From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:53:17 GMT

In article <168BA7335.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.215827.17547@csus.edu>
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
>>
>>>>USING POLITICS TO BUST CLARENCE THOMAS FOR ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL
>>>>HARASSMENT IS OKAY POLITICS.
>>>>USING POLITICS TO BUST BOB PACKWOOD FOR SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF
>>>>SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS BAD POLITICS.
>>>
>>>Repeat what?  Something you said or you claimed I said?
>>
>>It was on ABC News this morning: the media blew up all the comments
>>people had about people wanting Packwood removed. But of course I listen
>>to the latest news on the radio.
>>
>>These are the people without whom you'd never have seen Clinton get into
>>office, remember?
> 
>So what!
>If people are so easily fooled,
>this just proves the limitations of our so-called democracy.

No, it proves that you could not have gotten your precious two-faced
candidate into office without the help of those wacko's. 

 
>>Hey, dude, I'm sure you haven't heard all the male-bashing b.s. coming
>>out of Tv commercials, not to mention songs - one of which Rush recorded
>>for his Feminist Update.
> 
>And because you're a male, you feel that men are the great leaders and
>the superior sex?  If not, why are you so sensitive to male-bashing?  Does
>it hurt you personally?  Do you even understand why male-bashing exists
>in today's USA?  In order for an oppressed group to get any equal
>recognition, their members are going to have to step on some feet, like
>yours, or else they will always be second-class members of society.

That's the problem with you people. They have to step on some toes to
get equality - why not just step on the GUILTY toes and leave the rest
of us honest non-womanizing men ALONE? 

I know logic and reasoning was one gift you were probably not endowed
with, but I'll labor your brain and waste bandwidth anyway on a little
logic question: 

1- Sexism means bashing someone because of their gender or attaching
   stereotypes to a gender. 
2- Militant feminists and even mainstream TV commercials and shows, do
   this to the male gender every day. 
3- Militant anti-male shirt buttons like "the more I know men the more
   I like my cat" and other stuff, are common place. 
4- Sexism has been defined under discrimination. 
5- Discrimination has been recognized as wrong.
6- Male-bashing is sexism. 
7- Male bashing is as wrong as woman-bashing. 

Whoops. I almost forgot. I apologize. The reason why it is logically
correct for women to bash men is because:

8- This is the Year of the Woman. 

 
>>No. How about I go to your city council (preferrably in Carmel) and they
>>tell me I can't remove a tree whose roots are fucking up my house?
>>
>>Yeah, that's happening right now in Carmel, California. A man is going
>>to be rendered HOMELESS because of your environmentalist wackos.
> 
>Agreed, this is absurd.  But this is not a good reason to commend
>environmentalists.

Yes it is a good reason. Look at how conservatives are condemned for
tiny, extreme events in their camp? Hell if they can be condemned for
that, we can condemn your people for that stuff happening in Carmel.

 
>>Or, better yet, why don't I become a logger and get turned into a
>>jobless man because the Spotted Owl has been declared a person by the
>>Environmental Supreme Court packed with your environmentalist wacko
>>judges?
> 
>Why don't you?  That would suit me just fine.  The problem is that while
>you will argue your little heart out of the plight the loggers, not a
>one of you has the stamina, courage, or strength to become what has
>become your most favored profession.  If you're going to convince me
>of overharvesting, you better have a plan that allows you to get out
>what you want and the environment the ability to grow back.

This is really stupid. Some lumberjacks really LIKE what they