Doubt it, their principles are entirely flexible based on the results they want. If they have more power at the local level they are all for localism, the second they are in charge of the federal govt. they don't hesitate to override local laws in liberal jurisdictions. For years when we had Republican presidents and a Democratic Congress they talked endlessly about how the President represented the popular will and Congress was a collection of corrupt entrenched politics. The SECOND a Democrat was in the White House and the Republicans controlled Congress Congress instantly became the true expression of the will of the country.

they have to meet a bunch of other standards too.

then their position is the same as women but for some reason they don't seem to find it oppressive.

True, there are lots of differences, but one area where it is almost impossible to overuse it is when judging the behavior of men towards those they are attracted to. Gay men have the SAME ATTITUDE AND APPROACH to men as straight men have to women and yet the reaction is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. It is hilarious and revealing to watch people trying to reconcile this fact with the claim that the responses women have to "objectification", "sexualization", "the predatory gaze" etc. etc. are absolute objective universal truths and not a specific and limited point of view.

that SOMETHING about them doesn't end up turning them off eventually. What maybe is different here is that because a big personal issue is so public it happens quicker.

I am admitting that I use a looks standard when judging women that is probably about as strict as the standard that the overwhelming majority of women use when judging men, and that UNLIKE them I don't ALSO demand that a lot of money, etc.

in spite of all the bullshit they are being fed, that in an androgynous world they won't be able to. Oh yeah, they want to be able to impress women ENOUGH that women will still be interested enough in them that they will be worth putting up with even when they are a huge pain, which is what anyone is who doesn't do everything your way. Women are born with what it takes to elicit this reaction from men. It isn't clear how men in general can get this from women WITHOUT helpful social arrangements. Actually it is clear they can't. If they could an ideology such as feminism which holds that women are right about everything and should always get their way would never be taken seriously. The fact that it is proves there is a problem.

Of course everyone likes to get their own way, the difference between men and women is that men are willing to put up with the misery of NOT getting their own way all the time in order to have women and women are not, in the absence of economic/social/reproductive necessity, willing to do the equivalent.

why is it that:

1)Women who say this are not considered in need of reeducation to cure their shallowness

2)The fact that women do have this attitude doesn't result in a large percentage of the male population happily making their woman-free plans.

No, I am telling you that different standards are applied to men and women when they act on this reasonable belief and a very different response from those who are "taken into account".

this sentence really illustrates the Republicans tactic over the years and their problem now. They have relied on ferocious, hysterical really, partisanship to motivate their base and exert enough influence on the muddled middle to get to 51%. What they don't seem to understand is that once a solid majority has decided that you are full of shit this rhetoric only serves to reinforce that impression. You have to persuade a majority to support you and it seems like the Republicans have lost even the concept of a persuasive, even a dishonestly persuasive, argument.

however it has to be pointed out that their belief that private wealth should rule unhindered has been thoroughly discredited before and has always, because it could afford unlimited propaganda, made a comeback. We should be confident but not careless.

or a system where the govt, directly or indirectly, pays for the many millions who can't pay for it themselves. Any system which provides meaningful care to everyone will be govt paid for the millions who can't pay anthing (and the vast majority who can't pay enough if they have a REAL medical problem) and therefore govt. run in some form whether it is direct single payer or something else. The right wing has always opposed this and there isn't any reason to think they have changed their mind. They just haven't figured out how to oppose it in the current political climate.

Conservative everywhere are like the govt. in "1984", whatever they say the truth is now has always been the truth. There are in fact plenty of Catholics who have equally valid "liberal" arguments and the "truth" as the Church sees it does in fact change over time, contrary to popular ignorance. Yes the pope is "infallible" at SOME TIMES and about SOME THINGS(again the qualifications are not well known) but the "truth" about his infallibility has itself changed over time and the Pope doesn't live forever anyway.

Are most right wingers liars or are they just stupid and brainwashed. You forgot to mention that if the govt had done nothing in the 30s everything would have been better sooner.

EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT IS NOT IN THE THIRD WORLD provides universal coverage to their citizens. EVERYONE except the US makes it work. If it weren't so disturbing knowing that half the voters are insane it would be funny listening to all the wingnuts bleating about how it can't be done.

Thanks for answering my question. The only question for you is can the liars like you keep enough other people stupid enough that you can keep everything for yourself.