thing...could you be a 'dear' and have you, your wife and the rest of your family just quick climb into a prison train car for a trip to the FEMA prison camps? There was that whole 'discussion board' problem of yours...and after all, Roosevelt (my hero) resorted to the same thing. It's all for your own good. Thanks again."

by **Dreams End** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:15 am

Roth, I guess my confusion lies in the definition of anarchism. I was under the impression it meant that there was no government. The founders said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.<hr></blockquote> They advocated replacing one form of government with another..not abolishing it. And, in fact, the Federalist papers make very clear that the perceived role of this new government was to protect the propertied against the unwashed masses. Federalist Paper number 10 for example, says that we must avoid the evil of "factions", and to do this, we need a Republic, not a Democracy, to stem the power of the individual states. Here's a bit on how "property" contributes to this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. <hr></blockquote> F.P. 54 says we ought to give states voting power based not on population, but on wealth. Which, by the way, is considered fair because that's the way taxes are assessed. Maybe you don't consider James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay among the founding fathers? Since Madison was important in creating the Constitution, I'd say that he reflects very well the thinking behind the Constitution...which reflects, in turn, the thinking of the Founding Fathers.....

by **greencrow0** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:23 am

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gct84oE5DEE">www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gct84oE5DEE</a> Jackie Mason's stock just went waaaaaaay up. With me, at least. GC

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I want to live in a world where I don't need to worry I'll be taken to a FEMA prison camp because I posted at this discussion board.<hr></blockquote> Thats something I don't worry about every day. Fuck em. Even if it comes to that I ain't going. They can send my corpse if they can get their hands on it. Personally in todays climate i think advocating REAL socialism is about as radical as you can get. Roth your biggest blind spot is that you categorise ideas that to me and most of my peers are just plain decency, as liberalism or socialism. Like who cares if those two blokes down the road want to spend all day banging each other - or don't. Thats none of my business, and bloody hell they even came to our wedding with gifts, yet they can't get married, or even have a civil union that gives them the same legal rights as any "De Facto" couple without kids re who gets to do what with their assets. Now personally I think marriage is a social structure designed to be the basis of society in that it creates a structure to raiuse and prepare children for adulthood. And I don't think same sex couples provide that. Two same sex couples one male and one female working together probably could tho. And certainly wouldn't do a worse job than some of the hetro disasters that pass for families. But I don't think 2 people who love each other should be denied the same economic legal protection that my wife and I have. No way thats just not on. Unnatural or not (and I wouldn't say it is) is not my place to judge. If two people find love good. We should support that in our society where ever and when ever we can. I think. If thats socialist liberalism that destroys the world we live in, then someone is feeding you bullshit to get you think that. That bullshit is probably as big a threat to freedom as anything today. That meme war that has made concepts designed around "communities" and "social" groups, into some unthinking Satanic evil. That is the subtlest mind control that I have come across yet. And both Roth and Johnny N. Isn't the communtiy structure that the Founders of the US set up in many ways a reflection of the anarchism espoused by those that actually wanted to protect small landholders from the power that people/institutions with humungous land holdings had. Wasn't Sam Adams the one that stopped the constitution being accepted WITHOUT a Bill of Rights. If it wasn't for him and his fellow Masse chews us radicals the constitution of the US would be even less important. As I said (or maybe didn't) I used to be an anarchist. Now I just want to be left alone in the bush.

by **LilyPatToo** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:11 am

Joe, at our neighborhood block party last week, I met two lesbian couples from down the street for the first time. They had kids who were just as bright, happy and sassy as the ones from the more conventional households. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, single sex families (2 women or 2 men) with kids are more common than in other places and I've known a lot of them. Invariably, the kids were longed-for and are now treasured. They tend to grow up in homes with older parents, where education and the arts are valued and where political education begins early, along with all the other values with which the rest of us were raised. So I differ with you on that. Parenting is a calling that has nothing to do with sexual orientation and the luckiest kids grow up in households where there's love, nurturing and respect in abundance. Since the folks I've known who were homosexual and had kids also had lots of "uncles" and "aunties" of the opposite sex from their parents in their lives, I doubt if they'll have problems with sexual identification, either. Someday, I hope the world at large is a friendly place for gay couples and their offspring, but right now the Bay Area is home to many of them and they make great citizens, IMHO--very, very concerned with human rights and with teaching their kids about them too. Only a few years ago, their families couldn't have existed openly at all and the kids would have been tormented at school, so the parents have no problem communicating to their little ones about how important tolerance is. LilyPat

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:02 am

I got no problems with gay people raising kids. The only thing I wonder about is the raising them in an enviroment where there is only one gender of either side, and for these reasons, well this one. How do you really learn about the opposite sex to the one your parents are. And I mean really learn about their behaviour by watching them in their good and bad moments, off their guard for most of their life. I guess in some ways you wouldn't learn all the worst of the other gender, but thats my worry, being raised by lesbians means you are not exposed to the dodgy side of men in your every day life, and you don't learn how to deal with it - maybe? (And I DON'T mean that if you are raised by Lesbians you will be raised to hate men). But lets face it the argument that gay couples don't deserve the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples is a crock of shit. Its more of that divide and conquer rubbish that tptb use to stop us from thinking for ourselves and seeing each other as people. And raising a family is one of those responsibilities. To be honest all the long term gay couples I know, (2 lesbian, 1 gay men) would make excellent parents. Just cos they are cool people with good hearts and a bit of decency about them. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Parenting is a calling that has nothing to do with sexual orientation and the luckiest kids grow up in households where there's love, nurturing and respect in abundance. Since the folks I've known who were homosexual and had kids also had lots of "uncles" and "aunties" of the opposite sex from their parents in their lives, I doubt if they'll have problems with sexual identification, either.<hr></blockquote> Yeah that wasn't what I was really getting at. I would agree with you on the issue, except for the point I raised earlier. One of the lesbian couples I mentioned, for example, if they had a boy to raise I doubt he would have any issues about anything. And he would spend time with males, including some pretty intimidating ones. They would make sure of it. What really got me thinking about this was house sharing in Melbourne. I lived with 2 other guys for years in various houses. There were times we had it down, cooking meals every day, cleaning and all that, functioned a bit like a family. other times we couldn't get it together to eat a meal together for months... but for the whole time the way we acted was different to how we would have acted with women or kids around for a while. But when one or other of us was in a long term relationship we'd be on our best behaviour for them for a month or two, then we'd drop back into our normal habits. But still there were things i'd always try and do (like not piss all over the toilet seat and leave it down), that if there was no females in the house at all I wouldn't bother with. Just things I learned off me mum that I only learned through having to be around her for years, but all chicks seem to have in common. Its a trivial thing really compared to life today and the differences that same sex parents have, compared to the similarities are tiny. I mean if you wanted me (not a parent BTW) to start listing all the things I think straight parents do wrong, then compare the two the straight parents would have a lot more issues to deal with. For example the seemingly senseless and unconsidered way that most couples fall into gender roles prescribed by their society. The way they live their life assuming a certain future for their kids then spin out when things go differently to their fantasies. That is something that I think gay parents would avoid, simply cos every gay person i have talked to about their coming out has said how much it made them see and understand the world from their parents POV even if they disagreed. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>IMHO--very, very concerned with human rights and with teaching their kids about them too. Only a few years ago, their families couldn't have existed openly at all and the kids would have been tormented at school, so the parents have no problem communicating to their little ones about how important tolerance is.<hr></blockquote> Yeah I totally agree with this. In that sense gay parents could conduct parenting classes, and probably should.

by **ParisianAttackMonkey** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:06 am

At the end of the day I think it becomes crystal clear - you just can't trust rhetoric.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Whether it's one of the "founding fathers" speaking, an anarchist or whomever. It's perfectly fine in the regal Jeffersonian turn-of-phrase to advocate freedom, democracy, and a constant rebellion against tyrany, however that may be defined, but watch out for Tom's blind spots. Because he kind of had this problem with different races who he felt entitled either to their labor or in the Indian's case, their lives. In war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy them all, he said. George Washington, AKA "The Town Destroyer" felt the same way. In other words once Jefferson's rhetoric fades away to reality we have some harsh truths to face. He knew that the republic he hoped to help create required very undemocratic practices, read: forced slavery, to survive. And the Indians had to be wiped out as well or else large sections of the potential work force might end up running off to live like they did. That's a freedom that we will never know. Jefferson knew as many of his more business-like contemporaries did that only by destroying the average man or women's options would they stay in their "civilized" version of reality. The one that for the majority was awash with unhappiness, poverty, lack of community, and true freedom. Who would choose to stay a slave or work a back-breaking job for a lifetime if they had a choice? It's only once most of the possible alternatives were destroyed in America that slavery was abolished. Now we're really stuck. By the way, most of the anarchists I know concern themselves primarily with trying to live sustainably while preaching that human life is more important than property. Pretty controversial, eh?

Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Re: Memo to Webster's Dictionary

Re: Memo to Webster's Dictionary

Re: Memo to Webster's Dictionary

Roth's fantasy...continued

Trying to clarify.

Re: Trying to clarify.

Roth, please read a history book.

Other things the colonists fought against

More time travel...with Howard Dean

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Jackie Mason on Mel Gibson

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Re: More time travel...with Howard Dean

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Who is online