Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
> 
> >So, why, specifically, should women not be allowed in combat?  
> 
> >Also, what is particularly wrong with militant tactics to achieve
> >social goals.  You and I may not care for them, but change does
> >not occur without a lot of stress on the system.  How does that
> >stress get applied?   Of course, there is the assertion that perhaps
> >there simply should be no change.
> 
> Does this mean you support Operation Rescue (at least in principle)?
> Nice to have you aboard!

Actually no, I do not.  Just because I make an observation about
the possible validity of a given tactic does NOT mean I support
the causes and goals of everyone who utilizes those tactics.

Sorry.

Operation Rescue is using an effective tactic.  I do not agree
with their goals.

> 
> >> 
> >> Another example is the Detroit Public School System had recently tried
> >> to establish classes in which black boys could be taught by black male
> >> teachers. The purpose of it was to bring the boys up in an environment
> >> with strong male role models and decreasing the likelihood that the boys
> >> would enter the world of crime. However it was a lot of feminist groups
> >> that demanded that girls be allowed in the classroom, thereby
> >> obfuscating the purpose of such classes in the first place. Of course
> >> the Leadership raises hell whenever an all-women school is forced by
> >> economics to admit men. In other words men should have women included
> >> (except perhaps the bathroom), but women should have their own space to
> >> themselves untarnished by testosterone. That's an example of the "war of
> >> the sexes" engaged by the feminists as perceived by Rush and me.
> 
> >Yes, there is certainly a lot of nonsense involved in this sort of
> >social engineering.
> 
> Oddly enough, Doug and I agree here.

Why is this odd?  One problem with all political demagogues, including
Rush is that they try to paint a grey world in black and white.
I am not a liberal, but I sympathise with some of the causes.  I am
not a conservative, but I sympathise with some of the causes.
I am a moderate who has a very healthy respect for the fact that
I may not know the truth.

> 
> >> 
> >> But I don't think that's the major problem that Rush has. Recently he
> >> has been describing on his show moves by the NYPSS (Public School
> >> System) to have reading literature on ... I think it's "Heather's Two
> >> Mommies." And I'm not referring to the sitcom "My Two Dads" either. At
> >> the least I can see the intent is to encourage tolerance; at worst, the
> >> book glorifies lesbianism. This is one thing that I remember Rush has a
> >> definite problem regarding "lesbian rights."
> 
> >This whole problem of proper education is making the problems with
> >public education real evident.  Nobody can agree on what the proper
> >way of raising children is.  My opinion is that stuff like this
> >is probably going to destroy public education.
> 
> Amazing.  WE agree twice.

Truly phenomenal.

> 
> >> I guess another example of the "militant feminist" movement on a more
> >> personal scale deals with a good friend of mine who doesn't want any man
> >> to open a door for her in courtesy (unless she needs to, but that's not
> >> "courtesy" to her). She interprets a man holding the door open for her
> >> as an affirmation that men are physically more powerful than women are
> >> and thus have dominion over them. I have always been told, "you BETTER
> >> hold doors open for older people and especially for women as common
> >> courtesy, or you're a rude scum-bucket." I just can't win. [She does let
> >> me hold the door open for her because we're good friends and she knows
> >> I'm nice to just about everybody who's nice to me.]
> 
> >Just don't hold doors for anyone.  There are very few people in
> >the world that are incapable of opening doors.  I HATE it when
> >people hold doors for me, because it forces me to acknowledge
> >their existence.
> >
> 
> But he's still pretty weird.  Why would you hate to be forced to 
> recognize someone else's existence?  Pretty anti-social if you ask me.

True enough.  Where is it written that I have to be social?  
I prefer to ignore people as much as possible, as I have things
to think about and ponder, and having to stop and thank someone
for doing something I am eminently capable of doing myself is an
intrusion I would RATHER do without.

And, of course, I am exaggerating this to some extent too.
It is, to some degree, a rather subtle joke.  Lighten up.
We're having more fun that people ought to have, no?


doug