If the US were a seperate world unto itself it might never be, but becasue the rest of the world exists and will have influence the idea that white fundamentalist christianists, becasue they are white fundamentalist christianists, should rule over everyone else will not be tenable in the long run.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but Indian nations are not, and never will be, in the same legal positon, or any other position, relative to the US govt. as are the nations of Canada Mexico or France. What exactly that relationship is, will be or should be I don't (with a high degre of technical expertise)know, but I know it isn't that.

on the federalism grounds even if a Democratic Congress tried to. It might take a constituitonal amendment which would be difficult if a christianist dominated supreme court reverts to the tradtional idea that nothing in the constitution prevents the govt from regulating private adult sexual behavior or intrfereing with a womans' bodily integretiy in the name of promoting public morality.

In some situtations you can have the benefits of using your real name and still remain effectively anonymous at the same time. Try googing John Smith

What I said was that based on the evidence of their postings many women who read it, not all, apparently believe that is what it is about. For the items themselves the situation is (often)less clear. Of course there maight be debate about exactly when or if men, or women for that matter, really ARE being screwed over in a given situation or not.

on the human condition and the unfortuante behavior of individuals. Do you really think that this is not an inherently partisan position? Do you really think this will ever be accepted?

and who is strongly sexually attracted to them. It's more than funny that raising this question should now be in the province of so called anti feminist male malcontents.

not that they said they believe it. It would be pretty interesting if, say, womens' studies was prohibited from attributing any belief behavior or feeling to men, or to a man, if no man was willing to stand up and say "I believe that...." Can't cite an instance? this proves no one believes it.

and she's flogging her own book. Of course she's going to have every sound bite down pat. If this had been a televised debate it might be reasonable to want a debater of equal, I hesitate to call it a skill, maybe relentlessness, but in this situation I think a lot of the material speaks for itself if given the opportunity, which it was.

and you think it wasn't you need to read em again

so I was also. If you don't find anything that fits my statement in this discussion you can look at any others you want. I don't think you'll have to look far.

which it does and which is what I have said all along.

because boys who get it too young too easy will resent having to work for it later. This is actually said openly, though it is not said this clearly and is bathed in clouds of meaningless verbiage when it is said. You can find many examples of what I am talking about in the archives on this topic.

nobody is interested in listening to men who haven't, or in this case look like they haven't, done anything.

Is the age of consent going to be lower if the woman has her tubes tied? Or for that matter if a male has a vasectomy? The best defense is indeed a good, or any, offense.

If adults have a constitutional right to sexual privacy.

to each other, when men complain about women to each other it just emphasizes their lack of influence on the only people that matter on an emotional level, i.e women, so what would be the point. Any meaningful content regarding the issues is only meaninful if it gets put accross to women. It all derives from the fact that women can at least potentially exert influence by "holding out" and men can't.

It allows women to believe that since most women are willing to get by without it that men can be induced to do so as well(without extremely draconican measures). Since men and women are fundamentally alike in their sex drive and ability to get sex.

I didn't say that is all women did. I said they did it more than men.

It seems fundamentalists are not the only ones in need of a course in remedial biology.

if it would be possible for you to coherently articulate what it is about my statement that drove you into such an hysterical frenzy.

If you don't base the laws on reasoning from experience in this world (science) or some less formal empirical approach, you have religious rule and no one has the right to impose their religion on another.

it doesn't provide any evidence that the statement false or irrelevant

it's true that the dems have not stood up to the right wing enough and it's also true that there are many components of the "bipartisan consensus" that should be challenged more than they are BUT do NOT fall into the trap of believing that "they are all the same". In particular there is no reason to doubt that Biden is a real Democrat, as is Obama.

so it's funny to see so many people projecting their fantasies onto him and then claiming he has changed.

Very true, it can also mean they are delusional and/or stupid. In fact since most right wing voters aren't rich it usually does.