How To Shut a Woman Up
Women don’t actually want equality. Women are like the five year old that wants a dog for Christmas and we men are like parents. You’re not getting a fucking dog. Five year olds don’t get dogs because they have no responsibility. They’re immature. They get goldfish or Nintendo’s or other things that don’t require moments from their precious days of doing nothing.
Equality for women is exactly the same. Let me give an example.
There’s six ways to make a woman shut her fucking mouth — and you can count five of them on your hand.
I’m kidding of course. I would never advocate violence against women. Women are like television sets. They’re fun to watch, and smacking them around rarely improves their malfunction. When they start acting up and getting old on you, it’s just time to get a new one.
The sixth way to get a woman to shut the fuck up is not a joke. Women bitch and moan about equality like a baby whinging for its bottle. What happens when a baby gets its bottle? It shuts the fuck up.
Does that sound radical? Giving a woman equality? Perhaps even a bit mad?
Your man-stincts are correct. Giving women equal of anything is a stupid idea: voting rights, custody, slices of delicious pie. No matter what, you end up with something that isn’t pretty and is about ten to twenty years away from biting you in your man ass.
Think about it for a minute. If women really wanted equality, why dress like whores? And why all the silliness with alimony? Alimony is more objectifying and exploitive than prostitution, porno, and the entire Blackula series combined. All it’s saying is that the only thing women can do in the world is fuck for money. It’s a severance package for retired whores. But I digress.
I said earlier that I would be dispensing the mystical secret that has haunted man since the beginning of time. Not where we’re from or where we’re going, but how to shut women the fuck up. It’s easy. All you have to do is speak to them like equals. For example, what would you say if your very good man friend was drunk or hypnotized into losing Man Points and came up with a comment like, “Kathy at work is such a bitch. I don’t know why she hates me.”
Something immediately springs to mind.
“Who the fuck cares.”
Give the baby her bottle. And silence, my man friends, is golden.
Related Articles:
December 29th, 2005 at 3:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: e2d025f19e31f
So true Dick, giving equality to women is as giving pearls to swine. They know not what to do with it, so, mystified; they shut up and leave you alone. Excellent point Dick I could not agree more.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
Well spotted dick.
Re: hypothetical alimony scenerio
If former wife gets sole custody of children and has the responsibility of raising them and working full-time, do you still think she should not be entitled to alimony? Why should the man not continue to support his own children?
December 29th, 2005 at 5:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
No, she deserves no alimony, and you present no argument that she does. Do you even know the meaning of the word?
Child support is very distinct from alimony, or are you that ignorant?
Excellent points, Dick and Oldone.
-wolfe
December 29th, 2005 at 5:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
In my country there is such a thing as superannuation which is intended to replace the govt. pension for retired workers. It involves the govt. garnishing 9% of salary/wages automatically before tax from your pay packet and putting it into a managed fund. You cannot access this fund until you retire. Retirement age in Australia for men is 65 and 63 for women. The pension will not exist by the time I retire and people will therefore be expected to live on their superannuation and whatever else they managed to save during their working life.
I calculated during my mid 20’s that I would have to save $1800 per month from my salary (on top of the 9% annual super) just to have enough money to live on when I retire (based on CPI indexes, and a 20 year retirement period). This is impossible.
When a woman exits the workforce for a period of time to raise children she effectively gives up the capacity to save superannuation. Hence, whether or not children are involved or even if they are no longer of dependent age, a man should pay alimony as a kind of backpay for her years out of the workforce, spent cleaning his house and taking care of their personal business.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
This is a surprisingly lucid post from you, so I shall respect it and you as such.
Here are the problems:
1. Women’s retirement age should be later than mens (based on sound public policy) since they live longer. To have it sooner than men inevitably hurts a woman’s ability to contribute and drains the public pension system vampirically. The fact that it isn’t benefits happily married men (their wife can retire with them; women still tend to marry older men), and all women. Own goal, there.
2. It comes down to your investment strategies. If you are prepared to invest for the long term, and to vary your retirement up to +/- 7 years, then retirement savings should be quite affordable for you, including even in Australia. I’d happily discuss this offline with you. I commend your intelligence in doing the calculations; I suggest you have probably made some errors or are suffering from lacunae.
3. “When a woman exits the workforce for a time…” in this day and age, she chooses to. In most countries she is able to continue to contribute to pensions, etc. on a maternity leave basis. I’m not familiar with Australian public policy on the matter, but I am familiar with both American, British and Canadian, and they are all (federally in the US/Canada case) reasonably generous.
No, alimony is what Dick says it is, and it has, despite your arguments, nothing to do with child support.
Nice job, friend of Dick.
-wolfe
December 29th, 2005 at 6:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
Nice job, wolfe.
December 29th, 2005 at 7:39 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
“It comes down to your investment strategies. If you are prepared to invest for the long term, and to vary your retirement up to +/- 7 years, then retirement savings should be quite affordable for you, including even in Australia. I’d happily discuss this offline with you. I commend your intelligence in doing the calculations; I suggest you have probably made some errors or are suffering from lacunae.”
You want to help me out now? After you’ve called me a deceased, diseased infested rodent? Some nerve you’ve got there buddy. As I do not know your qualifications and it seems likely you’d really like to send me down the river in a pine box, don’t take offense when I say thanks, but no fucking thanks.
December 30th, 2005 at 11:52 am - IP Man-Hash: b522825ecb752
To quote the great poet laureate of our time, Andre Young (aka: Dr. Dre):
“Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks.”
The nail has suffered yet another firmly centered blow from the hands of Mr. Masterson via this article.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Once again your lack of knowledge of the language fails you. I did not call you a deceased, disease-infested rodent; I merely used a simile.
No, I don’t especially want to help you (though I thought I’d sincerely offer), because you are not a very nice person. You came on these boards, cursed repeatedly, acted like a drunk or drugged lunatic (and even admitted being high at one point), blindly attacked everyone. I was fairly polite (though at times condescending) to you and refrained from like behavior until finally you jumped the shark shortly before Christmas.
I cautioned you you’d lost my respect; rather than apologize, you announced you’d not see the difference in the way I treated you. Perhaps you do now.
In kindness, since I’d hate to see even you reduced to retiring poor, I would suggest you talk (but not take any specific investment advice whatsoever from) a man (or woman) who understands mathematics, stocks, bonds, and hedging to arm yourself with the tools you will need to have to talk to a competent financial planner. Get an inexpensive spreadsheet and learn to use the formulas. You need strategic help from someone who understands mathematics (maybe a relative?) and very basic economics, and tactical/logistical help from a competent financial planner, though you should be very cautious here since a lot are raking a good deal of money off you and offering little or nothing.
Now, kindly mode off, and back to the subject at hand: your appalling activities.
You repeatedly attempt to spread material on these boards that is flatly factually false, ridiculously racist, bizarrely bigoted, and hideously hateful. Your attempts to propagate intellectually incoherent incontinent ideas and moronic memes while all the while displaying a smug stupidity is like the effect of a rat spreading plague. (NB- that’s a simile. See the word “like�? No dear, “simile�, not “smile�. You can look it up).
Credulous minds can be affected, nay, infected by the bigotry, even the stupidity you spew.
There are two places where one would expect to see your particular combination of arrogance and stupidity: in the mind of a recently promoted $20 dollar a trick streetwalker, and in the mind of a particularly slow-witted circa-1975 feminist.
The former verifies Esther’s/Andre Young’s assessment of you; the latter (or the thought you’re Dick’s friend brilliantly playing a crazy woman) my own.
-wolfe
December 30th, 2005 at 2:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
Oh I see, so I’m like a deceased diseased infested rodent but not actually one? What a relief. Pity then that according to you, I actually am an ignorant mule and a cretinous cow with either a mind of a whore or a slow witted baby boomer feminist. Your imagination is so entertaining but your bigotry against livestock is disgusting.
In regards to your recent financial advice, I’d hestitate to say you are stating the absolute obvious, but then I don’t like embarrassing financial planner wannabe chartered accountants straight out of night school. Now, if you are a futures trader, maybe we can talk.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Have you never heard of figurative language? Pity.
Yes, because from what you’ve written, you need to start again from the obvious, and I didn’t want to waste my time (or that of anyone else) writing more than a paragraph. You either have done a poor job of financial research to come to the conclusions you came to above, or you are stupider than you appear to be. Your conclusions are, simply put, wrong unless you have grossly unrealistic expectations in some way. I assume it is the former for both; if it’s the latter, fair enough. In either case, I don’t want to waste my time.
I’m not a financial planner and have no desire to be one. As part of my career I have hedged large international currency risks, and those I worked with have been very happy. Did that make me a futures trader? No. In any event, if you want to save for your retirement by futures trading, you are a fool.
You’re welcome to irrationally insult (you’ll note I base my insults on actual flaws in what passes for your thinking), but it will guarantee the rest of us simply continue to laugh at your statements.
Don’t engage in a battle of wits when you are unarmed by nature, nurture and practice.
-wolfe
December 30th, 2005 at 5:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
LOL. Okay then, so because it’s figurative, regardless of actual content, it’s supposed to be poetic. You’re hysterical. I can just imagine the type of compliments you must give to your girlfriend when she dresses up to go out. “What’s that sweetheart? Does your arse look big in that? Only in comparison to an airbus, don’t worry about it, where not going anywhere near an airport.”
Well actually, a software package specifically designed for superannuation calculations did it for me. But if you want to start on insulting the software, I’ll be sure to let it know.
Cheers. I will.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
Not only does this quote confirm my statement that this site does nothing but portray women in only a limited number of ways, one being a whore, the other being either a spinster feminist or a stepford wife, but wolfe, telling us that you know the inside workings of the mind of a streetwalker is a little too much information. Seedy and sordid back alley shenanigans are never a good look.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
A reference to “figurative” has nothing to do with poetic language, Female. I think you just proved Wolfe’s surmise.
December 30th, 2005 at 7:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
I so do not care right now. Have a good night.
December 31st, 2005 at 6:54 am - IP Man-Hash: eeffcc3f4c66e
Think about it for a minute. If women really wanted equality, why dress like whores? And why all the silliness with alimony? Alimony is more objectifying and exploitive than prostitution, porno, and the entire Blackula series combined. All it’s saying is that the only thing women can do in the world is fuck for money. It’s a severance package for retired whores. But I digress.
January 1st, 2006 at 5:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
Spinmeister, women do not “dress” like whores. Categorising someone based on the way they dress is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, some people dress to make a statement, like youth in sub-cultures, but the average, adult female chooses clothes based on a number of factors, such as,
1. Fashion (if the style is whorish, blame the trendsetting designer of the season, most of whom are male.
2. Climate. When weather is like living in a furnace, you’re not going to get around in three layers of clothing are you? Unless of course, you’re culture is pathologically oppressive (see Taliban/Afganistan). At least their women won’t suffer from too many melanomas.
3. Comfort/financial reasons. If you can’t afford a Sass & Bide dress (forget ebay, they’re all ripoffs, go direct to the factory outlet); your cash strapped and/or got three young children, then you’re typically going to either (a) know nothing about designer clothes, (b) give a shit and (c) have a partner who fees the same. Next stop: Target.
In regards to alimony. Men should pay it, even if (a) he and his former partner never had children, provided former wife did not work during the marriage.
If the ex-wife gave up employment at her ex-husbands request or if her decision to do so was supported by him, this decision would have been based on the thought that their financial situation was stable or would be unchanging for the worse and that of course, the marriage was going to last. Based on these beliefs, the women risked exiting the workplace and all the associated shite that goes with that. Such as, downgrading of skills, inability to save superannuation etc. So, when the marriage breaks down and she is forced into employment, she is behind the eight ball in getting a decent paying job, in proportion to the number of the years of the marriage. The alimony therefore makes up for the payrises etc that she missed out on by not working. Do not think that women do not give up much in the way of things seen and unseen just because they stay at home and do not work in the external world.
January 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
That’s ridiculous. Women have the power to choose not to accept a ‘whorish’ fashion. You rabbit on and on about all their freedom, yet now you want us to believe they are powerless to choose how to dress?
I don’t care what the fashion is; a spandex micro-mini and latex tube top a la Britney Spears is whorish. Looking sexy is quite distinct from looking whorish.
-wolfe.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 pm - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
I’ve seen plenty of women dress like whores. I’ve even bordered on whorish dress myself, prior to getting a wake-up call. Many more women dress like sluts - their clothing (and their behavior) advertises wanton, promiscuous sexuality.
I was amused when Dave Chapelle performed a skit wherein he made fun of women that dress in very sexually provocative styles, then get mad when they’re treated according to the way they are dressed. Chapelle highlighted this absurdity by dressing as a police officer, then saying “look, just because I’m dressed this way, doesn’t mean you can come to me for help.”
It’s naive and ignorant to assume that everyone out there will behave the way you want them to, just because you get indignant and tell them how they should act. If you were to go traipsing through the Australian outback, you would take care to avoid the predators and not attract their notice if possible. Dressing in a sexually provocative manner is like smearing yourself with chunks of raw meat, then lying down in the middle of a pack of starving dingos.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
“Entitled.” Women can’t put together a thought without their very favourite word.
-Dick
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
The problem (omg, what the! A preview function!!! About time dicktator, I was beginning to wonder what had happened to standard entitlements). As I was saying, what pisses me off about ‘whorish’ dress sense, is not that too much information is on display, but the unsexyness of it. Some people can wear next to no clothing and look great even if they are not an AU size 6. Such clothing typically comes with a heart attack inducing price-tag. I don’t care what you say, expensive clothes do not look cheap, no matter how small they are. I personally blame Britney for fostering the seriously cheap, garish, tacky, bogan look. That women is the she-male version of a yobbo. A male is the male version of a yob. Yobs have beer guts, probably only read the betting section out of the paper, like V8 cars, wasting petrol, fishing, getting pissed on cartons of VB and hanging out in topless bars. If they work, they don’t work around women (thank god).
Britney spears has no dress sense. She’s a walking wardrobe disaster and I’m sure a blind person could better coordinate an outfit. She also looks like she shops at K-mart. And as we all know, K-mart sux. Impressionable young girls, who have no exposure to Country Road, let alone the platinum credit card to spend up big there, cannot be blamed for thinking K-mart/Britney fashion looks good. Just because they expose their naval, doesn’t mean they want some.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:25 am - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
Of course not. They’re women.
If they were men, just because they put on their web site “Ladies, as always, this site is strictly off limits” or “No women allowed”; it would mean that they wanted to be bothered by some elitist hectoring troll who thinks that the planets made her do it and that anyone who disagrees with her should be executed.
They expose their thoughts. They want some.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:04 am - IP Man-Hash: ffdf937c0101a
Is that right? Women are not allowed on this website?
According to your logic Al, because I post here, I am after sex with a misogynist; because girls expose their navals, they all want sex with anyone who sees their naval; and because Dick has “no women allowed” this is secret code for “all women allowed.” I know I’m not wanted here, but if you are all so keen to get rid of me, why don’t you do what everyone, everywhere does when they want to be rid of a troll - ignore me. Don’t post to me, don’t provoke me, don’t challenge me, and see how fast I hang around. I dares ya.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:23 am - IP Man-Hash: f33c128f235e8
I stayed out of the workforce and raised my children for over a year. I still got stuck with a $4,500 a month tab from the state for child support. Equality indeed…
January 4th, 2006 at 9:13 am - IP Man-Hash: 8dd3dc862afae
Yes that’s absolutely right. You’re a whore.
-Dick
January 4th, 2006 at 3:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: a1da9f9ac370d
I bet I know where Female lives, second star on the right, then straight on until morning.
January 12th, 2006 at 8:09 am - IP Man-Hash: 065b11b01d70f
So, what you are promoting is reverse discrimination. Women are allowed to retire @ 63 and men @ 65. You support vaginomy for women, but I am sure that you oppose it for men. Please correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise, please shut the fuck up.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: 645e530646808
Well women get paid less for doing the same job. When women get equal pay, then we should have equal retirement dates. That seems fair.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3e513170dd78c
Somehow I knew this would come up, women get paid the same as men. This is established fact. Why some women get paid less than men at certain jobs is because they work less hours on average than a man does.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 645e530646808
Thats just not true, it’s still only about 70%. We were doing about it in English.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3e513170dd78c
Look there are several variables when you want to speak of the wage gap.
1. Experience- Some PEOPLE get paid more to do the same job because they have been doing it longer and presumably do it faster and better than an unexperienced person.
2. Hours- Does the person work part-time or full time? Weekends or not?
3. Type- What kind of work does the person do? I would imagine a concrete worker gets paid more than a day-care provider due to the fact that HE (it’s pretty much a male job) works harder than she does. However if a woman wanted to work concrete, SHE would get paid the same as anyone starting out in that buisness.
In short I seriously doubt that any woman gets paid “less”.
Could you imagine the outrage if some employer said “You know I was going to pay you as much as Mark over there but your a woman, so your going to have to take a pay cut”
Many of these shortfalls are due to HER own choices. By crying discrimination, you don’t really solve the problem, you simply show that you can’t take responsibility for them.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
100% correct Abaddon. Your variables are thorough. I add but two points derived from them.
1. Nicole, consider this little thought experiment. You’ve observed how rapidly corporations have been willing to outsource to India, China, etc. You’ve observed the ruthlessness of the ‘invisible hand’ of late? If companies (and governments) could instantly save 30% of their wage bill by hiring women only, don’t you think they all would? Of course they would!
2. There is a wage gap in women’s favor between childless never-married women and childless never-married men. It’s actually quite substantial. This suggests that women without a man to support them get very concerned about earning money; men without a woman to support don’t care that much. Interesting.
-wolfe
January 20th, 2006 at 1:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: 80450e604e2bd
I would add that just because they teach you something in school doesn’t make it true. Also, if many of these choices are initiated by women, then why do they instinctively blame Men for their own problems? Is it evolution, or simply a learned response? I mean the great joke of this is that we spend so much energy fighting each other that we don’t see the greater enemy. Its like seeing the trees but not the forest.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 645e530646808
So now you see women as the ‘greater enemy’?!
You’re bordering on delusions.
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: ffbb11e7a7ea6
Nicole pull your head out of your ass and READ the post.
Abaddon_fff said:
I would add that just because they teach you something in school doesn’t make it true. Also, if many of these choices are initiated by women, then why do they instinctively blame Men for their own problems? Is it evolution, or simply a learned response? I mean the great joke of this is that we spend so much energy fighting each other that we don’t see the greater enemy. Its like seeing the trees but not the forest.
The greater enemy isn’t women nor is it men, its certain parts of our government.
January 22nd, 2006 at 7:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Right back at you George. Had you bothered to read the entire thread, you would see that allowing women, if they are married, to retire earllier than their typically older husbands, this is actually discrimination against women in a different way.
Eg.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: e3acc5fd1d171
The government advocates a cirriculum that is biased towards females because the school board is primarily made of women. The fact of the matter is, wage varies widely by experience, seniority and performance. A shoddy mechanic does not get paid as much as a qualified, experienced mechanic. Women should try working harder instead of sabotoging each other in the work force. I’ve been witness to hundreds of these acts where women are more prone to office dispute… it’s like 800% more than men or some ridiculous number. Take a lesson from how men perform on the job.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: e3acc5fd1d171
He is saying women don’t see themselves as the greater enemy. It’s like a drug addict blaming everyone else but themselves for their problem. Women blame men for their problems because it’s easier to bitch than to do something about it. Then women come together and bitch and agree on it… thus you have a committee. This is where 99% of life’s problems come from. Life will not get easier by complaining about it.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: e3acc5fd1d171
Your system works similar to my country (Canada). We have what’s called a compulsary pension plan which is automatically deducted from our income and put into a pension fund which is not available until retirement. Since I won’t be retiring for another 30 or 40 years, it is difficult to tell whether or not there will be any funds for me since the bulk of the baby boomers are going into retirement. It’s a joke, we all know it, because chances are we won’t get it back.
Honestly, I feel bad for people who cannot save enough money in their life and are forced to rely on family to take care of them. We are all losing ground, not just women. The debt-ridden lifestyle is becoming common place and the dream of owning your own home is quickly fading away. Canada has a huge immigration population, especially here in the west where I, being caucasian, am almost a minority. People come here and are willing to do the same job for half the price because they are accustomed to poverty and know how to live cheaply. I’m not advocating racism by any means, but we all really need to focus on the solution, rather than the problem.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
1. Women earn on average 13% less than men
http://www.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/05-50+Are+you+a+super+ woman%3F+ASIC%E2%80%99s+superannuation+tips+for+women?openDocument
http://www.assa.edu.au/policy/papers/2004/intergen.pdf
2. Policy does not address either the social and economic value of women’s unpaid contributions to the social fabric, nor the economic effects of these contributions on the individual woman.
3. Take a greater share of responsibility for child-rearing and are more likely to take on family caregiving and volunteer roles.
4. Earn less money when employed, have broken patterns of employment and as a consequence are less likely to have adequate private superannuation.
5. Are more strongly economically disadvantaged by relationship breakdown.
6. Can expect a longer old age, are more likely than men to live alone in old age, and are more likely to need residential care as they age.
7. Men’s hardware tools are built for men and don’t come with adequate instructions, which is very dangerous.
8. Women’s broken employment, which can be assumed to be due to having/raising children significantly puts her behind the eight ball when it then comes to retirement/super savings.
http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60079/wiwchapt er3.pdf
So what is the solution Jarred? Seems to be to not have children, pass GO and collect the money.
March 12th, 2006 at 6:10 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Some years ago, I did the pension calculations for a Canadian friend, based on the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) statements that the Federal Government sent him. He was getting about 3 cents on the dollar (assuming he invested and got a 6 percent return after inflation — aggressive, but not unreasonable if investing for 30-40 years). His wife was getting about 7 cents on the dollar thanks to her (projected) longer lifespan.
In the private sector, managers of pension plans like that would be in jail.
This is a rather interesting point. The high immigration in most countries is to ensure that demography remains stable, since those countries populations aren’t reproducing themselves.
It also serves the point you mentioned: low wages.
Thirdly, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, Canada has not been operated (IMHO) as a modern democracy, but as a weak federation ruled by a brokerage party through much of its modern life. This means that whichever brokerage party is in power has the incentive of leaving the immigration floodgates wide-open to ensure a semi-compliant bloc of voters.
On this last, it will be interesting to see if her new Prime Minister will change any of that. Also, please don’t take my statement as disparaging Canada or Canadians. A fine country, and mostly very fine people. Lousy politics.
This is a rather interesting subject. I think I’ll toss up a discussion in our Politik forums on it. Here’s the placeholder link for it.
Welcome to the boards, Jarod. We’ve got a lot of Canadians and Australians here; always nice to have one more. I hope you’ll check out the forums and have some fun participating in discussions.
-wolfe
March 15th, 2006 at 6:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5785f05728620