<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for onion</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/e2dbf7a627c37638ad429b58a60f96e6/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:40:07 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Palestinian woman stands up to Israeli troops</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/palestinian_woman_stands_up_to_israeli_troops/#comment-4967365</link><description>Scottsdalian - You are a perfect example of knee-jerk defense of Palestinians. The "Pals," such as Hamas, lob BOMBS, not rocks. And they admit that they are PURPOSEFULLY targeting civilians. At least Israel, even if they are screwing up, can claim that their INTENT is to target only violent, bomb launching militants. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Seriously, think about that.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And the jury may still be out about the whereabouts of the rocket launchers in the area of that school - I've heard that the launchers were just adjacent to it. Adjacent is just about as good as inside. Human shields still.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:10:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Rick Warren gets mixed reviews</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/rick_warren_gets_mixed_reviews/#comment-5458484</link><description>Warren did throw a bone to non-Evangelicals: he quoted like the most important Jewish prayer ever, almost immediately in his invocation. I'm totally ignorant of Christianity, and I don't know if it has managed to absorb the most important Jewish prayer, but Ithese words:&lt;br&gt;"Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One" are the opening sentence of the Shema, the iconic prayer of the Jewish faith.&lt;br&gt;Warren sux, but it was nice to hear those words.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:21:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Rick Warren gets mixed reviews</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/rick_warren_gets_mixed_reviews/#comment-5458505</link><description>yup, noticed the sh'ma right away. those words are etched in my skull. &lt;br&gt;appreciated it. he's still an ass though. but maybe he's trying.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:24:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mother of 6 gives birth to 8 more</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/mother_of_6_gives_birth_to_8_more/#comment-5719852</link><description>disgusting. legal, yes, but disgusting.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:15:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Maureen Dowd hearts Michelle.  David Brooks not so much.</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/maureen_dowd_hearts_michelle_david_brooks_not_so_much/#comment-6996896</link><description>Women show skin to appear attractive in a formal setting, men don't. Even in informal settings, women are always one step ahead of men in terms of bare skin acreage.&lt;br&gt;I am a woman, and I don't approve of women showing so much skin in such formal settings. Why? Think again about why showing skin is so uniquely "feminine." The roots of this tradition lies in sex. The suggestion of sexuality. &lt;br&gt;Sure, it is beautiful, it is gorgeous, but why isn't it as gorgeous and AS ACCEPTED for men? Because in a way that no one seems to want to admit, the "femininity" that is bare skin is a suggestion that we need to see her entire body in detail to deem her beautiful. &lt;br&gt;There are a million other ways for a woman to appear feminine and beautiful. &lt;br&gt;And why don't men need to bare skin to appear masculine? Get a load at how they look masculine - they cover nearly every inch of skin up in a form-obscuring, thick, opaque in every way SUIT.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:29:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Maureen Dowd hearts Michelle.  David Brooks not so much.</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/maureen_dowd_hearts_michelle_david_brooks_not_so_much/#comment-6997051</link><description>Folks - I think Michelle looked great, love her clothes, I'm a woman making my way in a traditionally male-dominated career field and am for equal rights etc etc.&lt;br&gt;BUT just think for a second, why it is absolutely acceptable for women to bare skin (arms, chest, legs and more) in just about any situation, even a formal one, but NOT FOR MEN. Why don't we ever get the chance to debate a male politician's choice of sleeveless dress shirt? &lt;br&gt;Ah, you say because baring skin is "feminine." But why is baring skin not also "masculine?" Heck, I'd love to see some male bicep at the inaugural ball, or some well-cut calves hanging out there next to the podium.&lt;br&gt;Bare skin for women but not for men has its roots in a truly sexist take on how sexuality is important for our perception of a woman's worth. In the meantime, we judge men not so much by how they look, but by what they've got upstairs.&lt;br&gt;All you cheerleaders for the sleeveless attire during winter...if you don't think it's also ok for the men to show a little pec at formal events, then maybe you should reexamine why you think it is ok for women.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:41:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Maureen Dowd hearts Michelle.  David Brooks not so much.</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/maureen_dowd_hearts_michelle_david_brooks_not_so_much/#comment-6997071</link><description>if arms are not sexual organs, then why don't men also bare arms in similar situations?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:43:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A Snowy Owl pays a rare visit to my neighborhood</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/a_snowy_owl_pays_a_rare_visit_to_my_neighborhood/#comment-7238632</link><description>pretty silly custom given that a lot of owl species are actually diurnal. perhaps that custom is from the southern half of the lower 48. hawk owls, snowy owls, short-eared owls and more all hunt during the day.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:25:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Socialist health care is the worst</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/socialist_health_care_is_the_worst/#comment-7930790</link><description>Hey the health care in Costa Rica is pretty good.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:49:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Fun with online polls</title><link>http://americablog.disqus.com/fun_with_online_polls/#comment-7994072</link><description>Oh that is RICH. It is at 95% for gay marriage right now. Awesome.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:40:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Torch Is Passed</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/the_torch_is_passed/#comment-2873013</link><description>the above comment should be taken down. Liberals want Palin gang raped? Ridiculous, and offensive.&lt;br&gt;Or rather, leave it up, to highlight the fact that the radical republicans are far, far more deluded and "radical" than any who may vote for Obama.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:55:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Who&amp;#8217;s a Joe Six-Pack?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/who8217s_a_joe_six_pack/#comment-2873054</link><description>I don't care how much Obama, Michelle, Biden make...that is irrelevant when you claim that you are "middle class"....when you make $166,000 a year, you ARE NOT middle class.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:02:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How to Tell For Sure That You Are Rich</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/how_to_tell_for_sure_that_you_are_rich/#comment-2873092</link><description>Middle class is being able to afford a place to live (rent or if you are lucky, own a modest place) but still having to debate whether to buy the can of beans that costs $1.20 or the can that costs $0.99.&lt;br&gt;I don't care where you live in the US, but if you earn $250,000/yr, you are NEVER forced to buy that $0.99 can of beans.&lt;br&gt;250K a year is rich.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">onion</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:08:56 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>