DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on January 30, 2016, 12:55:07 AM
-
?The worst form of inequality
is the attempt to make unequal things equal.?
? Aristotle.
I visit cemeteries when I travel. The old monuments are important for understanding a place. Who visits Egypt without going to the Great Pyramids? It?s a tomb. It says a hell of a story. So do the mounds in Ireland. Fewer people will visit the boneyards of abandoned prisons or war cemeteries in Spain or Virginia. They can tell as immense a story if you look deeply. I?ve been to graveyards all over the world, big and small. Archeologically they?re important. They?re also the best way to see past the superficiality of a city by getting a glimpse of its heritage outside a curated museum or official cultural show. They?re usually raw?unfiltered.
There is a gravesite nearby my residence with a stone unlike any I?ve seen. For some reason, ? I try to understand why, ? it is more important to me. I don?t know who it is.
It?s a tiny worn tombstone in an old rural cemetery. The leaves around it were soggy from melting ice when I first saw it. It was among the older markers in this western yard, crumbling and blue with lichens. Its few legible words read:
?Our Boy
1898-1918
THE WAR?
I don?t know if it was the desolate simplicity of it, or the thought of the people who had placed it there, whose sadness seemed to hover, but it said so much with a rock.
?Our Boy? is their only boy? ?Our Boy? was their gift to the national effort. ?Our Boy,? a sacrifice to the war-god of democracy. And they paid taxes for the rest of their lives.
?Our Boy? was not a ?privileged? male. He was a poor boy, as his gravestone proves, ? a site that?s nearly gravel. The stone may have been provided by the church, or chiseled by his weeping family. It sits out there in the ice now.
What great honor does this man deserve? Perhaps he was a fool. Maybe he was fleeing some twisted crime and joined the army. I don?t know. All I know is that he died at battle, and that he was one of the men who roamed this territory before me. So I see something in those words. I can see the highest rank of honor a man can achieve. Not for the war. Not dying for the politicians and bankers who caused it. But I can see the selflessness and courage in all men, which is beautiful, yet endlessly tragic when misguided.
Men will die for their communities. Men will sacrifice their youth, their adulthood, their entire lives, slaving to earn for their families, to bring them a better life. Men are expected to walk through the gates of death for women and children, and they do constantly all the time, and have for so many generations. Yet I live in these strange days, when men are self-destructing, self-hating, blaming themselves, or all men collectively, for any fault in the World. If there is any injustice, we are told it was likely due to a man or their patriarchy.
Two years after Our Boy was put in the ground, women obtained the ?right to vote? in the States. Many believed America would enter a new era of world peace and superabundance. They believed the feminine would end many social divisions, bringing a time of harmonious understanding.
But then came Prohibition, the early police-state, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. The influence of women grew with the dearth of men, due to war casualties and inheritances from all classes shifting to the purse of domestic females. The most bold and nationalist were the first to die, leaving less assertive men who, it seems, were more likely to capitulate to feminism.
The flappers of the roaring 20s were dancing on tabletops gilded by working men, indulging in wealth hard-fought in trenches. The towers climbing higher every year were engineered and forced upwards by men. The automobiles and telephones were all the work of men. The appliances that would relieve women of their daily work were designed and built by men. The birth control that allowed women to cancel out the consequences of their sexual behavior: invented by men. The entire male half of the race had facilitated female ascendance upon masculinity, a piggyback game that would soon overburden men in ways undreamed of.
The ?struggle for rights? became an endless celebration of cushy office-jobs and cosmopolitan lifestyles from ?Mary Tyler Moore? to ?Sex in the City? and now ?Girls.? The wild party of ?liberation? began: an epoch of female luxury marked by consumer excess, advertising, consequence-free sexual recklessness, and preferential legal treatment, which, as we will see, extends far beyond divorce proceedings or discrimination lawsuits. Having warped every aspect of American life starting in the polling station and the home, the feminist putsch would play the largest role in the malignant growth of the American police state.
The modern white female lifestyle is cushy as anyone can possibly imagine. There is no demographic more pampered than the Western woman, yet this subject is most likely to complain about oppression, undermine her own male relations, and decry the circumstances of her civilization. The feminist has since devolved to a horrific slore who is never content or polite, who reneges on holy oaths, finding an offense in whatever remains ? nearly always an offense of male origin.
Anything that is masculine must be emasculated. Anything that is sacred and virginal must be desecrated. This process is undertaken for ?the good of women,? or for ?equal rights.?
Our Boy knows about this high-and-mighty talk of ?equality.? But in one long breath of nothingness, the men sacrificed for liberal ideals in the World Wars would be forgotten, treated like flies in vinegar, for the mighty desires of loose women bent on their narcissistic fantasy of empowerment.
Men are ?evil,? but the feminist wants to do what men do. The male workplace is ?misogynistic? but they want in it. The products of men?s work are ?bigoted? or ?unjust,? but they want credit for the same.
The Cultural Revolution was the Armageddon of the battle of the sexes. It was the patriarchal apocalypse, a dramatic collapse that unfolded in less than ten years and sealed the fate of generations of unwitting men who only meant the best, but had been so woefully misguided. From the start it was men who had imagined a female power that would benefit them. In the sixties this was reduced to easy sex and cheap ideas like ?free love? that would produce a culturally homeless generation of ?X,? soon to be a nation fraught with mass fatherlessness, ? functions of the home outsourced to the expanding government.
How did the simple idea of ?women?s suffrage? culminate in butt-naked acid-heads screwing in the street and ?Lady Gaga? parading in front of children wearing a strap-on dildo? Largely via voting.
Wyoming was the only US state to grant suffrage before Utah, but Utah?s women lost their vote shortly after because they didn?t ballot like obedient liberals. They were obedient Christians, to the surprise of urban politicos. Suffragettes were counting on Mormon girls to betray their patriarchal faith. They believed they could undermine Mormon traditions using their voting girls as a fifth column. But they proved loyal and had their ?right to vote? confiscated after a Republican Congress (then the liberal party) declared it illegal, 16 years after Mormon women had obtained it.
The strict Mormon housewife wasn?t destined to be pioneer of American feminism. As Thaddeus Russell discusses in A Renegade History of the United States, the trailblazers of feminism were, appropriately, prostitutes. These women had composed the only exception to strict codes of conduct ? being legally permitted to commit adultery, use birth control, and wear scandalous clothing. Many of the madams of western expansion had accumulated fortunes that would make them multi-millionaires in today?s currency, which they used to influence public opinion, buy politicians, defend their whores in court, and acquire choice pieces of property in wealthy boomtowns. In Helena, the capital of Montana, nearly half of all property transactions were made by women in the late 1800s. They were mostly whores. This was unheard of in more developed eastern cities. Liberal politicians were more than happy to welcome these rich, manipulative liberals into their ranks of donors and influencers.
Many of the policies argued by suffragettes half a century later found their origin in American whorehouses, where lonely working boys squandered their pay. Many behaviors of modern women would be unthinkable in the pre-suffrage era outside a ?house of ill repute.?
Similar to the United States, the first regions of the British Empire to grant suffrage were its frontier territories, such as South Australia. But these tendencies managed to permeate the Anglosphere, as industrialization weakened the household while millions of men were systematically annihilated on the battlefield.
Well over a half million Britons died in World War I. They were almost entirely men (over 99%). Because the British military is traditionally conservative, we can assume a large bloc of right voters were sacrificed in the war. The Liberal parliament opened the gateway to female suffrage in 1918, at the end of this hellish conflict, as the corpses of young men were still being shipped home by the boatload.
At first it was only women above the age of thirty (who had college degrees) who could ballot in the UK. Prior to this, English suffragettes (and they were almost entirely English, not Irish, Scots, or Welsh) had been some of the most bitchy and rancorous activists in Britain. Today, we would call them ?terrorists? as they engaged in sabotage, fire-bombings, and smear campaigns. Hundreds were jailed. But the wartime Liberal administration granted them amnesty. Never-mind what the boys may have wanted, ? they were busy not voting in trenches, hospital beds, and graveyards.
The American suffragettes were less terroristic and found themselves in an advantageous environment as new western states needed more official citizens in order to be incorporated and industrialists believed suffrage would grow demand and profits, which it did. Just as in Britain, the liberal bloc in America saw women as a tremendous reservoir of votes that could be unleashed to permanently alter the political spectrum. Feminist hysteria was fostered as a political weapon.
The deep impact of introducing so many millions of females to voting rolls across the world can?t be underestimated. Today in the US, women vote in far higher numbers than men. In some states, there are nearly 20% more female voters, awhile taxpayers nationwide remain predominantly male. Subtracting the female voters from the equation would result in an unrecognizable political landscape.
Volumes ought to be written on the economics of who votes and who benefits. But the unjust nature of women?s suffrage should have been clear from the very first elections.
During WW1, a 20 year-old American soldier who lost his legs fighting on the front line did not yet have the ?right to vote? awhile a 21 year-old female who had no high-school diploma, no property, and had never left the house, could herself vote. And they voted in massive swaths. They voted prodigiously. They voted liberal.
And what?s the result? Laws. ? Broken families and new laws. Feminists love laws.
By disbanding traditional marriage, fatherlessness has skyrocketed. In an attempt to justify the abomination of ?single parent homes? feminists have been forced to glorify the ?heroic single mothers.? Never-mind the children, who will be cursed to a life of confusion and anguish. It is much more important that these ?independent? and ?empowered? women have the opportunity to hunt down ?careers? where they can power-test others and squander their youth in offices, or fiend for random men for sex.
Astonishingly, blacks were more likely to be married than whites until the 1960s. Marriage was their social security, their division of labor, which conserved scarce community resources. During the 60s feminist mobilization, which yielded such abominations as widespread abortion, ?no-fault divorce,? alimony, and child-support, black families were utterly annihilated. About 20 years later, as the results of all these broken homes and fatherless children came of age, the black incarceration rate quintupled. The black family, hostage to liberal ideology, had succumbed to feminism. Doom enveloped black communities.
Mass fatherlessness ensued. Defendants are fatherless. Feminism can?t stop the crime-wave. They need more laws. Controls. Police. Prisons. Women have to be safe at night when they?re walking home with skanky clothes because they?re divorced and the babysitter is only good till midnight. But the deluge of feminist laws obviously isn?t limited to safeguarding recklessly slutty activity, or protecting life and property from the broken men of broken homes. The laws have to swing-low into every aspect of male life in order to justify the radical reorganization underway. All variety of male activity was criminalized. When they could vote a wish into existence, they did.
Even the punishment of children has gradually become illegal. Use of recreational drugs had to be policed, along with new regulations on drinking. Men are imprisoned for failure to pay alimony, failure to pay child support?even yelling at one?s wife/girlfriend can result in arrest. Assumption of guilt became protocol as prisons swelled, and community order, which radiates from the family, was overshadowed by shattered homes. Lists of new laws were legislated by moral do-gooders and pushy radicals alike. The voters of PTA meetings, MADD groups, and ?women?s rights advocates? could conjure up a seemingly limitless number of statutes.
Mass imprisonment became the solution for an entire galaxy of offenses that were once the domain of family government and church regulation. As per the 13th Amendment, convicts are still technically ?slaves.? This means that more slaves exist today in the United States than during the peak years of Southern plantation society.
I have never met a Libertarian woman. Apparently they do exist, because recent surveys claim about a third of self-identified Libertarians are self-identified women, which I find surprising. Yet conservatism, and the belief in limited government, seems to be increasingly an ?almost entirely white male phenomenon.?
We have to embrace that feminism itself was imposed by force. It is not merely a spreading meme, an ideological or religious craze; it?s a legal regimen backed by state violence. It was imposed in phases of increasing brutality, culminating in the modern American prison-industrial-complex, which is disproportionately packed with fatherless men. I call them ?children of the revolution.? Many of the other convicts (slaves) were caught in the frenzy of lawmaking applied by moral busybodies, a dragnet of male behaviors only threatening to women living in a post-patriarchal system.
Of course, many of these laws did not even exist 60 years ago. How did this happen? Did we have no use for these laws back then? Did millions of men just become shameless criminals without reason? Or was there a cause?
Supposedly, laws are made by legislators, who are elected by the voters. The voters are predominantly women. If women are not actually designing the outcomes, they are at the least, a significant resource for the justification of government intrusion. So who is the female voter? Who is this voter that dominates our ballots outvoting men? Lets examine women?s ?suffrage? more.
What do women do when they vote? Do women vote with their motherly instincts? Do they think like dating bachelorettes at the polls, seeking affirmation from their peer group?
Women are more likely to be old (because men die several years younger on average). Women are more likely to be on welfare. And women are more likely to make judgments on emotional ? rather than rational arguments. But most curiously, women are more likely to conform to a group consensus, meaning, women are more susceptible to peer-pressure than men.
Men tend to define themselves more by their own personal achievements. Women define themselves by their connections, their network.
Women are far more likely to vote conservative if they?re married with family. But are they just defending their household, being ?motherly,? when they vote for the candidate they perceive as ?lower tax? or ?strong on values?? Could the defensive posture of a voting mother ? as opposed to a single voter ? be related to hormonal conditions? There may be a more significant sexual and biological drive to female politics than anyone wants to openly consider. And it turns out that women?s voting habits change when they are in estrus.
This should be no surprise. A woman?s mood can change dramatically over the course of her cycle?so will her eating habits, sleeping patterns, and sociability.
Free will is a subject of constant fascination to me, admitting I am incapable of understanding it entirely, I like to explore its most obvious boundaries, where it disappears into biology or the subconscious. Women seem to have less of it in the voting booth. As numerous studies conclude, men are far more likely to switch candidates based on their opinion of the platforms, or evolving political conditions. Women (overall), on the other hand, tend to stick with one party regardless of anything. You can guess which party that tends to be.
Technically, the USA does not have ?universal suffrage? because felons and the criminally insane are not allowed to vote. It is fairly obvious, even to the liberal mind, that not all people should be permitted to ballot. When it comes to mentality, what are the proscribed limits?
One quarter of all American women are on psychiatric medications for depression, anxiety, hysteria, bipolar disorder, and psychotic conditions. These women are, presumably, voting.
These hatefacts beckon a reassessment of the conditions under which women were first granted the vote. To say they are ?equal? is quite vague, incompatible with every measurable statistic. We end up in a circus of rationalizations which serves only to weasel women into positions of political authority.
This can be summarized strictly: calling men and women ?equal? is libel. We could say it?s ?like comparing apples and oranges,? which would be necessary, because if both men and women were ?apples? then female apples would consistently be lagging behind men in nearly every form of mental and physical assessment invented. Male college athletes routinely beat female world records. The fact a woman may be involved in the periphery of major study or scientific project makes the news.
So why would such dramatic efforts be made to place men and women on the same political plane?
?That all men are equal is a proposition which at ordinary times no sane individual has ever given his assent.? ?Aldous Huxley
Let?s be liberal for a microsecond and edit Huxley?s assertion by replacing ?men? with ?people.? The devastating circumstances of the World Wars were no ?ordinary times.? So it appears that the WWI situation of the suffragettes and WWII situation of ?Rosie the Riveter? were not ordinary. They were horrific, unspeakable. This was an era where millions of (primarily) European men had been blotted out on the field of battle, the carnage of genocidal trenches and fire-squads of the first nuclear war (WW2). Far from normalcy.
So, this extraordinary phenomenon of female equality and suffrage was born from the most lopsided and twisted of human conditions. This is beyond any comparison to horror films or serial killer fiction. This is a real, collective hell. It was the ticket for the mad act that would follow.
In the grave of ?Our Boy? and millions of other men across the western world is the patriarchy we were denied. It is upon those graves that modern feminists dance. But ?Our Boy? is still whispering from his cold rock.
There is a solution to the overwhelming tyranny of female political primacy. It is exhilarating to examine, but even more exciting to engage. This message is hidden in the aphorisms of traditionalism, known in the deep memory of all men, riding the savage of the subconscious.
It is patriarchy. And it?s inevitable.
- See more at: http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/03/05/tyranny-suffrage/#sthash.Trq4RjMP.dpuf
-
That was seriously interesting.
Did we never vote fools into office before WWI?
-
Great read.
-
The best example of patriarchy in the world to today can be found in Muslim countries.
There are many Talibani who would agree with the reactionary rantings here.
-
So to many on the hard core liberal left
-
NO one on the left wants to keep women from voting or participating in the political life of the country.\
\
Sirs is just flat-plant stupid. His arguments are in the general category of "neener-neener".
-
The best example of patriarchy in the world to today can be found in Muslim countries.
There are many Talibani who would agree with the reactionary rantings here.
Yes.
The Saudis have just allowed women to vote, in a limited way.
So how would we explain to a Talib woman what she should expect to gain from voting? What has been gained here?
-
Telling some Muslim woman why she should vote is not anything I will ever do.
If she should ask, which she won't, I would tell her that it is the only way she will ever be recognized as a citizen with rights.
This article is clearly anti-feminist. It blames all the current ills on women getting the right to vote and using it.
It is blatantly reactionary, as the Taliban is reactionary.
-
This can be summarized strictly: calling men and women ?equal? is libel.
=======================================
The phrase "All men are crated equal" means in modern terms that all men and women citizens, be they nobility, clergy or common peasants, have the same rights before the law. They should be rewarded and penalized equally by the government. It dose not, of course, mean that they are equal in the sense of being identical.
-
NO one on the left wants to keep women from voting or participating in the political life of the country.
Nor did anyone claim that, either What's been claimed here is that a vast majority of the left would want to force their vision of "equality", upon the masses, regardless of its impracticality . For you not to acknowledge that puts you in the stupid category, at this point, I'm afraid
-
You apparently cannot read,
The whole point of the original article is that because women got the vote, they emasculated political life in this country. hence yielding to the suffragettes' demands that women be given the vote was a bad idea.
-
The Taliban probably think that they have it pretty good with the women barefoot and pregnant more often than wasting their time in school.
We are upsetting an applecart to introduce women to equality and representation.
Didn't it take more than a generation for our people to get used to this?
-
According to the article Religious Dick posted, giving women the vote should never have been done.
-
You apparently cannot read
You, a language professor, cannot manage context. That being the effort to force a nearsighted notion of equality on that the hard core left has deemed inequal
-
Gibberish. You can't read writing.
-
And you are apparently incapable of doing context
-
According to the article Religious Dick posted, giving women the vote should never have been done.
All is not lost, over half this planet this catastrophe has not yet happened.
That this afflicts mostly the richer half of the world must be a coincidence.
-
When a society does not pay women a living wage, or allow them to work at all, then women have only two choices, get parried or remain unmarried and living with her parents. The Catholic Church also offered the possibility of becoming a nun (by means of a ceremony in which they married Jesus), but there are no Muslim nuns.
When a society allows most women to work, then it becomes more prosperous, and then women become more independent. They no longer have to put up with husbands who beat them, or being segregated from the rest of society.
-
Gibberish. You can't read writing.
Ignorance. You can't read context
-
You have not understood this article.It is clearly against woman suffrage. It blames women having the vote for the collapse of civilization.
-
I'm not referring to the article. I'm referring to the concept the article brings up......ITS CALLED CONTEXT
-
When a society does not pay women a living wage, or allow them to work at all,........................
Yes , a decree that there shall be at least 50% functional illiteracy doesn't really produce any winners.
Also there should be pretty good reason to forbid a large part of the talent pool from practicing their individual best talents. Frivolous reasons just cost the population these services for no return.
But there is an "other hand" and it is important in international politics and warfare.
Women devoted to childbearing and forbidden most else do produce lots of children. This is good for warfare if your strategy is based on "there are plenty more ".
-
I'm not referring to the article. I'm referring to the concept the article brings up......ITS CALLED CONTEXT
That makes no sense at all.
What do you think the article means?
-
The article brings up the CONCEPT of trying to force equality where its either not practical or possible. My comments have never been specific to women. They are related to the concept that the article brings up. That's the context you're so hopelessly unable to attain
-
It is about the evils brought on by woman suffrage. Hence the title.
-
And one more time...I wasn't referring to the specifics of the article, hence the title is irrelevant to the tangent I was elaborating on....that being THE CONCEPT THAT THE ARTICLE BRINGS UP, regarding the misguided attempts to mandate equality ::)
-
I see you enjoy deflecting the issue to something vague and irrational.
The phrase "All men are created equal" meant to the writers of the Declaration of Independence that an men should be seen as equal before the law. In England, commoners, nobility and clergy were tried in separate courts. The nobility were given specials treatment and special favors by the Crown. It is not clear whether the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant that women should have the same rights as men, either.
The phrase now applies to women, but I doubt that all the signers of the declaration thought that women had the same rights as men.
-
Discussing a tangential issue, isn't what you you do best, as in deflection. the article itseif was good as it relates to women's rights. I simply added to the concept being made, regarding trying to mandate equality for other issues. CONTEXT is everything, when trying to address the point being made....or your case, in the effort to avoid that point being made
-
You have no point, other than you do not like the idea of the government helping those citizens who have been oppressed by both the law and the society for many many years. Big whoop.
The article is a reactionary anti-feminist screed that approximates Taliban attitudes.
-
I have a perfectly valid point that you are tangibly desperate not to acknowledge. No surprise there
-
You have a point all right: it is that thing your head tapers into. Amny intelligent bluntskull knows that you have a pointy head.
-
3rd grade and overused. You really need a new act. And by all means continue to avoid the point made. Helps validate it all the more
-
When Women got the vote , a planned follow on was the ERA.
As I recall, the equal rights amendment got most of the ratification it needed but finally bogged down and died.
One of the issues that killed the ERA was the idea that it would make same sex marriage constitutionally protected, and there was strong feeling against this... universally.
Now that protection for same sex marriage has been found in the shadows and penumbras of the constitution, it may be time to revisit the ERA.
Perhaps now we need the ERA to prevent corrective quota hiring and pay level mandates intended to produce equal pay.
Same sex marriage is here to do whatever it will, we sprawl at the foot of that slippery slope now.
-
The ERA should have been passed long ago.
There is absolutely, positively NO WAY that same sex marriage will be de-legalized, so Cruz and Rubio are on the wrong side of that issue.
Women getting the vote did, in fact, change the tone and character of American politics forever. Any change of this sort will produce results that at east some people will see as bad.
Prohibition was supposed to change American life, and it surely did, and its being rescinded produced even more changes. Brewery-owned saloons were made a thing of the past by Prohibition, and they never returned. Saloons in fact sis not return, either. Now bars in the US are unisex, not exclusively ,male (with the occasional prostitute).
The NPR documentary series on Prohibition revealed several things that i did not know. One was that among the most fervent supporters of Prohibition were the Ku Klux Klan. I guess they were opposed to drunken race riots, preferring the sober ones.
-
The ERA should have been passed long ago.
There is absolutely, positively NO WAY that same sex marriage will be de-legalized, so Cruz and Rubio are on the wrong side of that issue.
Oh? So the desires of the people make no difference at all? Justice that no one thinks is right, isn't.
Women getting the vote did, in fact, change the tone and character of American politics forever. Any change of this sort will produce results that at east some people will see as bad.
So you agree with one of the ideas in the article? I can see that as reasonable , though the results being more good than bad is still a disagreement. I would not want to reverse female suffrage ,I like most of the results too.
Prohibition was supposed to change American life, and it surely did, and its being rescinded produced even more changes. Brewery-owned saloons were made a thing of the past by Prohibition, and they never returned. Saloons in fact sis not return, either. Now bars in the US are unisex, not exclusively ,male (with the occasional prostitute).
The NPR documentary series on Prohibition revealed several things that i did not know. One was that among the most fervent supporters of Prohibition were the Ku Klux Klan. I guess they were opposed to drunken race riots, preferring the sober ones.
This is news to me. But not surprising.
A lot of Klan philosophy is based on an overemphasis on certain scriptures , which is a technique for using the letter of the law to reverse the sprit of the law.
So a Klansman might think himself a serious Christian while involved in activities that Christ would never sanction.
There have been Klan members who made this realization and left the club, mostly when some really nasty incident made the membership ashamed of itself.
The Klan in Indiana is about the best example of this I know about .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan
Conditions in Indiana were ripe for Klan recruitment the Klan inspired heroic feelings and grew like a snowball rolling downhill, in less than two decades they went from nothing to practical control of everything.
A shameful incident cost them all of their upstanding membership and converted connection to them from a political asset to a political liability , the failure of the clan was like an avalanche.
As far as I know they have not recovered significantly in that state even yet .
-
Individual rights trump societal rights. No one is forcing anyone to marry a member of the same sex, but why should you have the right to tell anyone whom they cannot marry?
This is a settled issue. And the Republicans are on the wrong side of it.
-
Individual rights trump societal rights.
We all need to bank this proclamation for future use. Especially when arguments about the 2nd amendment come up, it being a "settled issue" and the Democrats being on the wrong side of it
-
Gay marriages cannot kill people. Gun nuts who should never be allowed to own guns kill people.
-
Individual rights trump societal rights. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Ergo, it trumps any rationalizations in inferring otherwise
-
Gun nuts who should never be allowed to own guns kill people.
This is substantially true, I doubt you could find many in the NRA that would disagree.
Gay marriages cannot kill people.
Oh?
Isn't this one of the freedoms we get hated for?
-
No, it isn't. You are making no sense at all now.
-
What sensible reason is there for Al Queda, Boko Haram, Isis and the Taliban to think that they need to fight us?
-
We are arming their enemies and preventing them from ruling what they wish to rule. They are not killing Americans because gay marriages are legal in the US.
-
You don't think they preach against our depravity?
Their self respect requires that we deserve to die.
-
Their main goal is to control Syria and Iraq.
Just as Americans abhor a lot of what Saudis do... like execute people for witchcraft and apostasy.
But Americans do not dedicate themselves to executing Saudis who do this.
The Koran says that there should not be two religions in Arabia. The US sent US troops to Dahrain and among them were some fundamentalists who brought along Bibles in Arabic.English speaking Americans have no need for Bibles in Arabic. The Army could have easily prevented this.
-
You are in the territory they want to control.
Do you know what the Koran says on that subject?
-
Muslims imposing their beliefs on Americans, that I oppose. We should oppose that actively.
But Americans spreading their religious beliefs in Arabia is asking for trouble, so I oppose that. We can give their protesters asylum, we can say we oppose it on principle, but our opposition should be limited to words spoken here in the US, not proselytizing in their country.
-
Yes , we should fight defensively only and never aggressively or proactively.
There is no reason to defend freedom anywhere but here.
By here of course I mean Houston County Georgia.
Florida is pretty much a lost cause.
On the other hand we could defend our ideals on the frontiers of our ideals.
The dichotomy is expansion or contraction, we will choose one we can't choose anything else.
-
So you think that the US should send troops to Saudi Arabia every time they have beheadings for apostasy and witchcraft?
Of course, that means we would get harassed by the Swedish Army every time we execute someone.
-
Perhaps not every time , but certainly not never.
Priorities are set like triage, higher urgency where the effort will be effective than where it would be wasted.
The British shut down the international slave trade with a century of effort and a lot of expense.
They could have minded their own business, but they were making it a better world.
Isn't there good reason to make the world better?
Safe for democracy?
Abolish slavery?
Or is it better to wait for the Caliphate to make the world better?
-
I had the impression the main cause for ERA to be voted down is because women found it too broad and not solely advantageous to women. Notice afterwards more female centric laws
-
The EPA was voted down because insurance companies and a huge number of employers who paid women less contributed vast amounts of money to congresscritters who agreed to vote against it.
-
The vote wouldn't be in Congress.
It was in all of the statehouses.
-
Most people have nary a clue who represents them in their state legislatures. The candidates never state their positions,often they do not even state their party affiliations. The Florida Legislature sucks bigtime. It is the largest assembly of scoundrels in the state.
-
Most people have nary a clue who represents them in their state legislatures. The candidates never state their positions,often they do not even state their party affiliations. The Florida Legislature sucks bigtime. It is the largest assembly of scoundrels in the state.
I wish this were not so .
But very largely it is, if you care about the local government and the statehouse , you are probably and old Republican or a very old Democrat.
But that is where the power to ratify a constitutional amendment is actually located.
The intent was to put the power as near the people as possible.
-
The state legislatures are certainly not as near to the people as their congressmen or senators.
I doubt that one in twenty Americans could name even one of their state reps or senators.
Maybe that was the way it worked in 1790, but the fact it that state legislatures are the very least sympathetic to the people of all the various branches of government. They are less useful now with term limits than they used to be. Now the lobbyists write a lot of the bills, because the legislators are new to the job and don't understand much. Some of them have inherited the aides of their predecessors or are the former ais=des, and they are the most effective. But the FL legislature is dominated by teaparty dolts from the "pork chop" counties.
-
The Tea party is the people.
What the Tea party has done any and all of the people can do.
That they don't, is the fault of who exactly?
-
The Tea Party is a group of ignoramuses started by Tom Delay and funded by Big Oil and others that serves no real purpose, other than to provide a place for morons to spew their hatred of immigrants and the government. They elect corrupt two bit lawyers to the legislature who support crap like private prisons, fracking, for-profit entities running low quality charter schools, and depriving people in the larger cities of FL of voting without waiting for hours to do so.