Debbie Schlussel, Coulter wannabe blogger

Quote :

For example, earlier this year, I noted that the New York Times reported that a U.S. Congressman, whom I believe is Republican Darrell Issa a/k/a “Jihad Darrell,” was caught on phone wiretaps talking ad nauseam with a known Islamic terrorist buddy. All the clues point to Issa, the Hezbollah’s (and Syria’s and Arafat’s and the Saudis’, etc., etc.) best friend in Congress.

That is just...there are no words for how stupid that is. I'll be the first to admit I don't like Darrell Issa (I'm in his district), but I doubt most sincerely that he's conspiring with terrorists. Conspiring with corporate thieves, yes; conspiring with terrorists, not so much (unless they're helping his corporate buddies make money).

Lysander wrote:

Quote :

I don’t apologize for cheering on the killing of Nazis. They were inhuman.

The greatest thing about conservatives is that they are what they hate.

Lurv wrote:

But Tink's new outfit is cute! She's really exaggerating how butch she looks, like it's impossible to see that she's a girl. Does those boots really look like something a man would wear, btw? What annoys me, is it seems like they've made Tinkerbell so much nicer than she really is (but maybe I should try watching the movie before I complain. I don't know).

Given that the entire fairy race generate spontaneously from baby giggles and ringing bells (yes, I watched the movie, I have a 3 year old girl) I really think bitching about the sexuality of the fairies is really about the most vaccuous thing to find fault with. If you engage the critical thought centre of the brain for the briefest second (and, for that matter, actually read J.M. Barrie's original) you'd know that sexual dimorphism amongst fairies in the Neverland universe is pretty much a matter of choice.

So, you know, fuck off about it. Not to mention the chick doth protest to much, and seems to be projecting all over the damn place. Fuck I hate "conservatives" like this who give actual REAL conservatives a bad name. Hey, just keep going until the term is 100% synoymous with "reactionary racist fundagelical fuckwit", you're almost there.

Quote :

And that’s never a good thing. As I always say, matriarchical
societies die. They simply don’t have staying power.

Because the matriarchal stone age societies of Europe only lasted a few hundred thousand years, unlike the real staying power of post agrarian patriarchal societies, right?

Or is buying into that "the world is onbly 6000 years old, and all real societies decend from Godly male patriarchies direct from Adam onwards" horseshit a basic point to this crazy loons world view?

Hey, buddy, one more for the road. --Nihilist

LightHorseman wrote:

Quote :

And that’s never a good thing. As I always say, matriarchical
societies die. They simply don’t have staying power.

Because the matriarchal stone age societies of Europe only lasted a few hundred thousand years, unlike the real staying power of post agrarian patriarchal societies, right?

Or is buying into that "the world is onbly 6000 years old, and all real societies decend from Godly male patriarchies direct from Adam onwards" horseshit a basic point to this crazy loons world view?

Yes.

LightHorseman wrote:

Quote :

And that’s never a good thing. As I always say, matriarchical
societies die. They simply don’t have staying power.

Because the matriarchal stone age societies of Europe only lasted a few hundred thousand years, unlike the real staying power of post agrarian patriarchal societies, right?

I hate to get into this, but...

You're not telling me you buy into the "matriarchal societies ruled Europe in a magical feminist Disneyland for thousands of years before the evil Kurgan menfolk took over and ruined the entire world" theory, do you?

Because I don't think I've read any solid evidence to support the claim that stone age societies were matriarchal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mr.Doobie wrote:

LightHorseman wrote:

Quote :

And that’s never a good thing. As I always say, matriarchical
societies die. They simply don’t have staying power.

Because the matriarchal stone age societies of Europe only lasted a few hundred thousand years, unlike the real staying power of post agrarian patriarchal societies, right?

I hate to get into this, but...

You're not telling me you buy into the "matriarchal societies ruled Europe in a magical feminist Disneyland for thousands of years before the evil Kurgan menfolk took over and ruined the entire world" theory, do you?

Because I don't think I've read any solid evidence to support the claim that stone age societies were matriarchal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Meh. Depends who you talk to. Yes, ALL stone age cultural research is built on a degree of speculation, since we have no written records to confirm or deny our theories. Imagine trying to work out the Christian symbolism of the cross without written records, is the commonly used thought experiment to explain it. But given what we DO have, there's quite a bit to suggest matriarchal societies in prehistoric time particularly.

and no, I don't buy into the Golden Bough version, I rather suspect, like most things, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes of the opposing points of view.

matrineality, certainly, at any rate.

MOD EDIT: Merged these two posts for you. You're new here, so I'll give you a friendly tip: please don't double post. You will see on the top right of any of your posts a handy "edit" button for just the purpose of fixing something you left out, etc. Also, try using the multi-quote function if there is more than one person you would like to respond to at once. Thanks! ~InkWeaver

You forgot another double post up there, Inky.

Quote :

I don’t apologize for cheering on the killing of Nazis. They were inhuman.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

LightHorseman wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

LightHorseman wrote:

Quote :

And that’s never a good thing. As I always say, matriarchical
societies die. They simply don’t have staying power.

Because the matriarchal stone age societies of Europe only lasted a few hundred thousand years, unlike the real staying power of post agrarian patriarchal societies, right?

I hate to get into this, but...

You're not telling me you buy into the "matriarchal societies ruled Europe in a magical feminist Disneyland for thousands of years before the evil Kurgan menfolk took over and ruined the entire world" theory, do you?

Because I don't think I've read any solid evidence to support the claim that stone age societies were matriarchal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Meh. Depends who you talk to. Yes, ALL stone age cultural research is built on a degree of speculation, since we have no written records to confirm or deny our theories. Imagine trying to work out the Christian symbolism of the cross without written records, is the commonly used thought experiment to explain it. But given what we DO have, there's quite a bit to suggest matriarchal societies in prehistoric time particularly.

and no, I don't buy into the Golden Bough version, I rather suspect, like most things, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes of the opposing points of view.

matrineality, certainly, at any rate.

Though I appreciate that you understand the "Feminist Disneyland" theory is bullshit, I have to disagree with you that Stone Age societies were most likely matriarchal.