<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Cara</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/260f4a50e099f2ae438196406403cb08/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:45:25 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Clinton/RFK Open Thread</title><link>http://shakesville.disqus.com/clintonrfk_open_thread/#comment-525148</link><description>&lt;blockquote&gt;"Feminism" is not, and never will be, only as good as any one individual feminist. Why on earth play into that ridiculous meme?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Fair enough, but I just wanted to make the point that I was being entirely facetious.  My first inclination was to write "for the love of god."  But I'm an atheist.  So, what do I believe in?  Well, feminism!  And Clinton considers herself a feminist, right?  Seems perfect.  Really, I was just playing around a bit with words, though with 20-20 hindsight I can see how it might be taken the wrong way in this particular context.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It had nothing to do with thinking that Hillary Clinton is some kind of voice for feminism, because as I've made very clear in the past, I absolutely do not, and I agree that the whole idea of a feminist spokeswoman is silly at best and dangerous at worst.  As for the whole "giving feminists a bad name thing," having had it thrown at me on numerous occasions (funnily enough, because I tend to hear it in cases when I'm most convinced I'm right), it's not something I buy into -- though I definitely cringe when I see feminists behaving badly under the guise of feminism (ftr, not what I think happened here).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyway, not sure where I'm going with this anymore, but seriously it was an off-the-cuff remark, designed to perhaps be very mildly amusing and to point out that I don't find these comments to be rather feminist.  Not to say that Hillary is "ruining" feminism or whatever.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cara</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 17:37:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mike Gravel, the Only Candidate I Can Support</title><link>http://menstrualpoetry.disqus.com/mike_gravel_the_only_candidate_i_can_support/#comment-1494903</link><description>Okay . . . my comment just got deleted when I tried to put it through.  But the "fair tax" is not fair or progressive.  It greatly benefits the rich.  The rich don't spend all of their income; the poor do.  That means that under a "fair tax," the poor are taxed on a much higher percentage of their income than anyone else.  Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee also support this plan.  Gravel may have other progressive ideas, but this isn't one of them.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cara</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:18:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mike Gravel, the Only Candidate I Can Support</title><link>http://menstrualpoetry.disqus.com/mike_gravel_the_only_candidate_i_can_support/#comment-1494906</link><description>&lt;i&gt;No soul has the right to decide on the life of another being, born or unborn.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Agreed.  No legislator does have the right to decide whether or not a woman will face a serious medical condition for 9 months that will affect many aspects of her life and behavior and leave her with a human being to care for at the end.  Trying to have that kind of control over someone's life would be pretty fucked up . . .</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cara</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:32:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Pennsylvania Primary Day</title><link>http://menstrualpoetry.disqus.com/pennsylvania_primary_day/#comment-1606401</link><description>You have to have ID to vote in PA?  Are you sure that's the law?  I can't say that I do, but I was under the impression that states that required ID to vote had to have other provisions in place for those who don't have an ID -- like bringing along a bill proving residence.  Just saying that if you haven't already, you might want to look into it.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cara</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:35:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: And She Did So Much While Pregnant! Right?</title><link>http://menstrualpoetry.disqus.com/and_she_did_so_much_while_pregnant_right/#comment-1934286</link><description>Everything else aside, though, the problem is dragging a 16-year-old girl into this mess.  I've got numerous issues here, but assuming this were true, it would be what's at the front of my mind.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cara</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:20:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: tangerine trees and marmalade skies</title><link>http://thecurvature.disqus.com/tangerine_trees_and_marmalade_skies_09/#comment-4581933</link><description>Yeah, Paul's positioning is way more assertive in the first pic (and John's more passive), but I really love how in the second pic, he's looking down pretending to be all bashful and modest as if anyone's actually going to buy that shit :)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cara</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:45:25 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>