# Saudi Arabia - Time to Evolve?



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2011)

I knew in a general sort of way that the conditions of life for Saudi women were hardly stellar when it comes to freedom. But I had no idea that it was as bad as this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9436095.stm

How this has not been made more of can only be laid at the door of pragmatism and wealth. For women in a supposedly 'modern' country to be treated this way should be roundly and publicly criticised at the least (I know it self-evidently isn't 'modern' in any other way than infrastructure but we must be polite) .

It can be strongly argued that it's not 'our place' to intervene or speak out and it is true that there is no short-term economic advantage in doing so. But that doesn't make it right for the Western media to stay so silent on this issue.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 29, 2011)

The West Wing covered this:


> Outraged? I&#8217;m barely surprised. This is a country where women aren&#8217;t  allowed to drive a car. They&#8217;re not allowed to be in the company of any  man other than a close relative. They&#8217;re required to adhere to a dress  code that would make a Maryknoll nun look like Malibu Barbie. They  beheaded a hundred and twenty-one people last year for robbery, rape,  and drug trafficking. They have no free press, no elected government, no  political parties. And the Royal Family allows the Religious Police to  travel in groups of six carrying nightsticks and they freely and  publicly beat women. But &#8216;Brutus is an honorable man.&#8217; Seventeen  schoolgirls were forced to burn alive because they weren&#8217;t wearing the  proper clothing. Am I outraged? No&#8230; That is Saudi Arabia, our partners  in peace.


In other words, you cannot honestly portray a so called "Moderate Islamic" nation as free, just, or anything but, barbaric.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2011)

The United States seems to find this difficult...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

Are you suggesting we sever any ties to this nation?
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Mar 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The United States seems to find this difficult...


----------



## Big Don (Mar 29, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Are you suggesting we sever any ties to this nation?
> Sean




I would suggest that we tell them there are things we will NOT allow.
 Funding international terrorism.
Tacit approval of international terrorism.
The wholesale subjugation of women.


The murder of anyone who chooses to leave a religion.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I would suggest that we tell them there are things we will NOT allow.
> Funding international terrorism.
> Tacit approval of international terrorism.
> The wholesale subjugation of women.
> ...


Suppose they don't take that seriously, then what?
Sean


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Obama Pics



If you thought that post was only about Bush, then you are sadly mistaken.  The United States has been colluding with the House of Saud continuously for decades now without pause or interruption.  It's a relationship that will never end as long as our energy infrastructure lives or dies by what the Saudis pump out of their ground.

Besides, Obama never made out with any of them.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 29, 2011)

I don't know. Because the US government has let the environmentalists cripple and, for all intents and purposes, outlaw the use of our own oil, it isn't as if we can say FU, we aren't buying from you anymore.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

Exactly; so, the plight of those women take a back seat to our SUVs, and until that changes, the US isn't going to do or say anything against Saudi Arabia. Case closed. 
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Exactly; so, the plight of those women take a back seat to our SUVs, and until that changes, the US isn't going to do or say anything against Saudi Arabia. Case closed.
> Sean



One might also consider that Saudi Arabia is the most difficult of the Muslim nations we are currently on good terms with.  Their ruling elite are our friends; but they are hated by their own people and rule with an iron fist.  The people of Saudi Arabia are much less moderate and more tolerant if not supporting of terrorism and Islamist belief than most other Muslim nations.  The 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, as did OBL himself.  They did not spring up in a vacuum.

As bad as the government of Saudi Arabia is, the fear is that if it falls, there will be no democracy, no moderate replacement for the current regime.  It will be a hard-core Islamist nation and the export of terrorism won't be suppressed by their own government anymore.

The people of Iraq do not tend towards Islamist extremism, nor do the people of Afghanistan - their extremists are indeed extremists.  The people of Saudi Arabia are much more likely to turn violent, IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

By the way, most of the Middle East is scared spitless of the concept of a Wahabist Saudi Arabia.  They prefer a strong dictatorship to keep the lid on those goons, regardless of what else happens along the way.  Their interests are very much in line with the US's interests in this case.

Like the fact that Pakistan is ruled by thugs and is despotic yet their people would gladly cut our throats if not held down by an iron fist.

Yeah, I'm sorry we end up palsy-walsy with nasty people.  Sometimes there are good reasons, and if we have to toady up to tinpot dictators, I may wish it were otherwise, but there you have it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I would suggest that we tell them there are things we will NOT allow.
> Funding international terrorism.
> Tacit approval of international terrorism.
> The wholesale subjugation of women.
> ...



We're in no position to dictate anything to anyone with oil.  And they know it.  We've shot our bolt.  We're overextended in two (perhaps now three) wars that are destroying our economy, we can't even begin to think about mounting another.  We have zero credibility when it comes to saber-rattling these days.  We can't even shut up Chavez or Iran, those pipsqueaks.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 29, 2011)

15/19 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2011)

When our house is in shambles (economically, politically and socially) why on earth does this matter. Sorry but that is how I feel, if the rest of the western world is upset or offended by this then by all means do something about it but if it were up to me you can do it on your own the USA has enough internal issues to deal with and more than enough external without making more. We need to straighten our own mess out right now and not worry about straightening out others messes. 

And when you are talking the Middle East and look at it historically all you do by getting rid of one tyrant is create a power vacuum that is generally filled by another tyrant&#8230; so what do we do keep killing them until they get one we all approve of&#8230; give me a friggen break


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> 15/19 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.



I believe I stated that.  Means what, exactly?  That the people of Saudi Arabia are not our friends?  So we topple their autocratic leadership which keeps them more-or-less suppressed, and guess what?

Either we support their nasty dictatorship or we go in with guns blazing and prepare for a very long stay.  Using men, weapons, and money we don't have, and watching the price of gasoline go to $15 a gallon in the meantime.  Yeah, that's gonna happen.

The people of Saudi Arabia mostly hate us.  They also hate their government, who likes us.  So dictating terms to their leadership seems to be a no-win to me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> 15/19 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi.


 
They were Al-Qaeda terrorists trained in Afghanistan and not all Saudi's are Al-Qaeda terrorists trained in Afghanistan and we attacked Afghanistan for that because that is where the terroriosts, who happened to be from Saudi Arabia, were trained by the Al-Qaeda. 

Richard Reid was a British citizen and Al-Qaeda so should we then attack England?

Adam Yahiye Gadahn was from Oregon and Al-Qaeda...so should we now send the Military to attack Oregon?



> The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists. - Ernest Hemingway


----------



## cdunn (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I don't know. Because the US government has let the environmentalists cripple and, for all intents and purposes, outlaw the use of our own oil, it isn't as if we can say FU, we aren't buying from you anymore.


 
The United States is already the world's third largest producer of oil. We produce as much as Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela put together. And we use as much as China, India, Germany, Japan and Russia put together. So, I don't see the environmentalists crippling us -too- much. Of course, a lot of the unproven reserves will have startup costs of over $90/bbl for a decade or two, and the industry has gotten burned by OPEC opening the pipes in the past. And, when a deepwater well has an error cost of $40 billion, plus unknowable economic damage to the regions tourism and fishery industries... Another inch and a half of preventative measures might have made BP a much happier country.

We're up to our noses in the Middle East because we were too dumb to learn our lesson in '73 when OPEC demonstrated it's power and in '79 when the Iranians revolted. Until we make a full stop effort to stop using gasoline, we are going to be beholden to them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2011)

There are less severe ways to encourage change in a country, with which you do business, than invading them.

I was thinking much more along the lines of reporting more incisvely and more broadly on the conditions within Saudi Arabia.  Now, aye, diplomatic observations have to be backed up by the strength to execute them and that is likely the only way to get that iron-bound society to evolve.  

But the first steps can be achieved with words - altering the global cimate of opinion can mean more than you might think when you're a big-wig sitting on a pile of oil dollars.  

True, they have, to coin a phrase, gotten the West, particularly America, over a barrel when it comes to oil.  But there are other sources to draw on and even alternate life-styles to be considered that does not involve setting fire to one of the most useful materials on the planet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> There are less severe ways to encourage change in a country, with which you do business, than invading them.
> 
> I was thinking much more along the lines of reporting more incisvely and more broadly on the conditions within Saudi Arabia.  Now, aye, diplomatic observations have to be backed up by the strength to execute them and that is likely the only way to get that iron-bound society to evolve.
> 
> ...



I suspect that this is done at many levels in US and probably UK government diplomacy.  Just because it is not discussed openly does not mean it is not done.  Might even be found in the Wikileaks cables; but perhaps not widely reported because it does not contribute to the overall level of hatred of the USA so enjoyed elsewhere.


----------



## granfire (Mar 29, 2011)

you guys are delusional if you think that the people with pull (usually still men) don't admire, deep down in the most private thoughts how them thar Ay-rabs managed to keep them dames in their place.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> you guys are delusional if you think that the people with pull (usually still men) don't admire, deep down in the most private thoughts how them thar Ay-rabs managed to keep them dames in their place.


That is the single most bigoted statement I've seen on here in a while. But, bigotry against men is OK...


----------



## granfire (Mar 29, 2011)

Big Don said:


> That is the single most bigoted statement I've seen on here in a while. But, bigotry against men is OK...



Nah, it's pretty true. 
However, if you feel offended, maybe there is a reason. 
Hatret against women is pretty rampant. Naturally not everybody has it. Not everybody does disagree with women becoming powerful.

But just examine general atributes given to men vs women when their actions are the same.

men yell, women screech
men are assertive, women bitchy. 

The west has made a conscious effort to change public policy. but a lot of guys still like their women as submissive pets rather than partners. 

Our cultural background is somewhat different from the Saudi one, but deep down a lot of guys have that admiration for that Sheik with a big harem...the structure of Saudi society and the ripple effects it has on the Islamic world just gives men an excuse to not control their impulses and behave badly. 

However, our social structure - I am speaking of Euro/American, judeo-christian influenced, has been based on patriachial structures since antiquity. As cultured as the Greek were, they too regarded their women as chattel...the Romans brought it north, and with the spread of Christianity the Germanic/Celtic societies got corrupted and the female relegated to people second class where as they had been equal partners before.

(on the same token 'foreign aid' has done a lot of this in 3rd world countries, by disregarding how the society worked: Giving aid and confiscating the best fields for the men to play with tractors when really the women were doing the farming, now pushed to the poor fields with the traditional hoe to work it. )

Most men don't do it consciously, but sheesh, just look at the hip-hop culture...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Until we make a full stop effort to stop using gasoline, we are going to be beholden to them.



i will be soooo happy when the bunny huggers finally learn that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO OIL

the tech either doesnt exist (Mr Fusion) OR is cost prohibitive (electric)

there is no alternative and we HAVE to have power NOW

solar cant power a car can do what america wants a car to do, niether can wind, or anything else


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2011)

I agree with Don, Most offensive post i have seen since i got here.




granfire said:


> you guys are delusional if you think that the people with pull (usually still men) don't admire, deep down in the most private thoughts how them thar Ay-rabs managed to keep them dames in their place.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i will be soooo happy when the bunny huggers finally learn that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO OIL
> 
> the tech either doesnt exist (Mr Fusion) OR is cost prohibitive (electric)
> 
> ...


How is nuclear power not going to get a car to do what we want it to do? just an option you forgot to mention.
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 29, 2011)

Well, if we put sails on cars, we could finally use wind power to replace fossil fuels for individual transport.  Twin fist, I have to say that I believe if you look around you can find granfire being far more offensive than that.  That kind of rude behavior is why I put granfire on my ignore list.  Actually, granfire is the only one on my ignore list.  Although there are at least two others on deck for the list.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> How is nuclear power not going to get a car to do what we want it to do? just an option you forgot to mention.
> Sean




the bunny huggers will not allow nuclear plants to be built. And now with the japanese situation, there will most likely never be a new nuclear plant opened in america thanks to the veggie eating tree humpers


----------



## granfire (Mar 29, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> I agree with Don, Most offensive post i have seen since i got here.



I suppose it's the point of view. after all, there are some folks on the forum who love the idea that hell will freeze over before the US will elect a female president. 

Same thing. I suppose you di not find that offensive.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, if we put sails on cars, we could finally use wind power to replace fossil fuels for individual transport.  Twin fist, I have to say that I believe if you look around you can find granfire being far more offensive than that.  That kind of rude behavior is why I put granfire on my ignore list.  Actually, granfire is the only one on my ignore list.  Although there are at least two others on deck for the list.


I am waiting in line here. I hate lines! Come on! What's the hold up?
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> I suppose it's the point of view. after all, there are some folks on the forum who love the idea that hell will freeze over before the US will elect a female president.
> 
> Same thing. I suppose you di not find that offensive.




if i saw someone say "hell will freeze over before we elect a female president" i dont remember it.

and here is the thing, that isnt, in any way shape or form, as offensive as what you posted.

you accused un-named posters here of admiring the way the Islamics treat women.

thats obscene


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2011)

Folks, rein in the crapfest.  Personal attacks ain't cool, sexist or bigoted statements aren't cool, and none of it is on topic.

In other words:

*ATTENTIONAL ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic.  Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Super Moderator
*


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if i saw someone say "hell will freeze over before we elect a female president" i dont remember it.
> 
> and here is the thing, that isnt, in any way shape or form, as offensive as what you posted.
> 
> ...


If you pay attention, Islamic men view women a their responsibility, and if a woman from their family runs off to be a stripper or a prostitute, it reflects badly on the man, and shows society he was unable to keep a household. Through out the ages this has been the honorable thing to do. Its all about protecting females from the world. Family is everything to them, in America, not so much.
Sean


----------



## granfire (Mar 29, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if i saw someone say "hell will freeze over before we elect a female president" i dont remember it.
> 
> and here is the thing, that isnt, in any way shape or form, as offensive as what you posted.
> 
> ...




Life and people are obscene. 
And yes. I said hell will freeze over before the US elects a female president. And the poster who agreed can out himself. Or you can find the statement. I am surprised you missed it. 

But obviously you don't care to read in depth. Or follow more than the usual line of arguments. Naturally it is conviniently forgotten that women didn't have a much lighter stand in the western world until the 1960s. Or what the 'rule of thumb' really stands for. 

And for clarity, since you did not make the connection: I did not accuse an unnamed poster of condoning the treatment of Islamic women. I pointed out his sexist stand. 

And that is at the core of the problem. Disregard for the rights of about 50% of the world population vs the convinience of getting someplace fast.


----------



## granfire (Mar 29, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> If you pay attention, Islamic men view women a their responsibility, and if a woman from their family runs off to be a stripper or a prostitute, it reflects badly on the man, and shows society he was unable to keep a household. Through out the ages this has been the honorable thing to do. Its all about protecting females from the world. Family is everything to them, in America, not so much.
> Sean




all nice and dandy, but if the family loses the male protector she is up the creek without a paddle, relegated to beg at the street corner.


(and an FYI for the closet strong man leaving annonnymous rep: I don't hate men, I hate starched underwear posing as men)


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 29, 2011)

Saudi certainly does need to grow up, and we COULD tell them to sod off IF:
1: the bunny humpers would get over it and let us drill here, we dont need saudi oil if we could just drill for our own
2: we had the political will to leave israel to the wolves


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> all nice and dandy, but if the family loses the male protector she is up the creek without a paddle, relegated to beg at the street corner.
> 
> 
> (and an FYI for the closet strong man leaving annonnymous rep: I don't hate men, I hate starched underwear posing as men)


I didn't do that. LOL


----------



## elder999 (Mar 29, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Saudi certainly does need to grow up, and we COULD tell them to sod off IF:
> 1: the bunny humpers would get over it and let us drill here, we dont need saudi oil if we could just drill for our own
> 2: we had the political will to leave israel to the wolves


 
Dude

1: We are drilling here, and have been for some time-we'd still need Saudi oil,Yemeni oi, Kuwaiti oil, Iraqi oil,  Venezuelan oil, Nigerian oil, Canadian oil, and any other oil we can get our grubby, oil-stained hands on. Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's oil-we have about a tenth of that, or 2.5%.

We * use* about* 25%* of _the oil the* world*_ produces.

We have nothing here that can support that kind of usage at all-even ANWAR, which, if we started the drilling process tomorrow, would produce about 10.4 billion barrels of oil, or 0.4-1.2% of total world consumption

2:Amen. They've proven they can handle their business; we should just leave them to it.


----------



## granfire (Mar 29, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I didn't do that. LOL



didn't think you did ^_^


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> you guys are delusional if you think that the people with pull (usually still men) don't admire, deep down in the most private thoughts how them thar Ay-rabs managed to keep them dames in their place.


 
That maybe true for some men in power, but the implication that this is why the West doesn't intervene is downright insulting.  I don't have fantasies about putting women in their place, I don't believe that even the most traditionally-oriented poster on this board harbors such notions, and I'd appreciate it if you'd find some kind of proof (a study, an interoffice memo, something) that hidden misogeny is the cause before making such presumptive, blanket statements.  

In short, I cry foul.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> (and an FYI for the closet strong man leaving annonnymous rep: I don't hate men, I hate starched underwear posing as men)


 
They're always anonymous.  The only rep dings I've seen that aren't anonymous are the ones I've authored (which is probably why I receive so many in return, but hey, if you're not pissing someone off, you're not being honest.).


----------



## elder999 (Mar 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> They're always anonymous. The only rep dings I've seen that aren't anonymous are the ones I've authored (which is probably why I receive so many in return, but hey, if you're not pissing someone off, you're not being honest.).


 

Mine hardly ever are anonymous: ask Don or bill, or ballen, or bribrius, or LuckyBoxer, or yorkshirelad...if it's anonymous, it's 'cause I was so pissed off that I hit send without thinking about it!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> all nice and dandy, but if the family loses the male protector she is up the creek without a paddle, relegated to beg at the street corner.
> 
> 
> (and an FYI for the closet strong man leaving annonnymous rep: I don't hate men, I hate starched underwear posing as men)


 
I can't stand unsigned bad reps, IMO if your going to leave one you should at least have the guts to sign it.

And for the record if one gives a rep might I suggest that those leaving a bad rep, or any rep for that matter, go check after they do it to make sure it is correct and if there is a forgotten sig you can delete it and do it again within a certain time period... kind of like editing a post


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 30, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Mine hardly ever are anonymous: ask Don or bill, or ballen, or bribrius, or LuckyBoxer, or yorkshirelad...if it's anonymous, it's 'cause I was so pissed off that I hit send without thinking about it!




True, Jeff thrives on attention, weather good or bad is irrelevant, so he always signs his


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> True, Jeff thrives on attention, weather good or bad is irrelevant, so he always signs his



I'm color-blind.  So the reps I get all look the same to me - positive and negative.  Unless they say something snarky, I just assume they love me and what I have to say.  Sorry guys who leave me anonymous neg reps - I can't tell!  No, really!


----------



## elder999 (Mar 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> True, Jeff thrives on attention, weather good or bad is irrelevant, so he always signs his


 

It's not that-I just think it's common courtesy to sign 'em. No one ever signs the relatively few negative ones that I do get, though........


----------



## granfire (Mar 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> That maybe true for some men in power, but the implication that this is why the West doesn't intervene is downright insulting.  I don't have fantasies about putting women in their place, I don't believe that even the most traditionally-oriented poster on this board harbors such notions, and I'd appreciate it if you'd find some kind of proof (a study, an interoffice memo, something) that hidden misogeny is the cause before making such presumptive, blanket statements.
> 
> In short, I cry foul.




Well, the study thrives on blanket statements.


After all not all Islamic women are kept the way the Saudi Arabian women are, if they are lucky in a golden cage.

But you can't deny that the blight of women is of no concern to the powerful. 
Afghan women suffered for nearly 30 years. With the Taliban on the rise again...war still raging, I don't see anything changing any time soon. 

The rights and opportunities Western women have are relatively new in our society. 2 generations, 3 at the most. (let's not forget Wyoming was almost denied statehood because they refused to revoke women's right to vote, a right which only came about rather latish in the last century).

I can smile about those deep down fantasies a guys has about Arabian nights, but the violent reaction to something that was not directed at anybody but the broad 50% of earth's population is interesting. 'Me thinks thou protest too much' to paraphrase Shakespeare. I struck a nerve. 
However, without provocative thought there will be no progress, and it is up to the individual to examine why the statement not directed at him/her personally had such an impact. naturally, there is the option to just shoot the messenger (or leave infantile rep comments) or to honestly assert if the statement actually fits. 

After all, the outcry was similar a while back when real women answered the question 'What do women want in a man' :idunno:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Saudi certainly does need to grow up, and we COULD tell them to sod off IF:
> 1: the bunny humpers would get over it and let us drill here, we dont need saudi oil if we could just drill for our own
> 2: we had the political will to leave israel to the wolves



Not really. You won't drill enough for your own consumption. But that is not the major reason why the US simply cannot afford to lose Saudi goodwill.

If you piss off the Saudis, they will start to trade oil for euros instead dollars.
The deafening sound you'll hear then is the dollar hitting rock bottom at high speed.
The US economy is linked directly to the goodwill of the Saudis trading in dollars. This may not be the popular thing to say, but they own you.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> That maybe true for some men in power, but the implication that this is why the West doesn't intervene is downright insulting.  I don't have fantasies about putting women in their place, I don't believe that even the most traditionally-oriented poster on this board harbors such notions, and I'd appreciate it if you'd find some kind of proof (a study, an interoffice memo, something) that hidden misogeny is the cause before making such presumptive, blanket statements.
> 
> In short, I cry foul.


See Granfire, see what you've done? You made me agree with him.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> Nah, it's pretty true.
> 
> The west has made a conscious effort to change public policy. but a lot of guys still like their women as submissive pets rather than partners.



My ex did.  He got mad at me when i didnt agree with him. He said 'but my ex wife always agreed with everything I said" well sorry, but I'm not her. I think for my self. and if you don't like it, you can get stuffed. He wanted someone who agreed with him. His now gf agrees with what he believes so she dont see his bad side - yet. 

also i got anonymous neg repped too when i also made what was called a gender insult against men when i said in a thread about legalizing prostitution that the people posting in the thread who  said they had no problem with it or who actually agreed were men. But its true what i said there.

I hate anonymous reps too. I sign mine. I don't neg rep people but if i did i'd sign those ones too.


----------



## granfire (Apr 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> See Granfire, see what you've done? You made me agree with him.



But then, you agree with billi...


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 1, 2011)

This isn't to single out any one poster, regarding reputation discussions.  

If you believe that someone's abusing the rep system, then feel free to speak with any of the MT staff, regarding any possible rep abuse.  

Such material really shouldn't be discussed in public.  Remember, you always have the option of turning off your rep.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 1, 2011)

juding from saudi history, and afgani history, and paki history, it isnt any one COUNTRY that needs to grow up, it is the religion


----------

