The republican war on women

52 posts / 0 new

I turned on the news today and discovered a shocking story. Apparently there is a republican "war" on women. OMG! As a conservative does this mean me? I am at war? So what should I do? My sisters, inlaws, wife, wifes friends and my three daughters have no clue that I am at war with them. In fact some of them are conservatives so they probably don't even realize that they are at war with themselves yet. As a woman fighter I've been pretty pathetic. In fact, get this. I actually have paid money to send my girls to college so that they won't be dependant on some man as Hillary Clinton was. But please do not tell General Palin she might bust me down to buck private. Speaking of General Palin, how did we convince her to go to war against herself? Yeah and Colonel Coulter, Captain Jan Brewer and Major Megyn Kelly. We women fighters are pretty tricky! Yep, that's the ticket. The last thing we want for our wives and daughers is to be successful and happy. So the war rages on. I have thought of one battle that I have fought in the war on women. When we go to the beach I immediately remove my shirt and roam around topless. I refuse to allow my wife the same freedom (at least when the kids are around). So far I have won this battle but who knows what the future holds. She could go rogue. So I guess for today she is still my prisoner in the war on women. But for the love of everything holy, please don't tell her!!!!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Comments

Are you part of the Republicans? Are you standing up against the Vagina Police Inspectors? Are you buying into Rush's tirade and incredibly stupid ideas about contraception?

I would love to see a Republican backlash against the rampant misogyny and the war on women from the Right. It would tell me that there is some hope for a reasonable and loyal opposition and that we do not just have a cult of ideological drones over there. There was one woman state rep in Washington who voted for marriage equality. Is she that alone?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If you vote Republican you are waging war om women. What's hard to understand?

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm
Quote DRC:

Are you part of the Republicans? Are you standing up against the Vagina Police Inspectors? Are you buying into Rush's tirade and incredibly stupid ideas about contraception?

Okay here's the straight inside baseball scoop. Every conservative that I know believes whether or not to use contraception is a personal choice. And the fact that most cons do not have an army of children proves this. If the poor liberals in the inner city used contraception as much as middle class conservatives do, they would be better off and more able to take care of themselves. And 100% of the conservatives polled do not want the police to inspect the vagina's of their women. Or your women for that matter. If a woman is not in prison or going to prison, she needs to defend her nookie. Cops need to stay the hell away from it.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1: Every conservative that I know believes whether or not to use contraception is a personal choice.

You must not know anyone who is going to vote for someone other than Ron Paul in the general. Even Mitt Romney is "of course" for the Blunt Amendment.

And 100% of the conservatives polled do not want the police to inspect the vagina's of their women.

citation needed

Dr Mario Kart's picture
Dr Mario Kart
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote DRC:

Are you part of the Republicans? Are you standing up against the Vagina Police Inspectors? Are you buying into Rush's tirade and incredibly stupid ideas about contraception?

Okay here's the straight inside baseball scoop. Every conservative that I know believes whether or not to use contraception is a personal choice. And the fact that most cons do not have an army of children proves this. If the poor liberals in the inner city used contraception as much as middle class conservatives do, they would be better off and more able to take care of themselves. And 100% of the conservatives polled do not want the police to inspect the vagina's of their women. Or your women for that matter. If a woman is not in prison or going to prison, she needs to defend her nookie. Cops need to stay the hell away from it.

Wow, what an elegant remark. I can tell for sure that you're not misogonystic or bigoted.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

I've made a critical mistake in conversing with someone who doesnt plainly see the Republican war on women.

Dr Mario Kart's picture
Dr Mario Kart
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mdhess:
Quote rigel1:
Quote DRC:

Are you part of the Republicans? Are you standing up against the Vagina Police Inspectors? Are you buying into Rush's tirade and incredibly stupid ideas about contraception?

Okay here's the straight inside baseball scoop. Every conservative that I know believes whether or not to use contraception is a personal choice. And the fact that most cons do not have an army of children proves this. If the poor liberals in the inner city used contraception as much as middle class conservatives do, they would be better off and more able to take care of themselves. And 100% of the conservatives polled do not want the police to inspect the vagina's of their women. Or your women for that matter. If a woman is not in prison or going to prison, she needs to defend her nookie. Cops need to stay the hell away from it.

Wow, what an elegant remark. I can tell for sure that you're not misogonystic or bigoted.

Hang on. I gotta google misogonystic.

Okay, I'm back.

I'm glad it came across that way. I wasn't really going for that but okay. None of the women in my life no about my war against them. Should I fes up or keep it on the low down?

I don't think that I am misogonystic or bigfooted. Just a soldier in the war on women. Puh------leeeze don't tell my wife!!!!!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:

I turned on the news today and discovered a shocking story. Apparently there is a republican "war" on women. OMG! As a conservative does this mean me? I am at war? So what should I do? My sisters, inlaws, wife, wifes friends and my three daughters have no clue that I am at war with them. In fact some of them are conservatives so they probably don't even realize that they are at war with themselves yet. As a woman fighter I've been pretty pathetic. In fact, get this. I actually have paid money to send my girls to college so that they won't be dependant on some man as Hillary Clinton was. But please do not tell General Palin she might bust me down to buck private. Speaking of General Palin, how did we convince her to go to war against herself? Yeah and Colonel Coulter, Captain Jan Brewer and Major Megyn Kelly. We women fighters are pretty tricky! Yep, that's the ticket. The last thing we want for our wives and daughers is to be successful and happy. So the war rages on. I have thought of one battle that I have fought in the war on women. When we go to the beach I immediately remove my shirt and roam around topless. I refuse to allow my wife the same freedom (at least when the kids are around). So far I have won this battle but who knows what the future holds. She could go rogue. So I guess for today she is still my prisoner in the war on women. But for the love of everything holy, please don't tell her!!!!

Bless you rigel1for doing the manly thing by providing for your children - even thought they are only females! Which a father ought to lovingly do anyway when he has the financial resources to do so. Even sexier, when he understands the importance of education. I'm glad to see you're not in kahootz with Santorum or the other he-men beating their chests about how the little woman ought to be keeping herself prisoner or uneducated. Glad to know you believe in some equality for some - like your female blood relations.

Is it possible to simultaneously hold the two ideas - that your females are provided for AND not all females enjoy the same provisions? Getting past this thought obstruction you may see that going top-less is not holding back women economically - just look at what strippers & pole dancers earn! The issue is most women would like the option to earn a decent living - with or without their clothes on. Can you possibly see that women have other issues impacting us? (And, rigel1 have you thought about getting some therapeutic intervention for your need to reduce every other issue down to the part of the females anatomy which provides milk for babies? It seems if you did your gals might really believe the content behind the boob.)

And, BTW, it is my belief when women control their bodies they will begin to see how they prop up patriarchy.The examples you listed here are excellent. They demonstrate how a woman needs to take every thing to a higher level - just to prove herself in our slavish adherence to the rule of testosterone.To be with guys we have to become one of the guys. If guys would get their hairy noses OUT of places which are none of their business to go poking in to, we might get there sooner.

The recent televised hearing of the now infamous Sandra Fluke incident is a most incredible example of what I am speaking about. It amply shows us this situation is not really about birth control. Its about thugs who think a woman is not capable of making up her own mind. It's about thugs who myopically think they know better than a woman. Why aren't you writing about those thugs if you value your females and your daughters? Why not be putting your acerbic sword to slash down such thuggery? These men are out of control and why not? Their pharmaceutical prop up - viagra flows freely for them as part of their socialistic government job benefits. And our politicos say they are against drugs...they aren't against drugs - they just want them ALL for themselves.

The greatest conundrum here, why with all the viagra available to these guys, and all of their sexual activity and all of their sexual partners - WHY AREN'T THEY HAPPY? And why do they have time to be minding stuff that's none of their business?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm
Quote media_muse:
Quote rigel1:

I turned on the news today and discovered a shocking story. Apparently there is a republican "war" on women. OMG! As a conservative does this mean me? I am at war? So what should I do? My sisters, inlaws, wife, wifes friends and my three daughters have no clue that I am at war with them. In fact some of them are conservatives so they probably don't even realize that they are at war with themselves yet. As a woman fighter I've been pretty pathetic. In fact, get this. I actually have paid money to send my girls to college so that they won't be dependant on some man as Hillary Clinton was. But please do not tell General Palin she might bust me down to buck private. Speaking of General Palin, how did we convince her to go to war against herself? Yeah and Colonel Coulter, Captain Jan Brewer and Major Megyn Kelly. We women fighters are pretty tricky! Yep, that's the ticket. The last thing we want for our wives and daughers is to be successful and happy. So the war rages on. I have thought of one battle that I have fought in the war on women. When we go to the beach I immediately remove my shirt and roam around topless. I refuse to allow my wife the same freedom (at least when the kids are around). So far I have won this battle but who knows what the future holds. She could go rogue. So I guess for today she is still my prisoner in the war on women. But for the love of everything holy, please don't tell her!!!!

The issue is most women would like the option to earn a decent living.

Well the issue is just a tad more complicated than you mention. You would not believe how much recognition women in corporate America get these days.How do I know. I have seen it with my own two eyes. Companies are looking for reasons to promote women. I see this every day. Even when women do face challenges you assume that this is the fault of some republican? Are you claiming that only republicans run businesses?

I do appreciate you mentioning Santorum by name. Trying to paint every conservative as anti-woman is Evil. I am not anti-woman but I am conservative. The idiotic "war against women" lumps us all together. That is a dirty and evil tactic.

I said this before and I'll say it again. 99% of conservative men are not opposed to birth control. In fact we expect our wives to use it. Get over it. It's a non issue. Not wanting the government to force its will on a private business is not "a war on women."

In my field, I earn more money than most of the women who have the same job description. Nope, no war on women here. It's not quite that sinister. Two reasons: I have done this longer than them. And I am a better mechanic. I get paid for my skills. Period. No mystery.

Women's salaries are complicated. For example:

Kay S. Hymowitz’s article “Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever,” in City Journal (Summer 2011), shows that female doctors earn only 64 percent of the income that male doctors earn. It turns out that only 16 percent of surgeons are women but 50 percent of pediatricians are women. Even though surgeons have many more years of education and training than do pediatricians.

Wage inequality is everywhere. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Asian men and women earn more than white men and women. Female cafeteria attendants earn more than their male counterparts. Females who are younger than 30 and have never been married earn salaries 8 percent higher than males of the same description. Among women who graduated from college during 1992-93, by 2003 more than one-fifth were no longer in the workforce, and another 17 percent were working part time. That’s to be compared with only 2 percent of men in either category. Hymowitz cites several studies showing significant career choice and lifestyle differences between men and women that result in income inequality.

You simply cannot pass off the above info as a war on women. As conservatives we are not Taliban. We want our women to be happy and successful. And I wish the same for you muse. You are smart. No doubt smarter than me. And you don't resort to insults and character assasinations to make a point.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Salaries and harassment are examples of the war of Corporate Men against Women. I think that the conservative war against women is more about the Cook my meals, Clean my house, Keep your thoughts to yourself, Keep your ass at home with the kids while I go have a few with the boys memes that conservative men have been spewing for generations. Obviously not all conservative men are like that but I would put money on a vast majority. Just my opinion.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Right on rigel1! Income inequality was mentioned on another thread as evil and bad. I stated that in a free society incomes will always be unequal. this as a result of lifestyle choices and lifes circumstances and odds. Got blasted. lol

bullwinkle
Joined:
Dec. 28, 2011 2:31 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Salaries and harassment are examples of the war of Corporate Men against Women. I think that the conservative war against women is more about the Cook my meals, Clean my house, Keep your thoughts to yourself, Keep your ass at home with the kids while I go have a few with the boys memes that conservative men have been spewing for generations. Obviously not all conservative men are like that but I would put money on a vast majority. Just my opinion.

Where the heck are these Neanderthals hiding? Maybe this happened in my dad's generation but it is certainly not prevalant in mine. There may be some trailer parks or remote parts of Appalachia where this stuff still happens. But its pretty rare.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote bullwinkle:

Right on rigel1! Income inequality was mentioned on another thread as evil and bad. I stated that in a free society incomes will always be unequal. this as a result of lifestyle choices and lifes circumstances and odds. Got blasted. lol

Thanks moose. it's nice to have another voice of reason around.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Salaries and harassment are examples of the war of Corporate Men against Women. I think that the conservative war against women is more about the Cook my meals, Clean my house, Keep your thoughts to yourself, Keep your ass at home with the kids while I go have a few with the boys memes that conservative men have been spewing for generations. Obviously not all conservative men are like that but I would put money on a vast majority. Just my opinion.

Where the heck are these Neanderthals hiding? Maybe this happened in my dad's generation but it is certainly not prevalant in mine. There may be some trailer parks or remote parts of Appalachia where this stuff still happens. But its pretty rare.

Come visit and have a cold one in South Dakota. You will literally beat your head against the wall in amazement.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Salaries and harassment are examples of the war of Corporate Men against Women. I think that the conservative war against women is more about the Cook my meals, Clean my house, Keep your thoughts to yourself, Keep your ass at home with the kids while I go have a few with the boys memes that conservative men have been spewing for generations. Obviously not all conservative men are like that but I would put money on a vast majority. Just my opinion.

Where the heck are these Neanderthals hiding? Maybe this happened in my dad's generation but it is certainly not prevalant in mine. There may be some trailer parks or remote parts of Appalachia where this stuff still happens. But its pretty rare.

Come visit and have a cold one in South Dakota. You will literally beat your head against the wall in amazement.

I know this crap still exists out in the sticks. I don't know if we can really change those folks. Good thing we don't let them be in charge of anything. I'll meet you at wal-drug for the cold one.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Golly, if the Right wanted to get out of the way of women's equality in the workplace, we would welcome it. How many GOPimps voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Bill? How many have taken on Rush? It is sad.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:

Well the issue is just a tad more complicated than you mention.

You simply cannot pass off the above info as a war on women. As conservatives we are not Taliban. We want our women to be happy and successful.

complicated is correct rigel1 - good noticing! I do appreciate that you actually think about things - even if you resort to cheap headlines like noticing 'the war on women'. But hey, even limbaugh is smart enough to know a good headline when he can get it - I might do the same depending on the circumstances. However, the current use of war - war on women, war on drugs, war on cancer, this war that war, war is just not my thing. Personally I would rather see war retired.

We can all list facts generated by some factoid facility - paid or not to produce them. Recently the Pew trust released their poll saying 22% of us believe that what passes as our news is "news" - but in reality is opinion. (22% seems really low in considering our current staggering use of silly opinions saturating our media). Undeniably we have made progress - only achieved by lots of whiny women & some enlightened men AND HARD RELENTLESS WORK. But we aren't anywhere close to achieving parity with men. I am wondering - are you are familiar with the governments statistics & reports of gender inequality in income & other areas? Or the reports about the higher rates of poverty women face - especially those with children?

Anyway, you made a big posting here but you didn't answer my question about why you supporting those thugs? My question was in earnest. To my way of thinking those thugs are the ones rocking the boat but you want to bring up topless women. And now the Taliban.

Now rigel1, last time I checked, I don't live in a geographic area run by the Taliban so I feel 'geographically' secure. Its the crazy christian corporate corrupted He-men - usually the whitest ones - these are the guys I have to worry about here in amerika. I don't see how their behavior demonstrates a caring or concern for women's happiness or success. It seems a good use of your noble masculinity would be to go after those guys instead of the 99 % assortment of women who are working hard to stay alive & raise their kids.

Thanks for the compliment - I believe it's better to honor the spirit of the person*. We have so much unkindness now - foisted off as one's right to 'free speech'. So sad, so destructive. So sensationally surreal in a country that advocates & applauds their christian values.

* BTW, Thom wrote a great book about this - Cracking the Code - it's available for your use too!

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm
Quote media_muse:
Quote rigel1:

Well the issue is just a tad more complicated than you mention.

You simply cannot pass off the above info as a war on women. As conservatives we are not Taliban. We want our women to be happy and successful.

. To my way of thinking those thugs are the ones rocking the boat but you want to bring up topless women.

Well, I mentioned it once as a joke. Now you have brought it up twice. I'm thinking it might be time to move on. What about you?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Vaginal probes and other demeaning patriarchal policies are passed by Republicons. I think they deserve many hard kicks to the nuts and bitch slaps. If you share an identity with them, do that to help make your women happy. Vote for equal pay if you want them to be successful. Stop belittling those who do care with smug pieties about not being the American Taliban.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

oh rigel1..... this is what I think: Why not take up your own manly directive rather than tell poor little me what to do? Or, try the christian tenant & set the good example for my woeful dense womanly self and not do this posting?

Failing these.... I'll give you what seems the most obvious to me - don't give me anything to come up against! And I do appreciate your sense of humor! (What happened to the Taliban?)

I send you many blessings - may you walk in beauty - beauty before you, beauty around you and beautiful humor to support you.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm

remember.... it always come down to ECONOMICS. Wake up amerika.

ECONOMICS, its economics! Our government legally sanctions the discriminatory practice of unequal pay. FOR ONE REASON & ONE REASON ONLY: ECONOMICS.

They permit 'Business' to leverage larger profits for business. So while we are busy thinking women have made it they get to laugh - ALL THE WAY TO THOSE OFF SHORE, UNTAXED BANK ACCOUNTS. They do this on the backs of:

~ almost ALL women,

~ Almost ALL people with more color to their skin,

~ Many, many men

I suspect men are not the neanderthals they are purported to be. But. when they regurgitate the ridiculous unproven BS that women have made it I do have to consider - maybe neanderthals still do roam free.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm

Don't do the GEICO and slander Neadrethals. From my experience as "one of them," my straight White brothers are a club of which I do not wish to be a member. There are some great guy, some not too bad and a buch of real crapheads. I am much more at home with my fellow human beings of female, gay or lesbian orientation and darker skin than I am with the White Guys. While your point is correct in general, you are a bit too generous to those who have the curse of privilege and entitlement blurring their vision.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote media_muse:

I send you many blessings - may you walk in beauty - beauty before you, beauty around you and beautiful humor to support you.

Same to ya m_m.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote DRC:

Don't do the GEICO and slander Neadrethals.

No geico here - nor ever would i do a geico on anyone. hmm...but, i don't know what a 'geico' is. What I wrote: I suspect men are not the neanderthals they are purported to be. But.when they regurgitate the ridiculous unproven BS that women have made it I do have to consider - maybe neanderthals still do roam free.

so.....how did i geico with the "not" part or the "maybe" part? maybe i don't watch enough tv to grok this geico thing. all i know is they can't sell insurance unless they have silly animal caricature running around talking. on a meth-a-phorical level i find this amusing - i guess the meth works for them.

and, "heavens to betsy" as my Momma used to say - did you go neanderthal & overlook the way more important matter affecting us all - the economics of legally sanctioned discrimination?

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm

Thank you rigel1 ! Very thoughtful of you & I do appreciate your thoughtfulness. Good day to you!

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm

I appreciate your irony. You may have missed the long GEICO ad campaign where a Neandrathal has been insulted by an ad slogan, so easy even a Neandrathal can do it, and gets in a huff everytime the logo shows up. I was just saying that it is an insult to them to be compared to the GOPimps.

I guess I ought to have underscored my affirmation of the theme instead of trying to joke about the use of the term. It is like my defense of vultures against the label "vulture capitalism." Even when I substitute vampire I still feel that the undead are unfairly smeared. Even pond scum has a biological upside. I get down to toxic waste and still worry that it is being smeared.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thanks DRC for the teaching point. I'll keep it in mind. ( I did miss the ad - thankfully !) I see what you are saying. And I do agree that sprinklefitter's "frickin GoPimpNuts" has way more panache for these matters.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm
Quote DRC:

Even pond scum has a biological upside.

Yep. The president says I can power my car with it. I ain't holding my breath on that one. How bout you?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Does the "Republican War on Women," tell the whole story, though? (not that I disbelieve the notion) After watching, Sexy Inc: Our Children Under the Influence on Free Speech TV, a short while ago —I hope everyone watched it— I am even more convinced than ever it's not just the Republicans. In fact, Republicans pale big time, compared to the advertising and media war on women, but, especially, the war on young girls AND boys.

If you want to disempower women, the place to start is in childhood. Teach young girls to be focused on boys. Teach them to be focused on pleasing boys and being "sexy," and putting so much energy into being popular and looking and acting like prostitutes and porn stars they'll have no energy left for being themselves, for finding their own, individual interests and pursuing those, that by the time girls grow up to be adult women, they'll lack all resistance to whatever authoritarian whim the Republicans dream up to humiliate them further.

Thus, I don't think Republicans need take the entire blame for the second-class status of women, or the so-called war on women. Liberals have some complicity in the problem too, given the liberal misapprehension that sexual "freedom" brings empowerment for women, absolutely. It is this mistaken idea that feeds, and is embedded in, the advertising, fashion industry and media depictions of girls and women, and which, inevitably leads to the absolute disempowerment of women.

It appears that many of us on this forum are, well, a bit older than average? I think some of us bring some naivete to the mix? If you watch the documentary I mentioned, above, you might not be so inclined to dismiss the notion of a war on women, in general. Of course, it's all about profit. This war pays, and pays big time.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yep, pond scum does have a biological upside but algae for fuel is another thing entirely.

I'm so glad rigel1 that you aren't holding your breath for this one - smart move! Although the venture capitalists have been well supported by our governance. They have received billions in grants, loans or just the usual government give always to the already rich oil barons & their hidden subsidiaries. Algae can be produced successfully in the lab in tiny quantities but outside of those tightly controlled labs the algae turns in to useless goo. When the the guys cry about this our illustrious department of energy gives them MORE $$$ ! But heh - we've already given those gooey guys lots of our tax dollars for things that don't work so they"ll keep giving them even MORE for their unproductive experimentation's! Isn't that crazy - once again we privatize profit & socialize the debt.

The truly mind boggling part with this whole ridiculous situation is knowing we already have one viable & proven alternative renewable fuel - alcohol. It is the fuel car & motorcycle racers use - keeps their expensive engines running better & cleaner without the carbon build up which means less maintenance. Our military uses alcohol when they don't want missile seeking systems to lock on to aircraft the via the dirty emissions from gasoline. So the pilots switch over to the alcohol - for cleaner burning fuel. Why aren't we doing this for our own public health - using cleaner fuel ?

The answer has to do with the fact that alcohol is a naturally occurring substance so it currently cannot be patented. So until those guys can figure out a way to get around it this part they are doing their capitalistic best to keep it from us. In the meanwhile we continue to export considerable quantities of alcohol / ethanol to other parts of the world that don't mind taking advantage of the hubris of our energy barons give us.

Fortunately in other parts of the world they don't have the same hangups we have here. Brazil runs over 90% of their vehicles on alcohol. Sweden runs their bus system on alcohol. Henry Fords first vehicles here ran on alcohol.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm
Yep. The president says I can power my car with it. I ain't holding my breath on that one. How bout you?
Here's a Bloomberg story on the sum total of what we have heard from President Obama about pond scum. I have absolutely no problem with it. The only reason to denigrate the idea would be if we love having our balls squeezed by the oil industry. Right wingers seem to favor that. They couldn't stand for the electric car, either.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
Yep. The president says I can power my car with it. I ain't holding my breath on that one. How bout you?
Here's a Bloomberg story on the sum total of what we have heard from President Obama about pond scum. I have absolutely no problem with it. The only reason to denigrate the idea would be if we love having our balls squeezed by the oil industry. Right wingers seem to favor that. They couldn't stand for the electric car, either.

This is sadly true. But not of all right wingers!

Think of it this way:

There are a lot of atheists who are not satisfied with simply being atheists. They get their feelings hurt any time anyone shows any spirituality. They will not be happy until everyone is an athiest. They put up signs, file lawsuits and throw a general fit if anyone shows some faith. A lot of atheists, but not all will not be happy until everyone joins them.

Also. A large protion of conservatives don't like electric cars. Not only will they not buy one, they are offended if anybody buys one. I really don't get this. What car is parked in someone's driveway and what God (if any) people seek is of no concern to me. In fact, I would prefer that everyone in my neighborhood drive a hybrid or electric car. That means more gas for me!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
There are a lot of atheists who are not satisfied with simply being atheists. They get their feelings hurt any time anyone shows any spirituality. They will not be happy until everyone is an athiest.
That's just not true. We simply don't want religious people using Government resources to shove their religion down other people's throats. This seems to be a very difficult concept to get across. Atheists are notoriously non-evangelistic. Can't say that about many religious factions.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Speaking of General Palin, how did we convince her to go to war against herself?

She's an idiot. That's how.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

As for the pond scum, most republican politicians are against anything that might harm it, out of professional courtesy.

As for this:

There are a lot of atheists who are not satisfied with simply being atheists. They get their feelings hurt any time anyone shows any spirituality. They will not be happy until everyone is an athiest. They put up signs, file lawsuits and throw a general fit if anyone shows some faith. A lot of atheists, but not all will not be happy until everyone joins them.

You had to know I'd chime in on that one...

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "spirituality". Faith is, admittedly, stupid in the way that it is done by theists.

You mention law suits. What's so spiritual about "In god we trust" or "one nation under god", any way? These aren't spiritual slogans, they are platitudes and placebos for people with a bad case of theocracy, not something that results in a greater spiritual awareness or coming-together for this country. Yet, these sorts of bumper sticker ideas are defended by theists to the bitter end, even though OUR constitution, the founding document of both atheist and theist Americans specifically prohibited it.

The reason atheists are so "sensitive" (they're really not) is that theists are so INSENSITIVE (they really are). What is it about American christians that they control everything and still must play the martyr to the imagined oppressive atheist hoard? Don't you guys see how ass-backward that is? When was the last time an atheist group got "there is no god" stamped upon all of our nation's currency or the phrase "under an empty sky" inserted in the pledge?

If there is one lesson that christians have learned well, it is the idea that victims can fight back with impunity, even though christians profess to believe in the "turn the other cheek" idea. Throughout the history of Christendom, they have played the victim as an excuse to hate, oppress, steal from and kill the "other". The crusades were in response to Christian paranoia over the successful spread of Islamic society in Europe. The Salem witch trials were a thinly veiled excuse to take power from women. Even Constantine converted for political reasons, showing that early christians were no more concerned about his true feelings being aligned with that of Jesus than they would be today. Where is the spirituality you speak of?

I don't desire everyone to join me in atheism. How would I even know I had succeeded if everyone just kept their beliefs to themselves? What I want is rational thought and discourse between us on the matters that effect us together...like with war or environmental protection or helping the needy. Unfortunately, when theists are in the room, anything goes. There needn't be any sense-making because god doesn't require them to be smart or honest or caring...just faithful.

Can you hear me now? I don't give a fuck about faith. It has done nothing but excuse atrocities. An ounce of honest caring is worth a ton of faith.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

I actually have to credit rigel with half a point for tolerance and unenlightened 'self-interest' in his approval of the electric car for others. Too bad I have to deduct a full point for his insult to my atheist friends, few of whom engage in any 'evangelism' against religion. We may have theological debates, but I do respect the fact that atheists get a load of crap from religionists and are stigmatized in culture and politics. It is this kind of loose canon charge that makes rigel's opinions less than credible and often more than impolite.

But, let's build where we can. Rigel, why would you want to support the oil economy when you could cut your spending with conservation and alternative energy sources?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just curious, DRC, do you think I practice "evangelism" against religion? If so, what level of absurdity should I accept before my tolerator runs out of gas?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

The reason atheists are so "sensitive" (they're really not) is that theists are so INSENSITIVE (they really are)

Anyone who insults you, then tells you you're being too "sensitive," is, by definition, INSENSITIVE, D_NATURED. They really are. ; )

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

The reason atheists are so "sensitive" (they're really not) is that theists are so INSENSITIVE (they really are)

Anyone who insults you, then tells you you're being too "sensitive," is, by definition, INSENSITIVE, D_NATURED. They really are. ; )

Atheists are fair game to both the unabashed theocrats as well as the "can't we all just get along" crowd. Some people are so incredibly stupid they think my insistance on our shared reality being the foundation for an "us" is an insult to their diety. Others are so dazzlingly brilliant they can find a spiritual fence to ride between any two beliefs, no matter how stupid.

I'm offended by both ideas. Here WE are on Earth. That's all I know.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

D_NATURED, you wrote: "Atheists are fair game to both the unabashed theocrats as well as the "can't we all just get along" crowd." And I think that's true. I'll never understand it, but maybe you do, given the rest of your comment. : ) But I also think feminists are fair game too (along w/ atheists), for both sides. The new "niggers," if you'll pardon the word. They figured out it wasn't fashionable anymore to express hatred out loud against people of color, so all that vile feeling got transferred to us. Go figure.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

D Natured, I'd have to address specific comments to see if, and when, you might have made it about all religion instead of the offensively religious. I don't equate religion with theism, and the latter is better understood as antiquated instead of absurd. Metaphysics is not physics. Myths are not history. Yet, both are able to express thought and imagination that can be useful to us in our interpretation of reality and what it means to be human here.

The problem with myths comes when they are not known to be myths and are treated as science or history. Scientists use heuristic models of imagination to describe what they know from observation, and our paradigms also are created to frame and understand what we know from experience. They are not "real" apart from that use, and when we start to believe in them we commit a religious error.

I cannot dismiss those who find theism useful to their own spiritual lives, and like Newtonian Physics' ability to get us to the moon, praying to God may help them work out their humanity. But, as Newtonian Physics can no longer explain what we know, thanks in large part to Newton, I find God no longer able to be a useful metaphysical tool for explaining ourselves and our world.

None of this obviates the sacred and establishes the secular as the measure of reality. That larger mystery, reality, remains beyond our cognition. But that is not a problem unless we want it to be.

Personally, I find atheism and the whole issue of theism a lot less interesting than what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world. If you want to address that question without theism, no problem. But, it will raise issues of religion and how we know what reality is without confining our definition to what we know. If that puts your 'tolerater' into the red zone of burn out, get a better meter for your metrics.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm curious, DRC. I haven't been present for all of your comments about religion; I've only inferred from a few of your comments a religious orientation that is not theistic, but, rather, more like Chris Hedges' more humanistic version of Christianity, that is, Christianity without the supernaturalism or the authoritarian parts. (I'm guessing) Anyway, I'd like to know, if you are a Christian, how you deal with the idea some Christians subscribe to, that is, where they say, "First God, then Jesus, then men, then women..." as the proper order of things? And, what do you do with the supernatural bits in the Bible?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Because you asked, dealing with the bad theology of people who claim to be Christians as one who also affirms that identity is something I consider my professional and personal responsibility. I understand that there is a history of patriarchal culture that religion has participated in. I think both Jesus and St. Paul confronted and dealt with that culture in the Judaism of the NT period, and that both have been dishonored and misinterpreted by the heirs of the Christian tradition. I would also say that Jesus is much clearer than Paul, but that has to do with the latter as an interpreter of the former and the fact that there a several NT authors under the title of Paul as author.

I take the "In Christ there is no east nor west, no Jew nor Greek, no male nor female" as what the Gospel was about for Paul. But, there is no question that the history of Catholicism gets males back in the saddle, robed up and carrying the power symbols. What made the convents and nunneries interesting was the ability of women to escape from the patriarchy and find their own communities. It was still a battle against the entrenched power, but it was also a reflection of the culture and world beyond the Church.

To say that Chris Hedges and I share a more 'humanistic' approach to Christianity and religion is true, but the word is loaded too. I think that neither of us is less true to the tradition than those who wave the theism flag as if it has ever been about believing in God. What it takes to make and keep human life human in this world is the base-line question from the beginning, and the idea of God serves that end. When Jesus invokes "God, the Father," it can be understood as Parent rather than confined to gender. But, he was part of a culture where "God, the Father" was given a patriarchal authority. Jesus makes, "the Father" a loving and forgiving agent of grace rather than the disciplanarian. He blows up the patriarchal disdain for those outside the kinship network, making the widows and orphans, and the eunuchs, full members of the community of faith (and humanity). He treated women as fully human, even hanging our with whores and foreigners. It was shocking.

The Sermon on the Mount establishes that our humanity, and salvation, is measured by our identity as human with "the least of these." In the end, I think Jesus is his mother's son, and that Mary came from a radical Isaiah II Jewish tradition of the "good news to the poor." The people who got in the way of Jesus were the defenders of religion and its patriarchy. The biblical theme is always this, with those who would foreclose the salvation of those outside the franchise being the problem.

I count myself as "post-theistic" because I see theism having outlived its usefulness in explaining what we know, just as Newtonian cosmology cannot explain what it revealed. Piety can continue to use the metaphor/metaphysics in the same way that Newton can get us to the moon. Theology cannot use theism to explain faith and spirituality without introducing a concept that gets in the way of thinking about reality, and reality has always been what accepting no false gods has been about.

I am also a post-secularist because I think reality is bigger than its secular reduction to objective observation and fact in a logical positivism. We know more than words can say, but that does not make fantasy and "belief" a substitute for thinking and imagination that is reality seeking. What we would like the world to be is not what it is; and generally our desires would not work out as well as we presume. So we have to go back to accepting the gift of human life and living it out with gratitude, dealing with what is evil and destructive while being about loving and healing.

I take the 'supernatural' as myths and metaphors that have their own way of being meaningful, but they are not to be confused with science or history. And, as a student of American history and religion, I appreciate how traditions and beliefs get transformed in historical and sociological context. I think we all have the responsiility to bring our own stories into the present with moral and intellectual integrity and to treat our fellow travelers along the way with respect and dignity.

For example, the Adventists fell in love with expecting the imminent return of the Lord even when they were disappointed in the mid-19th Century. Were we able to integrate that spirit into the rest of the stories, and were they able to receive the gifts of others into their own, we would have a richer common narrative. I suspect there is some hidden gem in Mormonism too. But not much in their reaction against persecution to become more Christian and more American than their persecutors.

I have had great times with progressive Vatican II Catholics, and yet there is the Opus Dei crowd hanging out with the worst cultist from the Protestants. Chris and I find the Mainline the Lameline instead of a community of faith today too. I really like your posts, and you seem to me to be a woman of faith in the best sense.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

I really like your posts, and you seem to me to be a woman of faith in the best sense.

Thanks, DRC. I needed that. You cannot possibly know how much. But I’m not sure I know what you mean by “a woman of faith,” especially applied to me, the “born-again pagan;” ; ) which is code, I think, for a spiritual wanderer in search of a home, with no home in sight, given that I despise the whole notion of “salvation,” or even “cosmic consciousness,” and all the other religious notions about promises of life everlasting that seem to me to be dismissive of this gift of life, just as it is, right here, right now.

My great grandfather was a Methodist minister, and an author, but my grandmother married an Englishman, and so we all ended up as Episcopalians. It didn’t take with me, obviously, except that they embedded Jesus in a little place in my brain, and now Jesus is fixed there forever, I’m afraid. If only there were a religion with Jesus, but with a Zen Buddhist reverence for the here and now, and without the sadomasochism and supernaturalism of mainstream Christianity!

Atheism makes sense on some levels. My sons are atheists. But atheism lacks poetry, and magic, but, mostly, it lacks the Jesus factor. That’s a problem, when it’s in your head, and you can’t get it out.

I’m not exactly up to speed with the references, such as the “NT” period, etc., but overall, what you’ve written there speaks to me in the same way Chris Hedges does sometimes, about religion. For example, I’m thinking of what he said in one of his debates with Sam Harris, which I’m sure you’ve read or heard before: “We have forgotten who we were meant to be, who we were created to be, because we have forgotten that we find God not in ourselves, finally, but in our care for our neighbor, in the stranger, including those outside the nation and the faith. The religious life is not designed to make you happy, or safe or content; it is not designed to make you whole or complete, to free you from anxieties and fear; it is designed to save you from yourself, to make possible human community, to lead you to understand that the greatest force in life is not power or reason but love.”

But that is the most impossible assignment imaginable. Certainly, it’s beyond me, even though I know it’s true.

It’s so easy to say “love the sinner,” hate the “sin.” How do you love the women-haters? What kind of love would have the power to open their eyes? If I knew that kind of love, or was capable of it, I might try it on one of them, see if that works. As it is, I'd just as soon get out my baseball bat and... Anyway, women have been loving these bastards for eons, and look where that got us!

Thanks for your generous response. : )

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You may be the Gentile who fulfills the Law without knowing it, but you are a fine human being and I feel nothing but communion love with your on this board. Peace and joy.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The conservatives know that the democratic women will not vote for them anyway, and republican women are republican. In other words, they believe that no one should receive benefits payed for by another and think the war is good and just. Every republican I know is absolutely terrified that one of their dollars might go to someone who needs it. So it's not a war on women, it's a war on poor women.

jimindenio's picture
jimindenio
Joined:
Mar. 18, 2012 7:08 am
Quote DRC:

D Natured, I'd have to address specific comments to see if, and when, you might have made it about all religion instead of the offensively religious. I don't equate religion with theism, and the latter is better understood as antiquated instead of absurd. Metaphysics is not physics. Myths are not history. Yet, both are able to express thought and imagination that can be useful to us in our interpretation of reality and what it means to be human here.

The problem with myths comes when they are not known to be myths and are treated as science or history. Scientists use heuristic models of imagination to describe what they know from observation, and our paradigms also are created to frame and understand what we know from experience. They are not "real" apart from that use, and when we start to believe in them we commit a religious error.

I cannot dismiss those who find theism useful to their own spiritual lives, and like Newtonian Physics' ability to get us to the moon, praying to God may help them work out their humanity. But, as Newtonian Physics can no longer explain what we know, thanks in large part to Newton, I find God no longer able to be a useful metaphysical tool for explaining ourselves and our world.

None of this obviates the sacred and establishes the secular as the measure of reality. That larger mystery, reality, remains beyond our cognition. But that is not a problem unless we want it to be.

Personally, I find atheism and the whole issue of theism a lot less interesting than what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world. If you want to address that question without theism, no problem. But, it will raise issues of religion and how we know what reality is without confining our definition to what we know. If that puts your 'tolerater' into the red zone of burn out, get a better meter for your metrics.

I find it all very open minded that you are willing to honor whatever process leads to personal human growth. That personal growth, however, cannot be to the exclusion of the growth of "we". The purpose of encouraging human-ness must be FOR our humanness, not our ability to make up cool or scary shit. Where we preserve quaint customs and rituals and costumes but ignore the accompanying inhumanity is to take the pretty pill and not the one that works.

To support the idea of the human animal, trapped in the cage of empiricism, and not allow for the transcendent component of humanity isn't my goal. My goal is to have accepted my skepticism at the insistence by MANY that another reality exists that I cannot sense and that it trumps the one I am willing to share with them and every other member of humanity. My goal is to have humanity accept that we people are good and can be as good as we like, even if this is all we have. Even without reward and punishment in the afterlife.

There's still a shit load of room for humanity in there. There's just no room for "because my god said so" being a compelling reason to do or not to do something. Especially when what your god tells you to do effects me and mine.

Whatever amount of evangelical atheism it takes to create a more rational discourse in such an environment as this is justified.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote DRC:

D Natured, I'd have to address specific comments to see if, and when, you might have made it about all religion instead of the offensively religious. I don't equate religion with theism, and the latter is better understood as antiquated instead of absurd. Metaphysics is not physics. Myths are not history. Yet, both are able to express thought and imagination that can be useful to us in our interpretation of reality and what it means to be human here.

The problem with myths comes when they are not known to be myths and are treated as science or history. Scientists use heuristic models of imagination to describe what they know from observation, and our paradigms also are created to frame and understand what we know from experience. They are not "real" apart from that use, and when we start to believe in them we commit a religious error.

I cannot dismiss those who find theism useful to their own spiritual lives, and like Newtonian Physics' ability to get us to the moon, praying to God may help them work out their humanity. But, as Newtonian Physics can no longer explain what we know, thanks in large part to Newton, I find God no longer able to be a useful metaphysical tool for explaining ourselves and our world.

None of this obviates the sacred and establishes the secular as the measure of reality. That larger mystery, reality, remains beyond our cognition. But that is not a problem unless we want it to be.

Personally, I find atheism and the whole issue of theism a lot less interesting than what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world. If you want to address that question without theism, no problem. But, it will raise issues of religion and how we know what reality is without confining our definition to what we know. If that puts your 'tolerater' into the red zone of burn out, get a better meter for your metrics.

I find it all very open minded that you are willing to honor whatever process leads to personal human growth. That personal growth, however, cannot be to the exclusion of the growth of "we". The purpose of encouraging human-ness must be FOR our humanness, not our ability to make up cool or scary shit. Where we preserve quaint customs and rituals and costumes but ignore the accompanying inhumanity is to take the pretty pill and not the one that works.

To support the idea of the human animal, trapped in the cage of empiricism, and not allow for the transcendent component of humanity isn't my goal. My goal is to have accepted my skepticism at the insistence by MANY that another reality exists that I cannot sense and that it trumps the one I am willing to share with them and every other member of humanity. My goal is to have humanity accept that we people are good and can be as good as we like, even if this is all we have. Even without reward and punishment in the afterlife.

There's still a shit load of room for humanity in there. There's just no room for "because my god said so" being a compelling reason to do or not to do something. Especially when what your god tells you to do effects me and mine.

Whatever amount of evangelical atheism it takes to create a more rational discourse in such an environment as this is justified.

D_natured, it is time to repent and come into the arms of noodley goodness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Only by knowing the love of the FSM can you hope to achieve an afterlife of strippers and beer.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote DRC:

D Natured, I'd have to address specific comments to see if, and when, you might have made it about all religion instead of the offensively religious. I don't equate religion with theism, and the latter is better understood as antiquated instead of absurd. Metaphysics is not physics. Myths are not history. Yet, both are able to express thought and imagination that can be useful to us in our interpretation of reality and what it means to be human here.

The problem with myths comes when they are not known to be myths and are treated as science or history. Scientists use heuristic models of imagination to describe what they know from observation, and our paradigms also are created to frame and understand what we know from experience. They are not "real" apart from that use, and when we start to believe in them we commit a religious error.

I cannot dismiss those who find theism useful to their own spiritual lives, and like Newtonian Physics' ability to get us to the moon, praying to God may help them work out their humanity. But, as Newtonian Physics can no longer explain what we know, thanks in large part to Newton, I find God no longer able to be a useful metaphysical tool for explaining ourselves and our world.

None of this obviates the sacred and establishes the secular as the measure of reality. That larger mystery, reality, remains beyond our cognition. But that is not a problem unless we want it to be.

Personally, I find atheism and the whole issue of theism a lot less interesting than what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world. If you want to address that question without theism, no problem. But, it will raise issues of religion and how we know what reality is without confining our definition to what we know. If that puts your 'tolerater' into the red zone of burn out, get a better meter for your metrics.

I find it all very open minded that you are willing to honor whatever process leads to personal human growth. That personal growth, however, cannot be to the exclusion of the growth of "we". The purpose of encouraging human-ness must be FOR our humanness, not our ability to make up cool or scary shit. Where we preserve quaint customs and rituals and costumes but ignore the accompanying inhumanity is to take the pretty pill and not the one that works.

To support the idea of the human animal, trapped in the cage of empiricism, and not allow for the transcendent component of humanity isn't my goal. My goal is to have accepted my skepticism at the insistence by MANY that another reality exists that I cannot sense and that it trumps the one I am willing to share with them and every other member of humanity. My goal is to have humanity accept that we people are good and can be as good as we like, even if this is all we have. Even without reward and punishment in the afterlife.

There's still a shit load of room for humanity in there. There's just no room for "because my god said so" being a compelling reason to do or not to do something. Especially when what your god tells you to do effects me and mine.

Whatever amount of evangelical atheism it takes to create a more rational discourse in such an environment as this is justified.

D_natured, it is time to repent and come into the arms of noodley goodness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Only by knowing the love of the FSM can you hope to achieve an afterlife of strippers and beer.

In heaven there IS no beer. That's why we drink it here...or, so says the polka.

There are no songs about strippers in heaven, but I'll take your word for it. I wonder if the strippers are in THEIR afterlife? Maybe being a stripper in FSM heaven is the universal punishment for being a prude on earth. Wouldn't that be hilarious to see the likes of Laura Bush doing an awkward bump and grind before a crowd of earthly atheists?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

I am not a big fan of the heaven is where you get the reward meme of a lot of religion, but when you are dealing with serious injustice in this life on earth, it has been one effective narrative to assert the value of moral actions and stands against "the principalities and powers of this world." The math of giving up your life to save the life of another if "NOW" is all we have may get in the way of courage and social altruism, but they may be necessary to have human life be human in this world.

The whole point I want to make is that narratives and stories do have a place in this picture. Other than being a joke, the flying spaghetti monster does not give much of a narrative. But, the creation stories of many peoples do include some pretty fantastic myths, and I think we are richer for them. I do want discussions of faith, metaphysics and myths to come back to earth and be about human life. To take any of them literally is to misunderstand what they are and what they are for.

In heaven, the sensual does not need the bump and grind, and if there is no beer in heaven, at least Luther knew that it was a sign of the love of God on earth. My seasonal of choice out here in the islands is Sierra Nevada's Ruthless Rye IPA. Kona sucks, but Maui Brewing makes some very fine stuff including one of the very rare Blondes with real malty goodness. I will return to Birvanna in late April, and while the weather will not be heavenly, the beer will be.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

You don't know what 'Libertarian' means...

If you want to know what libertarianism is all about, don’t ask a libertarian, because most of them don’t know.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system