From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:11:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.000218.24548@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.203051.13843@news.stolaf.edu> kamilewi@inga2.acc.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz), somewhere out near Jerry Brown Land, writes:
>>In article <1992Dec11.175317.15587@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>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:
>>>
>>>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. 
>>
>>And the female gender, if you'd happen to notice.
>
>Not on TV they don't. Making fun of women is something that is rare,
>if it occurs at all, on TV.

Where have you been?????!!!!  How about all the TV commercials that EXPLOIT
women?  Portray them as bimbos and in "household" roles and demean them?
Sure, some TV commercials may make fun of men, but they don't quite debase
them and have them appear as second class human beings.

>
>>>3- Militant anti-male shirt buttons like "the more I know men the more
>>>   I like my cat" and other stuff, are common place. 
>>
>>As are shirts like "Fifteen reasons why a beer is better than a woman."
>
>I know. I've seen it. And it was the only time I saw anyone making a
>fuss at the guy. When a woman walks around with similar shirts, no one
>makes a fuss about it.

No, no one YOU KNOW makes a fuss about it.  But then the only people you know
appear to be conservatives.  I'll have you know that plenty of people find
some things like that, and worse ones, offensive and speak out.

Also, how is "the more I know about men the more I like my cat" militant?

>
>>>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. 
>>
>>And right now you're trying to stop male-bashing.  And some people are 
>>trying to stop women-bashing.  And you say that isn't fair?
>
>None of it's fair - the issue is that while the media and people in
>general make a big fuss when women are talked about, when women do it
>to men or it shows up on TV against men, no one complains. Then it
>becomes funny.

Ah, you're complaining, I'm complaining, Rush is complaining, plenty of others
are starting to complain about it and ask that everyone be treated fairly.
This has been happening to women (and blacks) for thousands of years.
How does it feel Steve?

>
>>>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. 
>>
>>Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.
>
>PROOF?! I KNEW you lived near Jerry Brown Land. The proof that this is
>The Year of the Woman is easy to find - go read the newspapers, that
>this has been declared the Year of the Woman. 

Minnesota and Maine are where I come from.  Not exactly Jerry Brown land.
This is just another example of your hopeless, stupid tirades.

>I can't believe you live that far away from Earth, that you haven't
>seen those 4 words splattered across newspapers and magazines all over
>the place.

"Dewey defeats Truman" was also splattered across newspapers and magazines.
Maybe it's time for people like you to realize, in the "Year of the Woman" that
some things need to change and maybe by receiving some of your own medicine
you'll figure this out.

>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Proof?  You always seem to have a problem with proof, Steve.
>
>It was on ABC radio news. I listen to it every day (mainly because
>they stick it on there before, during and after the Rush Limbaugh
>show and I listen to the radio whenever I'm not in class or I'm
>studying). I was also in several newspapers in Carmel - and it also
>was on the Rush Limbaugh Show. 

No, I wanted proof and what tiny, extreme events conservatives have been
condemned for.  You say things without examples.

>I have supplied you ample proof of all my claims. (In fact I've
>supplied everyone with ample proof of all my claims but that doesn't
>deter their ignorance, so what does it matter?) 

Possibly your examples are SO extreme and SO ludicrous that they really don't
add to the big picture.

>
>>BTW, I'm sort of upset that you never finished mailing me that stuff
>>about how Clinton was going to lose the election.  But I guess it doesn't
>>matter now, does it?
>
>Nope. It doesn't matter that everything I said that was untrue about
>Clinton's claims about the economy, is bearing out now. The media is
>now showing us that this wasn't the worst economy in 50 years, yet
>Clinton said it was. This WASN'T the worst unemployment in xx years -
>in fact it's the best in 3 years. The entire misery index (inflation
>plus unemployment) was way lower than the Carter years. 
>And all this improvement now, is being talked about AFTER the election
>is over. The media intentionally fucked up the economy so Clinton
>could be elected and BAM! now it's getting better. 

You know, it's funny, a few weeks ago you were telling me that CONGRESS
fucked up the economy, not Bush, and that it would get worse if Clinton was
re-elected.  Sounds kind of hypocritical to me.

>
>In addition, your pet claim that Bush was involved in the Iran Contra
>scandal, was disproven by the Senate investigation... which was
>announced AFTER the election. 

Yes, it's sort of too bad that that Senate investigation couldn't get its
hands on basically ANY evidence to investigate Bush.  Plus the fact that Bush
used to work with the CIA and probably knows how to cover his tracks well.

>
>President Bush got really fucked up by this ultra-biased media, and
>had these economic facts been pushed BEFORE the election, Clinton
>would not be in office. 

Well, Bush COULD HAVE pushed the facts, but he didn't.  Maybe he began to 
realize that these facts aren't all that great after all.

If you think this recession is over, you're hopelessly niave. The country is
just experiencing a temporary boost due to the Clinton victory.  It is 
temporary.

>=====================================================================
>--Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0--
>	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

I don't know why you continue to have this sig.  The Borg would be very
disappointed in you.

Alex
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh