Conference quark::mennotes

    
    All I gotta do is replace the 'she' with 'he' (or ME) and make the
    proper gender adjustments, and the same could be applied to men!
    
    Fred, thanks for the laugh and for making us remember that both men and
    women have their unique, and lovable, differences. That's what makes
    life so interesting.
    
    John
    

    A good sit-com to watch on the battle of the sex's with humor is 'Home
    Improvement'. Always enjoyed the yucks.:)
    
    

    
    re .1
    
    >    All I gotta do is replace the 'she' with 'he' (or ME) and make the
    >    proper gender adjustments, and the same could be applied to men!
    
    Don't know about you, but I haven't had PMS for a good long while ;^}
    
    fred();

    The note in .0 sounds like some of the 'gender war' stuff that
    comes out from time to time.
    
    I saw one a couple of years ago that described men as not knowing
    that they have children.  It said that men are only 'vaguely aware'
    that some very short people live in the house.  
    
    (Not funny, I know.  These things - like the note in .0 - are not
    really meant to be funny to everyone anyway.)  :>
    

I saw the men one with the children just a couple months ago. I 
thought .0 as well as that one were quite funny.

Of course, I have no cross to bear...

daryll

    Daryll, if I saw you slip on a banana peal, I might think it was
    hilarious (although you might not.)
    
    It depends on your perspective, I guess.
    

    
    One famous comedian was asked the difference between comedy and
    tragedy.  He explained that tragedy was if he got a hangnail and
    comedy was if you fall through an open manhole and get killed.  

    fred();

    It is sad that many people cannot laugh at themselves. That the
    politically correct torch must be carried to the N'th degree.
    

    Rauh, it's funny, but someone recently posted a piece where the
    word "Republican" was substituted for the word "Homosexual" -
    it was about the controversy on whether or not people are 'born
    that way'.  It was very critical of Republicans in the very way
    that some people are very critical of gays.  (Most of the arguments
    were things that some conservatives actually say about gays.)

    Some of the Republicans in the conference were very, very bothered
    by this piece.  They complained bitterly about it, in fact.

    A few notes later, they laughed when some other group was 'roasted'
    in another piece meant to be humorous.

    I guess some Republicans just have a different definition for how
    things look 'politically correct' from their perspective, eh?

>    I guess some Republicans just have a different definition for how
>    things look 'politically correct' from their perspective, eh?
    
    Naw, just sensitive people from all walks of life, mostly.  The ones
    who don't care, you don't hear from...
    
    GW
    

    As long as you agree that some Republican men are sensitive to what
    they perceive as being not 'politically correct' enough for their tastes
    - then, fine.

    
    	re .6
    
    	Minor nit: It's banana PEEL, not PEAL.
    
    	You're very welcome.
    
    	John ;)
    

    Johnybegood!! Heck! When does a peel have apeal?:)
    

    Thank you, John.  :>
    

    on a lighter side. My daugher, of 8 has been making me lunchs.....
    Todays special was, before I stopped her, cream cheese and ballonie...
    The other day it was ketchup and ballonie.. there was sooo much
    ketchup, I could hear the ballonie yelling, "Help!! I am drowning!!"
    

    Allowing a young child to make your lunch is a risky venture.
    
    You're lucky that you didn't get peanut butter and baloney.  :)

    Very very risky!! But, Its the though that counts! And I was touched
    very much. Thank goodness it wasn't the stomach to be pumped after such
    and ordeal.:)
    
    

        re .11

>    As long as you agree that some Republican men are sensitive to what
>    they perceive as being not 'politically correct' enough for their tastes
>    - then, fine.

    Only when you can find some Democrats that will admit that they are
    just as hypocritical and bigoted as they keep accusing the big bad
    Republican males as being.  Anybody heard from the pro-life wing
    of the Democrat Party lately--there is one.
    
    fred();

         Hey, hey! This isn't SOAPBOX! What does all this have to do with
    "Understanding Women"?

    RE: .19  Fred
    
    >> As long as you agree that some Republican men are sensitive to what
    >> they perceive as being not 'politically correct' enough for their tastes
    >> - then, fine.
    
    > Only when you can find some Democrats that will admit that they are
    > just as hypocritical and bigoted as they keep accusing the big bad
    > Republican males as being.  Anybody heard from the pro-life wing
    > of the Democrat Party lately--there is one.
    
    Find some Republicans who admit to being hypocritical and bigoted.
    
    Go ahead.

    
    Suzanne
    
    You'll never hear a Republican admit to being hypocritical or bigoted.
    That's why they are the RIGHT political party. ;)
    
    I could never understand how somebody could state that a particular
    political party happens to encompass all of their own personal beliefs
    and morals..unless they happened to be a founding father of that party.
    That's why I am and will always be an Independent. I do not and cannot
    agree with Dem's or Repub's 100%.
    
    Although I can state that in my teens, I leaned towards Democrats
    because of idealism, then was a pseudo-Repub in my 20's and 30's 'cuz I
    was greedy, and now lean more towards compassion (Democratic).
    
    John
    

    

>    
>    Find some Republicans who admit to being hypocritical and bigoted.
>    
>    Go ahead.

    I asked you first.  Besides it's not the Republicans that are going
    around making all the accusations while doing the same thing
    themselves.   It comes as a terrible shock to a lot of people to
    find out you don't necessarily have to be a white male to be a bigot.

    fred();

     
     
     
     For all you women, you should agree.  For all of you men, this should 
     help explain things......
     
     
     A WOMAN'S 50 RULES FOR MEN
     
     1. Call.
     2. Don't lie.
     3. Never tape any of her body parts together.
     4. If guys' night out is going to be fun, invite the girls.
     5. If guys' night out is going to involve strippers, remember the 
     zoorules:  No Petting.
     6. The correct answer to "Do I look fat?" is never, ever "Yes." 
     7. Ditto for "Is she prettier than me?"
     8. Victoria's Secret is good. Frederick's of Hollywood is bad. 
     9. Ordering for her is good. Telling her what she wants is bad. 
     10. Being attentive is good. Stalking is bad.
     11. "Honey", "Darling", and "Sweetheart" are good. "Nag", "Lardass", 
     and "Bitch" are bad.
     12. Talking is good. Shouting is bad. Slapping is a felony. 
     13. A grunt is seldom an acceptable answer to any question.
     14. None of your ex-girlfriends were ever nicer, prettier, or better 
     in bed.
     15. Her cooking is excellent.
     16. That isn't an excuse for you to avoid cooking. 
     17. Dishsoap is your friend.
     18. Hat does not equal shower, aftershave does not equal soap, and 
     warm does not equal clean.
     19. Buying her dinner does not equal foreplay.
     20. Answering "Who was that on the phone?" with "Nobody" is never 
     going to end that conversation.
     21. Ditto for "Whose lipstick is this?" 
     22. Two words: clean socks.
     23. Believe it or not, you're probably not more attractive when you're 
     drunk.
     24. Burping is not sexy.
     25. You're wrong.
     26. You're sorry.
     27. She is probably less impressed by your discourse on your cool car 
     than you think she is.
     28. Ditto for your discourse on football.
     29. Ditto for your ability to jump up and hit any awning in a single 
     bound.
     30. "Will you marry me?" is good. "Let's shack up together" is bad. 
     31. Don't assume PMS is the cause for every bad mood.
     32. Don't assume PMS doesn't exist.
     33. No means No. Yes means Yes. Silence could mean anything she  feels 
     like at that particular moment in time, and it could change without 
     notice.
     34. "But, we kiss..." is not justification for using her toothbrush.  
     You don't clean plaque with your tongue.
     35. Never let her walk anywhere alone after 11pm. 
     36. Chivalry and feminism are NOT mutually exclusive.
     37. Pick her up at the airport. Don't whine about it, just do it.
     38. If you want to break up with her, break up with her. Don't act 
     like a complete jerk until she does it for you.
     39. Don't tell her you love her if you don't. 
     40. Tell her you love her if you do. Often. 
     41. Always, always suck up to her brother. 
     42. Think boxers.
     43. Silk boxers.
     44. Remember Valentine's Day, and any cheesy "anniversary" she         
     no-names. 
     45. Don't try to change the way she dresses.
     46. Her haircut is never bad.
     47. Don't let your friends pick on her. 
     48. Call.
     49. Don't lie.
     50. The rules are never fair. Accept this without question. The fact 
     that she has to go through labor while you sit in the waiting room on 
     your ass smoking cigars isn't fair either, and it balances everything
     out.

                            THE RULES
    
    1)  The female always makes the RULES.
    
    2)  The RULES are subject to change at any time without prior
    notification.
    
    3)  No male can possibly know all the RULES.
    
    4)  If the female suspects the male knows all the RULES, she must
    immediately change some or all of the RULES.
    
    5)  The female is never wrong.
    
    6)  If the female is wrong; it is because of a flagrant
    misunderstanding, which was a direct result of something the male did
    or said wrong.
    
    7)  If RULE #6 applies; the male must apologize immediately for causing
    the midunderstanding.
    
    8)  The female can change her mind at any given point in time.
    
    9)  The male must never change his mind, without EXPRESS WRITTEN
    CONSENT from the female.
    
    10) The female has every right to be ANGRY or UPSET at any time.
    
    11) The male must remain CALM at all times, unless the female wants him
    to be angry or upset.
    
    12) The female must, under no circumstances, let the male know whether
    or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
    
    13) Any attempt to document these RULES could result in bodily harm.
    
    14) If the female has PMS, all RULES are null and void....          

    The Rules
    
    - Call
    
    - Don't lie
    
    - be honest
    
    - be sincere
    
    - Be yourself
    
    - know yourself
    
    - work on your own issues
    
    - don't work on partners issues.  Expect partner to work on 
      own issues.
    
    - Address problems as they come up.
    
    - don't be afraid to get emotional.  particular sad, scared when
    appropriate. (especially if anger is the predominant emotion)
    
    - don't be afraid to get angry,  (expecially when sad is predominant
    emotion.)
    
    - be open
    
    - Love Yourself
    
    - love others
    
    - Talk often
    
    - Talk real
    
               

    John Sobecky, your stock just went up in my books.  Way up.
    
    Thanks,
    Suzanne

    RE: .23  Fred

    >> Find some Republicans who admit to being hypocritical and bigoted.
 
    >> Go ahead.

    > I asked you first. 

    It's hypocritical to demand that someone else do something that you
    would be unwilling to do yourself.

    > Besides it's not the Republicans that are going
    > around making all the accusations while doing the same thing
    > themselves.  

    Sure it is!  Republicans accuse people of being 'politically correct'
    if the people don't enjoy being ridiculed - but Republicans go nuts 
    if you tell them that THEY are being 'politically correct' when THEY 
    don't like being ridiculed.

    Republicans accuse people of being Nazis (or -nazies) in many different
    situations, but they go nuts if you remind them that Adolph Hitler and
    the Nazis in Germany were EXTREME RIGHT-WINGERS.  (Nazism was based on
    Fascism, which is on the *very extreme right*.)

    If you ask most Repubs today, they'll say that Hitler and his Nazis
    were on the left (even though it's obvious that the Neo-Nazi groups
    today are ALL on the extreme right.)  If they had to face the fact
    that the Nazis were on the right, they'd see how ironic it is for
    them to call people on the LEFT by names of people on the extreme
    RIGHT.  (Most of them simply refuse to face it.  They cling to the
    belief that the most extreme right would be a total lack of government,
    when it's actually true that BOTH the most extreme right and the most
    extreme left are Totalitarianism.)

    .28
    
    Since this isn't SOAPBOX I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this,
    but you just keep making such blatantly incorrect statements, or
    inferences, that it can't go unaddressed.
    
    The major point is that the extreme-right-wing diatribe is atttached to
    just about any conservative or Republican.  Howw many times has the
    current congress been referred to as filled with extreme-right-wingers? 
    This is clearly incorrect, but very few people and particularly the
    media never correct this.
    
    Since you point out that extreme left and right are actually very
    close, why aren't the liberals referred to in the same fashion, i.e.,
    extreme-left-wing.  This never gets reported or stated.  There are just
    as many people on the left side of the spectrum as there are on the
    right, yet only the conservatives get tagged as extreme-right-wing.
    
    Maybe when the name-calling gets eliminated or at least some balance is
    represented, then you may see less of an objection the tag.  It would
    be easiest for you to start since you have consistently used this term.
    

    RE: .29  Rocush

    > The major point is that the extreme-right-wing diatribe is atttached to
    > just about any conservative or Republican.  Howw many times has the
    > current congress been referred to as filled with extreme-right-wingers? 

    Democrats and liberals are called 'extreme left wingers' ("commies",
    "pinkos") every bit as much.

    > Since you point out that extreme left and right are actually very
    > close, 

    Wait - I never, ever, EVER said that the extreme left and right were
    close.  I said that the extremes of both sides are Totalitarianism.
    Their political ideas are still very different, even though both 
    extremes want total control when they enforce these ideas.

    > why aren't the liberals referred to in the same fashion, i.e.,
    > extreme-left-wing.  This never gets reported or stated. 

    What country do you live in?  People on the left are called extremists
    all the time.  The word 'liberal' (thanks to Reagan) is pronounced with
    a very blatant SNEER, and it is used to mean 'extreme-left-wingers'.

    Hillary Clinton and NOW are called extreme-left-wingers, especially.

    > Maybe when the name-calling gets eliminated or at least some balance is
    > represented, then you may see less of an objection the tag.  It would
    > be easiest for you to start since you have consistently used this term.

    We won't have any real 'balance' in this country until the word
    'conservative' is spoken with a SNEER.  The dirty-tricks Republicans
    have done way, way, WAY too much smearing of their own to have any
    grounds to complain that it's being done to them.

    re suzanne
    
    I have to join .28 in that I don't think I should be required to 
    respond to such blatently incorrect ejaculations.
    
    fred();

    .30
    
    Just what planet do you live on?????
    
    Please identify the last newscast that Jennings, Brokaw, Rather, et.
    al. have used the term extreme-left-wing when rfering to the Democratic
    party.  Also, the term liberal began to be used with a sneer because
    people finally began to see through the hypocracy of liberal thought
    and the devastation caused by liberal policies.
    

    RE: .32  Rocush

    > Please identify the last newscast that Jennings, Brokaw, Rather, et.
    > al. have used the term extreme-left-wing when rfering to the Democratic
    > party. 

    The Republicans CALLED EACH OTHER 'extremists' in TV ads.  Why on Earth
    should the press decline to use terminology that Republican politicians
    use about EACH OTHER??

    > Also, the term liberal began to be used with a sneer because
    > people finally began to see through the hypocracy of liberal thought
    > and the devastation caused by liberal policies.
 
    It wasn't PEOPLE who started doing this - it was Republican POLITICIANS
    who used a systematic campaign to say the word 'liberal' with a sneer.

    So now the Republicans are calling each other 'extremists' (because
    the word has become so associated with far right politicians.)

    Repubs are the last people on Earth who can complain about smear 
    tactics when they such masters at it.

    re .33

    At least Republicans _allow_ debate on controversial issues. 
    
    fred();

    Tell that to Pat Buchanan as he sits outside on the street during
    the Republican National Convention.
    

    
    
    >    Tell that to Pat Buchanan as he sits outside on the street during
    >    the Republican National Convention.
    
    Again you accuse the Republicans of something that has not happened.
    While at a the 1992 Democratic convention a pro-life Democrat 
    governor who asked to present the pro-life point of view at the
    Democrat convention was not even allowed in the building.
    
    fred();

    
    Even at this moment the "platform" committee of the Republican party
    is meeting.  There is _considerable_ debate over the wording of the
    Republican platform particularly around "pro-life"/"pro-choice" issues.
    Again I ask, has anyone heard from the pro-life wing of the Democrat
    party--there is one.

    fred();

    RE: .36  Fred

    >> Tell that to Pat Buchanan as he sits outside on the street during
    >> the Republican National Convention.
    
    > Again you accuse the Republicans of something that has not happened.

    Try keeping up with current events.  Pat Buchanan is not being allowed
    to speak at the Republican convention.  The news is already out.

    > While at a the 1992 Democratic convention a pro-life Democrat 
    > governor who asked to present the pro-life point of view at the
    > Democrat convention was not even allowed in the building.

    This governor did NOT back the Democratic candidate for President.
    This is why he was not given permission to speak.  He had no other
    way to get into the building (since he was not a delegate or a
    speaker.)

    Pat Buchanan is being denied the opportunity to speak at the
    Republican convention for the same exact reason.  

    However, we can absolutely COUNT on Republicans to do the very
    thing that the Democrats did while they excuse themselves for it
    but trash Democrats for the same thing.

    RE: .38  Fred

    > Again I ask, has anyone heard from the pro-life wing of the Democrat
    > party--there is one.

    Sure.

    The Democratic party isn't trying to tear itself up over this issue,
    though (nor is the Democratic party required to do so simply because
    the Republicans happen to be tearing themselves up over it as we
    speak.)

    
    re .39
    
>    The Democratic party isn't trying to tear itself up over this issue,
>    though (nor is the Democratic party required to do so simply because
>    the Republicans happen to be tearing themselves up over it as we
>    speak.)
    
    If the only way to keep from "tearing itself up" is to silence debate,
    then I'll take the Republican way of doing it.
    
    fred();

    RE: .40  Fred
    
    > If the only way to keep from "tearing itself up" is to silence debate,
    > then I'll take the Republican way of doing it.
    
    Debate hasn't been silenced.  The Democrats know when it would be crazy 
    to tear themselves up.
    
    The Republicans simply haven't figured this out yet.
    

    
    
    >Debate hasn't been silenced.  

    Again a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.  Just because you 
    can type it in doesn't make it correct.  To silence the descent
    has been the major thrust of "political correctness".   In the past
    couple years numerous Senators and Representatives have left the
    Democratic party.  To a man, they have stated that one of the main
    reasons for leaving was that their voice was no longer allowed
    in the Democrat party.

    fred();

    Notice that these people (in the past two years) didn't change sides 
    until the Republican had already won a majority.

    Apparently, they were willing to stay on the 'wrong side' as long as
    the 'wrong side' maintained control.

    Is this how you decide which party you belong to?  No?  
    
    (It isn't how I decide, either.)
    
    What will these guys do if the Democrats regain the majority (this
    year, in two years or in four years?)  Will they switch back?

    If 'silencing dissent' is the biggest thrust of political correctness,
    then the Republicans are the true masters of political correctness, too.

    It's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to have a political conversation with
    conservatives without the macho 'big guns' language coming out 
    (in the effort to get the 'other side' to stop expressing their views.)

    The joke where the word 'Republican' was substituted for 'homosexual'
    (for an argument which is typical of what Republicans often say about
    homosexuals) received very irate responses from Republicans.  They
    tried to silence humorous dissent against their views.

    
      I'm an easy woman to understand, just don't ask me any questions and
    I won't confuse you with an answer.   8*)
    
       Rosie

    .44 et. al.
    
    Apparently you still insist on the same sorry excuses for logic and
    example.  I will no longer waste my time attempting to use logic or
    serious debate on any issue with you.
    
    I will, however, continue to point out your errors and misstatements,
    as  all of the entries about Republicans have been.  You never support
    a statement with a fact that is verifiable, nor that is not taken out
    of context.  You also have the inate ability to ignore that which you
    can not answer.  Brokaw, Jennings for example.
    

    Rocush, if you ever decide to study Logic, let me know.  

    (It's quite fascinating, I assure you.  I still have some of the
    textbooks we used when I earned my Bachelors degree in Philosophy
    with a specialty in Symbolic Logic.  The entire subject is quite
    captivating.)

    Then perhaps we can discuss this.  Otherwise, all you're capable
    of doing is to be 'politically correct' (by trying to silence
    dissent.)  :/

         Uh, oh, this topic is headed for another mod cutoff. 

    
    	Nah.  The arguments are pretty much finished already.
    

    
    re .47

    >    Rocush, if you ever decide to study Logic, let me know.

    Jesus, Socrates, Galileo.  History is full of those without
    "degrees" whom "learned" men have silenced or attempted to
    silence.  Funny how history tends to repeat itself, just from
    different angles.

    fred();

    .47
    
    Although I have my Master's in Finance and over a dozen years of
    practical experience, I do not find much use for either in here. 
    Apparently the same applies to your educational background.
    
    If you ever want to identify the shortcomings in your logic, which Fred
    has been quite accurate in idenifying, let me know and I will be
    pleased to point out where your educational training was deficient.
         

    
    rep .41

    >   Debate hasn't been silenced.  The Democrats know when it would be
    >   crazy    to tear themselves up.

    Debate is the life blood of Democracy.  "Unity" is the life blood of
    several other philosophies.

    fred();

    > Debate is the life blood of Democracy.  "Unity" is the life blood of
    > several other philosophies.
    
    It's interesting to see a Republican make this comment.

    The Republicans in Congress voted AS A BLOCK for decades while the 
    Democrats have voted in various directions on almost every issue
    for the past 40 years.

    The Repubs had almost nothing more than UNITY for a long time.
    Now that they have a majority, they aren't simply voting in various
    directions - they're tearing themselves apart in the process.

    

    >    It's interesting to see a Republican make this comment.

    Not really, since at the _present_ it is Republicans who are engaging
    in debate and the Democrats  (from the root "Democracy") who are
    engaging in "unity", and the silencing of debate to achieve that
    unity.  Again you appear to be pretty selective in your "facts".

    fred();

    If you look at the voting records for the past two years, you'll see
    that the Democrats have not been 'voting in a block' in the way that 
    the Republicans did for decades.

    The Democrats still do have debates - open your eyes and look at the
    news about how the Democrats have disagreed with each other in the
    past week.  (They aren't tearing themselves apart over it, though.)

    
    
    So, have we all achieved an understanding of Suzanne yet?  Ok. Now
    back to the topic:
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    
    
Why dogs are better than women-

Dogs don't cry.
Dogs love it when your friends come over.
Dogs don't care if you use their shampoo.
Dogs think you sing great.
A dog's time in the bathroom is confined to a quick drink.
Dogs don't expect you to call when you are running late. The
   later you are, the more excited dogs are to see you.
Dogs will forgive you for playing with other dogs.
Dogs are excited by rough play.
Dogs don't mind if you give their offspring away.
Dogs understand that farts are funny.
Dogs love red meat.
Dogs can appreciate excessive body hair.
Anyone can get a good-looking dog.
If a dog is gorgeous, other dogs don't hate it.
Dogs don't shop.
Dogs like it when you leave lots of things on the floor.
A dog's disposition stays the same all month long.
Dogs never need to examine the relationship.
A dog's parents never visit.
Dogs love long car trips.
Dogs understnad that instincts are better than asking for
   directions.
Dogs understand that all animals smaller than dogs were made
   to be hunted.
When a dog gets old and starts to snap at you incessantly, you
   can shoot it.
Dogs like beer.
Dogs don't hate their bodies.
No dog ever bought a Kenny G or Hootie & the Blowfish CD.
No dog ever put on 100 pounds after reaching adulthood.
Dogs never criticize.
Dogs agree that you have to raise your voice to get your point
   across.
Dogs never expect gifts.
It's legal to keep a dog chained up at your house.
Dogs don't worry about germs.
Dogs don't want to know about every other dog you ever had.
Dogs like to do their snooping outside as opposed to in
     your wallet, desk, and the back of your sock drawer.
Dogs don't let magazine articles guide their lives.
Dogs would rather have you buy them a hambuger dinner than
    a lobster one.
You never have to wait for a dog. They're ready to go 24 hours
    a day.
Dogs have no use for flowers, cards, or jewelry.
Dogs don't borrow your shirts.
Dogs never want foot-rubs.
Dogs enjoy heavy petting in public.
dogs find you amusing when you're drunk.
Dogs can't talk.
Dogs aren't catty.

                           BORN REPUBLICAN

The startling discovery that affiliation with the Republican party is
genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of
the journal "Nurture."  Reports of the gene that codes for political
conservatism, discovered after a long study of quintuplets in Orange
County, Calif., has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and
golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural and frequently unconstitutional tendencies result from unhealthy
family life -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans had
authoritative, domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who
failed to teach them how to be kind and gentle. But biologists have long
suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one author of
the "Nurture" article, "it's quite common for a Republican to have a
brother or a sister who is also a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by parents and friends of
Republicans, who have tended to blame themselves for the political views
of otherwise lovable people -- their children, friends, and unindicted
co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, clasped her hands in ecstasy on hearing
of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated beside her
two sons, both avowed Republicans. "I just knew that nobody would actually
choose that life style!" When asked what the Republican life style was,
she said, "Well, you can just tell from watching TV, like at the
convention in Houston: the loud outfits, the flaming xenophobia, the
flamboyant demagogy -- you know."

Both sons said they had suspected their Republicanism from an early age
but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became
convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

Despite the near-certainty of the medical community of Republicanism's
genetic origins, troubling issues remain. The "Nurture" article offered no
response to the suggestion that the startlingly high incidence of
Republicanism among siblings could result from the fact that they share
not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitudes, being the
products of the same parents and family dynamics.

And it remains to be explained why so many avowed Democrats are known to
vote Republican occasionally -- or at least to fantasize about doing so.
Polls show that three out of five Democrats admit to having had a
Republican experience. In well-adjusted people, however, this
experimentation rarely outlasts adolescence.

Surprisingly, some Republican activists hail the findings as a step
forward rather than as an invitation to more conservophobia. They argue
that since Republicans didn't "choose" their unwholesome life style any
more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be
denied civil rights to which normal people are entitled.

Other Republicans, recalling 19th-century scientific studies that "proved"
the mental inferiority of blacks, find the frenzied search for the
biological cause of Republicanism pointless, if not downright sinister.

But for many "real" Americans, the discovery opens a window on a brighter
tomorrow. In a few years, gene therapy could eradicate Republicanism
altogether.

If conservatism is not the result of sheer orneriness (as many suspect)
but is something Republicans can't help and probably don't even like,
there's no reasons why we shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military
or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political
beliefs.

    Just think - if we were lawyers here, we could enjoy a 
    billion more jokes about all of us.  :>
    
    They've probably reached a world's record for 'the most
    jokes against' them by now.  :-)
    

    addendum to .57
    
    
    Dogs don't wave a Bathelor's degree when cornered. 

    re .58
    
    Alright!!!!  There's hope for my kids after all.  ;^).
    
    fred();

    another to .57
    
    Dogs don't care if you are a republican  ;)
    
    Dogs don't rat hole every subject in this conference ;)
    
    Dogs don't keep telling you how smart they are ;)
    
    Dogs don't insults the hell out of you every chance they get ;)
    
    Dogs don't think that they are better than you ;)
    
    Dogs don't get every subject in this conference write locked ;)
    
    Dogs don't think that they know it all ;)
    
    Dogs don't throw out a bunch of bull to support their position ;)
    

    * Just so no one can say that we aren't equal opportunity here.

A tourist wanders into a back-alley antique shop in San Francisco's
Chinatown. Picking through the objects on display he discovers a
detailed, life-sized bronze sculpture of a rat. The sculpture is so
interesting and unique that he picks it up and asks the shop owner
what it costs.

"Twelve dollars for the rat, sir," says the shop owner, "and a
thousand dollars more for the story behind it."

"You can keep the story, old man," he replies, "but I'll take the
rat."

The transaction complete, the tourist leaves the store with the
bronze rat under his arm. As he crosses the street in front of the
store, two live rats emerge from a sewer drain and fall into step
behind him. Nervously looking over his shoulder, he begins to walk
faster, but every time he passes another sewer drain, more rats come
out and follow him. By the time he's walked two blocks, at least a
hundred rats are at his heels, and people begin to point and shout.
He walks even faster, and soon breaks into a trot as multitudes of
rats swarm from sewers, basements, vacant lots, and abandoned cars.
Rats by the thousands are at his heels, and as he sees the waterfront
at the bottom of the hill, he panics and starts to run full tilt.

No matter how fast he runs, the rats keep up, squealing hideously,
now not just thousands but millions, so that by the time he comes
rushing up to the water's edge a trail of rats twelve city blocks
long is behind him. Making a mighty leap, he jumps up onto a light
post, grasping it with one arm while he hurls the bronze rat into San
Francisco Bay with the other, as far as he can heave it.  Pulling his
legs up and clinging to the light post, he watches in amazement as
the seething tide of rats surges over the breakwater into the sea,
where they drown.

Shaken and mumbling, he makes his way back to the antique shop.

"Ah, so you've come back for the rest of the story," says the owner.

"No," says the tourist, "I was wondering if you have a bronze lawyer."

    

    Why Dogs Are Better Than Men
    ----------------------------
    
    Dogs don't laugh about the idea of chaining or shooting women.
    
    Dogs don't believe they have someone cornered just because they're
    	growling real loud.
    
    Dogs pee to mark their territory - they don't destroy it.
    

    Hey, you guys should run out and buy the new computer game called
    "Gender Wars".
    
    In the game, you get to kill all women.
    
    Perhaps a version of this game could be played right here.
    

    
       So when someone calls a man a 'dog' then it's a compliment.! 8*)

    re .65
    
    So, do we understand Suzanne yet?
    
    fred();

    .58
    
    Actually as a poor attempt at humor this one fills the bill quite
    nicely, as long as you ignore the tired and worn inaccuracies and
    misstatements.
    
    I can understand why some would find this humorous, but then it would
    also be the same ones who believe getevenwithemism is the first step to
    equality.
    

    .57
    
    Hey, I own a Kenny G CD.  This is not funny. :)
    

    Rocush, I thought .58 would have you rolling on the floor laughing
    (since you're not too 'politically correct' to laugh at yourself
    and all.)  :)
    

    
    re 70.

    What it did show is that you seem to think I'm supposed to be really
    insulted by .58.  Like "Republican" and "Conservative" are supposed
    to be among George Carlin's seven dirty words or something.

    fred();

    Fred, 'BORN REPUBLICAN' was supposed to be *funny*, not insulting.

    When you tell your jokes against women, do you actually mean to
    insult women?  (I thought you were just trying to be funny, too.)

    
    >    Fred, 'BORN REPUBLICAN' was supposed to be *funny*, not insulting.
    
    Boy, you sure put one over on me, huh, Suzanne.
    
    fred();

    So, Fred, does this mean that your jokes against women *are* supposed
    to be insulting, not simply funny?
    
    Or do the jokes only sound 'funny' when they're about some other group?
    

I wish you folks were in the same timezone as me, so I could ride herd on you
a bit better...

I, for one, don't find these "why X is better than a man/woman" jokes funny
nor do I think they are appropriate for a notesfile on Digital's network.
Seeing that the actual discussion stopped many replies ago, I have disabled
further replies to this topic.

				Steve

    
    re .74

    I'm not above having a chuckle at my own expense.   However, As a
    Republican and a conservative, I find .58 neither funny nor insulting. 
    like I said.  If true, then maybe my kids have a chance after all.
    I do find it very telling, however, that you seem to think it should 
    be an example of humor for one group and an insult to another.

    fred();