if a situation has arisen which will lead to the destruction of the country if specific actions are not taken and there is no time (or ability for whatever reason) to change the law or amend the constitution to make the necessary action legal the executive is allowed to take the necessary action. It's hard to see how we have anything but a presidential dictatorship if life is seen as a permanent ongoing emergency of this sort, but that is the logic of it.

to a democracy of "socialists" "abortionists" and "degenerates". This is our real problem. It really is a miracle that things are not worse in the world than they are. If we had had the govt. we have now when Hitler was governing Germany on behalf of the EXACT SAME CONSTITUENCY what kind of world would we be living in.

This is why (for all the obnoxiousness that it enables) the opportunity for truly anonymous speech should be preserved.

what is the basis of the belief that "new" and "old" feminists disagree about anything important.

provided the women is not poor, since for most women men and relationships are optional pleasures, at most, only worth having if they are no trouble, if then. Men COULD, in theory take the same attitude and you would have a situation where nobody cares about anybody who doesn't agree with them about everything but biology prevents it. Better?

would western women still be able to justify their belief in their oppression when they were stuck with having to base it on their own lives and experiences where the only oppression they experience is hot men unwilling to be both totally faithful and totally subservient to them.

The interest women have in relationships is predicated on the justified belief that men can and will do everything their way, and why shouldn't they believe this, after all "science has proven" that there are no differences between men and women and all assertions that there are are plots to oppress women. Since this is the case it follows that any real differences are attempts to oppress women by "misogynists", and thus not relationship worthy. Mostly they get away with it as the existence of feminism demonstrates.

is exactly what I am talking about.

Unless men have specific concrete practical power over them, MEN DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT OTHER MEN THINK EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT BEARS ON THEIR CAPACITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH WOMEN i.e if success with women means being politically successful in a group of men, or the army, or whatever then men are all over it but it is still all ultimately motivated by a desire to be in a successful position with women. Women are different, they instinctively rely on relationships with women to help them raise their kids, and they misapply their own instincts in their attempt to understand men.

Are you really this stupid or are you intentionally distorting the obvious meaning of what I say? Of course when one is discussing important instinctual motivations they have influence in many areas of life, it doesn't make them everything. The belief that the instinctual motivations of females constitute a fully balanced, healthy, and natural way of being while those of men are a distortion or a conspiracy is yet ANOTHER example of female ideological self centeredness and dishonesty.

I don't think coming up with such a standard is beyond human intelligence but apparently it isn't wanted. Even if such a standard existed that still wouldn't mean that "fewer probelms" would equal "no problems" or "no real problems" or "no problems that aren't really their/your own fault", etc. and even if they were they would still be there and need to be dealt with.

everyone knows this, which is why they are making the assumption, but because androgyny is so highly valued we have to pretend to believe that we don't know what we obviously do know unless there is "proof". It's kind of similar to people "not knowing" that Liberace was gay.

but even though the Hamas rockets may not be doing "significant" damage it simply is beyond the capacity of human nature to accept ongoing "terroristic" harassment without responding if one has a choice. As long as Israel, or any govt. has the ability (and can afford the consequences) it WILL respond to terrorism, even "minor" terrorism. When intelligent people imply that it is possible to have a realistic expectation that someone will volunteer to accept a "low" level of terrorism out of altruism, generosity, or some sense of historical responsibility it really does illustrate that everyone has their blind spots.

Israel can't survive unless lots of people who have the ability to leave choose to stay there. So suppressing terrorism pretty completely really is a matter of survival for the country.

it is that no society which has a choice will tolerate terrorism without a response if they can afford to try and suppress it. So the only question is: will/should Israel be deprived of the ability to respond to it or not.

Might it perhaps be time to consider a change of tactcs?

Arabs may be faced with nuclear armaggedon, since I do believe Israel would commit collective suicide rather than live under Arab or Moslem rule.

even the real nazis aren't (quite)that stupid

if he'd left it off

who want to keep the war going so they can eventually win it all. No one, including Israelis who want peace, will accept rocket attacks if they have the power to respond. Failure to understand these two facts plays into the hands of those on both sides who want the fighting to continue until they win everything.

that a non jew expressing a similar awareness of the situation is likely to be regarded with, at least, some concern.