Comment: actually, aside from,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Niether of us were there (see in situ)

actually, aside from,

as you called it, "anti Jew" guy, Makow very much reflects commonly expressed sentiments of 'fix male/female double standard!'-guy.

Never called you an "anti-Jew guy." My allusion was more on the gender inequality issue, which he is more well known for, not his 'anti-jew' nonsense. Plus, having researched his stuff as one often comes across when one researches anything NWO, 9/11, Rothchilds et al, he IS a Jew who converted to a Messianic Jew. So he's not "a typical anti-Jew guy." Besides, I have Jews in the family.

"Acting like Sweden is some type of anti-woman socialist state is ridiculous though."

- I never said or acted like that. You're perceiving things not said by me, obviously. Need I point out 'read the headline 1st, before responding!' again? lol.

"I have a friend from Sweden. I've read about Sweden. Guys there get all the money taken from them pretty much. So do women. However, women get back over 50% more benefits from their government than guys do."

- THAT, I do know, and agree with you. The having researched some divorce cases, and child custody fights in Sweden, indeed, their 'laws' are ridiculously biased toward women, as they are here.

"That's not a socialist state trampling on the rights of women. The opposite, in fact."

Well, a socialist state is any state that controls re-distribution of resources/income/wealth/property. So...by any factual definition, and by any libertarian/paleo-con/AnCap/Minarchist/Constitutionalist standards, Sweden (while still 'monarchic' and the true powers still reside in their 'royal' family despite their parliamentary democracy charade), IS the very definition of a Socialist State which has controlled re-distribution of wealth; it matters not whether it specifically tramples on "rights of women," or not.

ALL States, the Leviathan, by definition, trample of "rights of"...er...like EVERYONE?? And, particularly a Socialist Leviathan, No?

"A lot of guys there date russians and FSU girls because they don't like be treated poorly by women who receive so much from them already without their consent via government theft."

- That, is a similar dating/marrying pattern also observed here as well in other European countries, post East Bloc break up.

My whole point of thread was simply pointing out an example of appropriate vs. inappropriate level of force, truly culpable party, individual self defense and how it's viewed by the State, force disparity, prosecutorial bias, and cultural obstacles/double standards involved in male-female, female-male conflicts, and whether that can also happen in America with the current trajectory of 24/7, statists' socially engineered demonization of guns and how the very fundamental notion of an individual right of self defense may survive or ill interpreted in this current climate of a heavy attempt at manufactured consent of mass hoplophobic hysteria.

Speaking strictly of English Commonwealth nations who share many similar legal doctrines derivative of the English Common Law, as we do, the news of Britons, Canadians, Aussies, and Kiwis getting arrested for fending off an armed invader inside their own homes are too numerous to cite.

History clearly shows that 'Laws' are usually byproducts of prevailing, contrived, connived, politically maneuvered will of an era, often damn near 100% manipulated into existence, by opportune political operatives.

Being such, I'm merely positing 'can it happen here, too?'

As I stated, if you take away the alchemical acceptance of govt uniforms by a brainwashed populace, of course it can.

'Cause it happens every day here in America, too: VICTIM citizens routinely get charged with "assaulting an officer" even as they're often, being wrongfully arrested, all for the simple intuitive act of putting one's arms up in a defensive posture to block being hit in the face by an oncoming object in the hand of ANY aggressor, whether it's a common thug, or a uniformed state actor thug beating up the citizen.

Because typically, people would generally see the woefully obvious transgression in such cases as the Swedish female defendant had to endure, if you simply switch the "Scum" with a "cop," as you had an internal gender-victim reaction, intuitively, so too would many among the populace.

Point? Double Standard isn't only 'double standard' when it's between a man vs. a woman; morally it 'should' be the same, if it's between a citizen defendant vs. govt transgressor.

That, was the point.

So, as long as you're gonna posit the notion that you not punching your former female club patron aggressor as an equally applicable case to highlight your internal sense of injustice while accusing me of having an agenda, while you simultaneously displaying that you've clearly not even read the Headline, as you've already proven that you've mistaken me for capitalizing "SCUM" when I only capitalized "CONVICTED," clearly displays your own personal bias via your 'biased perception Freudian Slip:' all tells me more about you than me, my friend.

Thanks. But this will be my last reply on the matter. My whole point was: the inept judicial system there, as here, cultural bias & complexities and sheeple routinely resorting to govt to solve an insolvable. Nothing less, nothing more.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul