Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


I know what that issue is; I run into it with feminists all the time. Feminists don't want to hear anything that contradicts their Pavlovian feminist beliefs. It's 'difficult' hearing and seeing something which contradicts them. Feminists don't give a hoot about male concerns. It's all about them so viewing something which more fully explains real circumstances is difficult.


Hmmm, none of America's "Founding Fathers" were women; must have been discrimination. As to a woman president, if it's Hillary Clinton then she would be worse than Bush. Look at how she mishandled Benghazi among many other events. If it's someone like Maggie Thatcher than she'd make a much better president than Bush.


Women in the U.S. make up almost 60 percent of college students today. Is that enough "opportunity"? Still, there are special women's programs which continue to elevate women in education. When men were the majority in higher education feminists called it discrimination.


Heh,heh,heh, a dictionary definition and the actual practices, many which have already been exposed are very different. Feminist like f2 prefer the theory and ignore the reality. Men should just 'shut up'.


Well then, perhaps these "poor men" need affirmative action and additional help, just like all those special programs that are for women only?

Perhaps Kondzior shouldn't expose the fact that, " women are far more likely to kill their children then men... " They don't teach that in feminist study courses either. They teach (in effect) that men are bad and women are good (and victims).


Of course not and I explained why in my first paragraph above. Feminists duck from criticism, they can only dish it out. Facts are troublesome things to feminists. They dare not look.......

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


LOL, the "whining about discrimination" is the tool feminists constantly use. When some men retort that quotas are unjust you accuse them of complaining. There can be no comparison about whining. The thousands of feminist books, articles, programs, etc have been an avalanche of whining compared to any comments men (and good women) have made about equality.


I can only roll my eyes; this is so basic. With all the whining feminists do about integration in business and government, can you give me any examples of women wanting the sexes to be fully integrated in; golf, bowling, tennis, volleyball, soccer, basketball, etc?? I look forward to your examples of feminists demanding that all women's sports be integrated by men.


I agree with you. Why don't feminists demand full integration in those areas? Can it be that even when strength isn't a requirement - men still dominate. Look at your suggestion about golf. There have been some women who tried to play on the men's circuit but they never made the preliminary cuts. Of course no men are allowed to qualify for the womens' golf tournaments. hmmm

As to chess, there are the open divisions (men and women play) and of course there is the mandatory women-only tournaments. Doesn't seem fair to me. Oh, only a couple of women vs dozens of men play in the open competition.....


Sorry, it's not even close. Of course when women play women it looks good. I've already told you that in an impromptu 'Battle of the Sexes' at the Australian Open Serena and Venus challenged Karsten Braasch who was rated above 200 in the mens circuit to a set apiece, and he badly beat them both. To quote Serena: "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."

In the Battle of Champions, which was played at Caesars Palace in Paradise, Nevada, in September 1992 between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova. (both in their prime) Connors was allowed only one serve per point, Navratilova was allowed two; and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court, Connors could only hit into the singles area. Those rules made it a huge advantage for Navratilova. ] Connors won 7–5, 6–2.

They don't teach that in womens gender studies .....


She got that from her experience in the National Organization of Women (NOW). Like all clear thinking people she saw the immense hypocrisy in feminism. I still see her at social gatherings.


The fact that you have to reach so far back speaks volumes. It's 2013 now and todays women in the west are advantaged in culture and society


Again, you fail to see the complete picture. Feminists don't overview well and the above comment is typical of self-centered thinking. You want to see women competing in skiing in men's competition but you fail to ask yourself this; why shouldn't men compete in women's competion? Get it?


.......and don't forget synchronized swimming. LOL

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Can you point out any facts presented in that video which are false.? Don't generalize, please be specific. Just calling someone a misogynist doesn't cut it. Anyone can do that. I can call you a man-hater but that's not an argument.


There are 2 things you don't understand. First, in domestic situations, women attack men as frequently as men attack women because emotion is involved and the 2 people know each other. Often, women know that their male partner will not hit back, let alone report it. It's more difficult for men to officially report domestic violence than it is for women for obvious reasons. Second; the statistics you claim are usually compiled by domestic violence interests. What that means is that there is self-interest for funding and for an activist agenda. I've met these people. I'll add that they count alleged incidences of violence as well. A man tapping a woman on the shoulder is counted as violence. A woman hitting a man on the shoulder isn't counted at all, etc. That's why the Feibert Studies are so important. They extract all the agenda-ridden nonsense.


I used to be pro feminist. Reality which includes dealing with feminists in a business and personal manner changed that. Try thinking about that.


Not one of them experienced domestic violence. including my two daughters. I find it most interesting that the 'domestic violence card' is so important to feminists. It's as if it's a medal of honor of some sort. that only they can play. Hell with men though.


Once again, point out anything that is anti woman in that video. If you watched it in total you would see that there is nothing that any objective person can disagree with. The ending calls for full people compliance. Feminists only want 'their' jaundiced issues considered. A female friend of mine once told me, "feminism was a hate movement from the very beginning. Had it really been about equality, it would be called egalitarianism not feminism". That's food for thought but then, I've found that most feminists prefer to make their judgments and decisions based on emotion, not logic.


Actually, women have been very successful with me :)


Of course you bring up a logical point but you won't get a straight answer. Feminists want it both ways. They are so "equal" to men that they demand quotas (note the irony) in high powered positions. Yet, they demand separation when it comes to venues like sports. Wimbledon caved and gave women equal pay for less work. Why? ...because women demanded "equal pay" At Wimbledon women play fewer sets and their level of game, while exciting, does not come close to the mens'.. When the Williams sisters individually lost 6-0 and 6-1 to a man ranked 207th on the mens tour that pretty much settled that.

If feminists (not necessarily all women) want true integration into everything then why are they for keeping womens tennis, golf, bowling, even chess, etc, separate? Isn't it inconsistent to demand quotas for those things that should be earned like high positions in business and government while at the same time fearing male integration in those areas that advantage them?

Hopefully, the Polish women's organizations know that there is a difference between men and women. Their western sisters don't. They often claim that the sexes are mere "social constructs".

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


It's obvious you are one of those people who cannot accept an opinion different from yours. You didn't see the video since you posted a mere 7 minutes after I did and the video is 10 minutes long. Shameful!

If you dared to view it you would see how objective it is. You couldn't do it. That speaks for you more than any post of yours.

edit: In the unlikely event that you have the courage to view it let me ask you this; What SPECIFICALLY do you disagree with in the video?

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Nah, more like a bucket of water in a bath tub. Point being; when ads do show someone who is a dufus, it is with rare exception, a male. Granted it was worse 10 years ago until some people started to complain about it, but it's still there. The most egregious was a candy company which showed a man being kicked in the crotch by a woman (real funny stuff eh?). I can only imagine the outrage if the sexes were reversed.


My girlfriends prefer it that way.


Actually, I've noticed that in general men do age better. Maybe it's all that make-up women used over the decades?


....and may I add, a wit and a sense of humor. I've found that feminists lack those 2 qualities especially the latter one. I cannot tell you how often I could spot a feminist in an office setting by just looking at her smug unhappy face. They wear man-suits and walk around clicking their heels like camp guards. I'm not just saying this. I've been in corporate business a long time (including the music business) and it's as if these sour looking feminists all graduated from the same cookie-cutter gender studies courses.

Speaking of that, my daughter Kristina dropped out of one the gender study courses (Univ. of Minnesota) because her teacher did not like her specific questions about the accepted feminist narratives she was hearing My daughter and 2 other young women dropped the course because they could see through it. No opinion other than the accepted "PC" one was acceptable. I believe that isf2's problem too. She has all the earmarks of having a degree in women's studies. No opposing opinion can be tolerated. That's why f2 doesn't look at opposition links and why she doesn't look at posts which just might shatter what she believes in. I'm sure she is smart enough to know better although that seems to be in the future.


LOL, just once when I was in Vegas many years ago. Wasn't even my idea but my friend won some money so dinner, drinks and ....ahem, were on him. (I was young then, that's my excuse).It wasn't what it was cracked-up to be.

I'll be dining and drinking in town today and tonight so this is it for now. I do want to add something about domestic violence which is a serious issue for women AND men. As usual with these things, the issue with men is "politically incorrect" to emphasize but real statistics (not ones made-up by the DV industry) show parity as proven by the Feibert studies which I linked a few pages back. Those who are feminist apologists need not look at the following link because it's something you dare not comprehend. It's about 10 minutes long.

youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIE

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Unfortunately, it is very representative. I've dealt with professional women for many years. I wish I was wrong. I was very pro feminist but the hypocrisies inherent in feminism kept cropping up. I could no longer make excuses for it.

What did you think of the hate speeches by feminists in my link?


You are truly brainwashed. When all factors are considered, there is no gender-wage -gap. In fact, in some professions women make more than men because they are sought after to fill quotas. That's not equallity. As to access to public services, I've already pointed out the advantages women have when it comes to health and education issues. It's noticeable that you are immune to such information.


If Polish women don't go the way of misandry (male-hatred) as evidenced by their western sisters than it may be a good thing. Hopefully, they won't be influenced by all the male-bashers that dominate western feminsim.


That line was archived about 30-40 years ago. Since feminist supporters feel a need to still use it speaks volumes about how good they have it today.


Which comments? .......the link which shows a female speaker proudly saying that she "hates men".? ......or the information that shows how women's health is favored in the U.S.?.......or my previous dismantling of the fictitious wage-gap?....or my experiences with women shouting and swearing at me after I introduced myself at a meeting? .....or a myriad of examples and (real) statistics I have given which aren't subject to objective disproval?

There are many many reasons why male ex feminists like myself have stopped supporting feminists. It's because we live in the real world.

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Evidently you didn't care to look at the link which shows women verbally foaming at men. Since you've previously confessed that you don't look at facts that frighten you, I doubt if you'll see this important link which has additional links for fuller facts. It's shows what I and other people have experienced from feminists. renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/050503

From the link: ""Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-is-Fun," she explained. "Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men."


Oh you poor naive dreamer, you dare not read the link above, do you?


Are you young? You present yourself that way (wish I was young again:))
I've been a businessman and have experienced feminism at its worst. I've had women who didn't know anything about me get in front of my face and swear what a "pig" I am because I'm male. This occurred during a business conference featuring diversity. I find it amazing that rude people want to be treated with respect.

Feminism has negatively affected men in many ways. For instance, in the U.S. Title 9 mandates that men and women's sports receive equal treatment. How does that affect men? More men play sports than women so to equalize the situation many male sports (like wrestling) have been in "politically correct" manner eliminated. Male scholarships were taken away. usa-sports.org/TitleIX.pdf

From the link: " More than 2,200 men's athletic teams have been eliminated ... to comply with the proportionality prong of the 1979 Title IX Policy Interpretation (a rigid affirmative action quota system). Thousands of male athletes have been prohibited from participating in collegiate sports while men's athletic scholarships and coaching positions have evaporated. The law, which was designed to end discrimination against women, is now discriminating against men"

You probably don't think 'out of the box' so you aren't aware that many 'womens government offices cater to women only. No such equivalency exists for men. Let's take health as another example. There are several such outlets for women such as the "Office on Women's Health - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" and another is the womens health office in the FDA. None exist for men and when several legislators proposed a health office for men several womens groups appeared to testify against it on the basis that it would affect their funding. Even Obamacare will add an additional 2 womens health departments but none for men. Can anyone objectively doubt the second citizen status of men when it comes to health concerns? Oh, I forgot, feminists oppose such rational considerations of real equality.

[


LOL; my gawd, are you really unaware of how advertising portrays men these past 2 decades? It's not even arguable that men are shown to be stupid buffoons, often hit or even kicked in ads, etc. The female is the wise one who knows what product is good. Often she is shown with her hands-on-her-hips or her arms crossed which shows her superiority. For you to not have noticed this shows what a good enslaved 'white knight' you have become.

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


All that? ...then he must (also) be a feminist :)
Here is what establishment feminism which has gotten into almost every pore in government and culture has done to marriage.
pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/06/17/men-on-strike In short, why should the modern man get married? I certainly never would again. After all, why give up so much and get back so little?....

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Everything in my link was fact. You generalize because you don't know enough to be specific in your replies. Would you please comment on any of the facts presented in my link? Wimbledon? False sexual allegations? Feminists swearing at men walking into a meeting? etc, You choose.

As a quick related aside, the privileges women receive are ignored by feminists. They are extensive ranging from lower prison sentencing for the same crime to simple things like municipalities having female only libraries or London Bridge station having a female only waiting room; female quotas, etc, etc. Somehow, commenting on such realities makes me deserving of name-calling from those fearful of these fuller truths.

You're also fearful that what you have believed could be wrong. There has been a strong anti-male agenda which attempts to keep real men's issues at bay. In fact, men are the rebels now and feminism is the controlling pollitically correct establishment. Only womens' issues count. That's why the cry of "mysogynist" is immediatley tossed at anyone who dares suggest men have issues too. The fear of losing federal and state funding to men's concerns at feminist expense plays a key role. Self appointed statistic gathering organizations reinforce the feminist agenda as shown in your link. I'm more than familiar with the tactics and have exposed feminists on a professional level.


The above quote is exactly what I'm referring to. It's as false as the "wage-gap" which has been disproved statistically, let alone by common sense. You've seen the following link before. It comprises disparate and unrelated studies and investigations. That alone proves its authenticity. The self-serving figures created out of thin air by agenda driven organizations like the massive feminist lobbies are juggled in "politically correct" ways so as to fit their numbers thereby strengthening their government funding. The Fiebert investigations do no such thing as the aggregate figures are too large to be falsified. csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Well, of course, Dr. Thomas Sowell, a well-known economist presents his cases in a down-to-earth manner which people with common sense understand. Those bitten by the feminist agenda bug (just) don't get it. They continue to embarrass themselves by crying, "wage-gap" which makes them look ignorant.

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]

The naivete displayed by those supporting feminism is astonishing. I've owned 2 businesses and have consulted (still do) with others. I've dealt with the EEOC Commission and have attended various women's forums including involvement with womens battered shelters. I've been around-the-block with these issues and know them inside-out. I don't have time this morning to address the unsophisticated responses by those supporting alleged "womens issues".

Yes, there are "professional feminists" who make their living supporting various women-only causes, many of them are paid by taxpayers. I'll comment on that later when time permits.

The following link is a new one and it's one that feminists supporters cannot objectively refute. Of course, their arguments based on emotion always override logic. Feminism has been long ago hijacked by women wanting advantages, not "equality". In the long run it will hurt women, not help them.

Hopefully, the Polish women's conferences don't go the way of the typical western feminist.

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Now you're making excuses for her. Excluding male students from gender study classes is discriminatory; but not by feminist double-standards.


She was protected for 2 decades. If you believe the relatively recent past shouldn't count than feminists should begin their calender of complaints from (let's say) 2000. You can't have it both ways.


Yes indeed, the "coding" was so obscure that no one can find it. lol
For your info, if anything, women are allowed priority in virtually everything. I've even had to hire a couple of less qualified women over more qualified men just to keep the EEOC off my back. Talk about real discrimination......


But, but, but, didn't you state that "it is hardly breaking news" since you are using the 90's as past criteria?


If there are "womens' issues" than are there 'men's issues" as well? Seems like our current culture marginalizes men by making fun of them while conversely tip-toeing in dainty manner when it comes to women. Note advertising for instance.


I've previously proven to any sensible thinking person that women do not get paid less for the same work. Just common sense tells you that in aggregate women make less because of the jobs they chose; the amount of time on the job and working less overtime. There are other factors but those are the big 3.


That's one of several walls that feminists run into. They duck such observations. Instead they squawk, "anything a man can do a woman can do, and better". Evidently not. Another wall is the fact as you noted, that women choose jobs that are less dangerous than many jobs men choose. Of course such positions pay more, which is another philosophical wall that feminists ignore.


Well stated! Exactly right!


Not in the companies I'm very familiar with. Men get fired for even coming close to 'verbally assaulting' a woman. Here's how ridiculous it has become. A man was fired from Motorola Company because he had a picture of his wife in a bathing suit on his work desk. Another woman complained that it was "offensive". The scared 'politically correct' office managers told the man to pack his briefcase and go home.He was let go. He hired an attorney and 10 months later was reinstated to his job. But that's what it took. That's how crazy this has all become. Women can feel "offended" whenever they want to be. I've previously given you in another thread my experience with the "offended female".

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


So it's less dangerous when it's legal, right?


Absolutely, but you seem unaware of the many anti-male comments by feminist leaders which I've presented in these forums a couple of years ago in full detail. There was even a feminist gender studies professor at Boston College (Mary Daly) who would not allow males into her courses. This lasted 20 years as she was tenured. Can you imagine a male teacher attempting that? That's just one example of zillions where "political correctness" takes on a life of its own and society allows such injustices to prevail. You seem blind to such abuses.

Western feminism has been hijacked by misandrist females who in effect demand superiority, not 'real' equality.


I always want the women in my life to have a good time and preferably a great time. When they see me again, I want them to sigh..........


I have Polish female spies who send me reports every Friday morning. When I visit Poland I reward them :)


I almost gag when I hear the "equality" references. Who could argue with that? The reality is quite different, particularly when it comes to western feminists. Their demands for affirmative action for women have to do with preferences, not equality of opportunity. Men and women are different yet so many feminists insist that these differences are 'social constructs' and not natural. Too bad so many naive people are unaware of the inherent misandry in feminism. Just saying one is for "equality" misses the real agenda.

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


It's odd that you attempt to compare an illegal profession with honest jobs. Fact is, most illegal professions are dangerous. Gay male prostitutes are at higher risks and drug running, bank robbing, etc all contain higher elements of danger to life, limb and liberty.

As to legitimate occupations, my point cannot be disparaged since males account for 94% of all job fatalities (annually). That's why I made the point that if feminists want real equality, they should insist that women take on these higher paying but more dangerous professions. Instead, their definition of "equality" is that women should be presidents, managers, CEO's, etc, etc while ignoring the many thankless jobs that men do that they take for granted.


I don't posit it as the "norm" although statistically that would seem to be the case for men (not women). Do you understand the difference? You inadvertently point out a "norm" for women when you make the point that women give birth.

See below........


You have me at a disadvantage here because your genital opening is much larger than mine. Also, I don't have a uterus so I can't get pregnant :)


In my extensive dating past, on more than one occasion a woman has told me that she would like to have a penis, even for just one day "to feel what it's like".I've told them they could have the next best thing......for one night :)

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


Ah yes, the viral social disease of feminism and all its hypocrisies rears its ugly head almost everywhere. I'll believe women want "equality" when they clamor to become 50 percent of all long-haul truckers; oil rig operators, roofers, welders, bomb disposal technicians; hazmat divers, timber workers...etc......well, you get the point.

There are no feminists on sinking ships. When ships like the Titanic (and others) begin to sink, it seems that the 'ladies' fervently believe in the concept of "women and children first" when it comes to life boats. (Of course they don't realize that they equate themselves with being on par with children).

Well, lets hope that Polish women attempt to use logic in their endeavors and don't follow in the footsteps of their western sisters who have hijacked feminism and turned it into into philosophical deformity based on male hate. Hopefully, these women won't endorse "slut walks" :)

Life / What do Poles really think about cats? [422]

What do Poles really think about cats?
They favor Polecats


Doesn't that violate some sort of anti discrimination law? "Some animals are more equal than others"...........Orwell

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]

"Too bad" you won't want to look at these interesting graphs.

pjmedia.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-missing-crime-data

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]

Gotta go, but from my link above;

"The Czechoslovak government in Prague requested that the Poles cease their preparations for national parliamentary elections in the area that had been designated Polish in the interim agreement as no sovereign rule was to be executed in the disputed areas. The Polish government declined and the Czechoslovak side decided to stop the preparations by force. Czechoslovak troops entered area managed by Polish interim body on January 23. Czechoslovak troops gained the upper hand over the weaker Polish units."

It would seem that force was first used by the Czechs.


Harry knows what Poles were "thinking" yet again. If the disheveled Harry didn't exist, one would have to be invented. The court jester indeed.

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


As usual you see a tree but not the forest. War clouds were already brewing and the Poles were engaged with Ukrainians during this time period.

From this link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts

"The Polish side based its claim to the area on ethnic criteria: a majority of the area's population was Polish according to the last (1910) Austrian census................[1]

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]

Busy today but this poster unlike some here does put the Polish-Czech conflict in perspective:


nysun.com/comments/42437

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


You constantly miss the obvious. My comment about the "invasion of Czechoslovakia" was made to put it in perspective. It was not an invasion of the whole country as is implied. As to Katyn, call it what you want but as usual, you miss the reality because Katyn was not the only action taken against Poles by the Soviets or Nazis. Many more Poles died during the war. Curiously, you also compare or imply real Katyn deaths with the total Czech, Slovak, Polish population in that affected region. Read how you wrote it.

You make similar mistakes here:



You seem to lack logic when it comes to size, scope and population differences let alone reasons for the dissimilar actions. But that is your 'gift', dubious as it is.


Our anti Pole here has neither fame nor fortune. Perhaps that sad fact drives him to post the way he does.


Some were better and nastier Nazi guards than some Germans.....Initially, also greeted Nazis with open arms. ....

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


The so-called invasion affected about 250,000 people (correct me if I'm mistaken) and was not an invasion of Czechoslovakia which would include the whole country. Many Poles and those who thought of themselves as Poles in that area did not think of it as an invasion but as a liberation (back) to the homeland. In ironic fashion it could also be considered a defensive move to the overall military politics occurring during these frightful years of German buildup.

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]

Good link which puts the national situation in perspective. The twists and turns that Harry prefers to take would make Houdini proud. The difference is (that) Houdini was able to escape his.

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


Perhaps not. Britain had a tough time int the "Battle of Britain" or the "Phony War" months.
helium.com/items/1117707-raf-strategy-during-the-battle-of-britain
From the link: "....the RAF almost lost the battle. Initially, Goering focused his energy on eliminating the RAF airfields and planes. He almost succeeded, but Hitler intervened by ordering the bombers to shift their focus to British population centers. Without this reprieve, the RAF might well have collapsed regardless of their efforts due to the loss of planes and pilots."

Additionally, the Polish pilots in Britain were instrumental in the air war. Their 'kill' numbers were extraordinary and had these pilots been 'Germanized' with some sort of German-Polish alliance then those resources may have tipped the scale.

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


This has been thoroughly discussed in other venues here.

From your own linked source: "More than 225,000 citizens of the Polish Second Republic served in the Wehrmacht,[1] and some in the Kriegsmarine and Waffen SS. The majority of these Polish citizens were of German extraction, the so-called "Volksdeutsche", or members of ethnic minorities, such as Silesians, Kashubians, and Masurians whom the Nazis considered to be almost Germans. The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front contained a sizable number of non-Germans, but no Polish-based unit was ever formed...."

As to an alliance with Germany, Hitler more-or-less proposed one in 1938 which the Poles refused. Hitler wanted access across the northern region (Gdansk) and if given that Hitler said that an alliance would be possible. Had the Poles accepted and used modern German military equipment then Russia would almost certainly have lost to a German-Polish federation. It's also possible that American aid would not be forthcoming to the Soviets under that circumstance.Some here might want to follow up on that. Of course Hitler could not be trusted to keep any promise of his and the Poles rightfully refused his dubious overture.


A devastated Poland was dominated by the Soviets after the war. They made those sorts of decisions. and were the puppet masters. Given a chance, there is no doubt that Poles would have chosen to be independent and free of the Soviet yoke.

UK, Ireland / London is Poland's 24th largest city [85]


Well, technically that may be true only if you count Chicago's suburbs. More than half of all Poles live just outside of Chicago proper but within 30 miles of the city and that includes immigrants (and) not just first and second generation Poles.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]

This is the kind of hysteria that the gun control advocates promulgate. It's all based on emotion.

Grammar school children have been suspended for pointing a finger (gunlike) at other kids, or for drawing a picture of a gun. The chicken little gun control nuts are running wild.


I gave you a logical explanation. Tell me what the specific threat is as any resistance to it will be different depending on the circumstances. One size does not fit all.

Again, how will gun legislation remove illegal guns from thugs? That's a specific inquiry which you and others cannot answer. Will the gang bangers throw away their armaments after gun control bills are passed? All the anti gun bills will do is remove guns from law abiding citizens.

As to mass shootings (FBI identifies a mass shooting as killing 4 or more people), the U.S. with a population of 310 million has 1 for every 16 million people. That compares favorably with many European countries. For example, even with its strict gun control laws, the UK has an incidence rate of 1 for every 12 million people. Norway has 1 for every 5 million people. That's the fair way to compare rates, per capita. ...

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


There was a bill which was presented by Senator Feinstein to do just that but Senator Reid didn't let it come out of committee. There are lots of liberals who do want to take away all guns but realize they don't have the votes.


You should be embarrassed playing your shell game. When Europeans kill others using methods like knives, poison or bats, etc. you don't seem to count them as murders. You only blame gun deaths. When people don't have guns they use other means. You also haven't answered the hypocrisy questions either.

Those politicians who want to ban guns and/or who oppose "conceal and carry" exempt themselves from the legislation they wish to pass. You also failed to specifically address the question of people who want weapons for home protection. You dance around with non sequitur type responses which don't address the direct question posed. Legal gun owners who want to protect their families don't "pump guns" into the community. Your answers wouldn't impress a 5th grader.


Really? Give us an example of how the laws will do that. Be specific.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


Nope. I also advocate background checks for guns including access to those who are alleged to be mentally ill.


Yep, this "someone" is a powerful (liberal) U.S. Senator with lots of clout. You said, "No one is talking about disarming Americans"

There are more liberal people in Congress who also advocate banning all guns but so far they have not had the guts to say so.


Step by step; these things are usually slippery slopes.


Yet, you are unable to disassemble them. You merely state your displeasure.


That's true. Europeans use other means to kill.
theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive

From the link: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.

"The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate,"

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]

So you really believe that Congress will have the same health care as you?
Well, that could be true if their insurance wasn't heavily subsidized by taxpayers. If, the lawmakers didn't get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers. You don't have that do you? If, they also had to take Medicare at age 65 like you will have to. You'll never see a Congressman in a seat sitting next to you waiting for his/her appointment with the doctor. Unlike you, they will never be put on a future waiting list for health care attention. The 15 board government panel that will decide what operation you will or will not have will not apply to them. Don't confuse all federal workers who also get generous benefits with Congress.


breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Reminder-Sen-Feinstein-Said-She-Wants-All-Guns-Banned


I'll speak for Chicago's (and Detroit's) carnage. The minority on minority murders are thug and gang related and the guns are obtained illegally. How is banning guns from legal gun owners going to solve that problem?

Food for thought:

* As to guns, we should b e prosecuted for our transgressions, not for what we own.

*Politicians exempt themselves from gun bans. Do we deserve such an elite citizenship?

*Possessing a weapon to protect your family is prudent. Politicians and journalists and liberals call you a "gun nut".

*Gun control laws have no effect on criminals because they ignore them. Gun control advocates ignore this fundamental fact.

*The concept of gun control is based on the assumptions that underlie all government programs - that more big government means more control over their citizens.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


It's a Cadillac package unavailable to the people who had Obamacare thrust on them. That's a rather important difference. They should have the same package as the rest of us. That seems to be a difficult concept to grasp by those who prefer to be subservient to their new masters. Evidently, liberals believe in a sort of government by royalty. Same goes for those government hypocrites who allow themselves to carry guns but want to take them away from the rest of us. How anyone can support such hypocrisy is beyond me.


Not immediately, but the long term goal is for a single payer system controlled by government bureaucrats.


Yea, it's sad that some people still believe that. They do so without knowing the history and background of why the right to arms was so important to the founding fathers. So they try to reinterpret it to suit their beliefs.

Co-founder of the Second Amendment George Mason stated in 1788, "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samual Adams when interviewed in the Philadelphia Gazette in August 1789 noted, "the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..."

Thomas Jefferson said, ""Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

The many comments from the original authors leave no doubt as to what they meant by the "right to bear arms" which liberals are too ignorant of because they are fed pap from their communal leaders and ignorance from the main street media.

I'll leave you with President Washington's thinking, ""Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence"

Back then it was assumed that most households had weapons; and the authors of the Constitution wanted to keep it that way.