Log in

View Full Version : where is prositution legal??



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13

xdamage
08-24-2009, 09:09 AM
Just to add a twist though... there is a chance that if any of us look back in our own history we had ancestors that lived in a society where wealth was very strongly divided between a few wealthy (possibly rulers) and then there was everyone else. If we are here today in a democratic society, with a large middle class population, in part that is true because those before us were unhappy with the division of wealth.

Likely the wealthy group was sure the world would fall apart if the divison of wealth was to change. Likely many felt that the poor were poor because they deserved it due to their own laziness. Perhaps the wealthy group even looked around and said (as I just did above) that it is has always been so, across multiple nations, that there has been a division.

And none of that changes that when you find yourself holding a short stick that it sucks and you reasonably want your personal situation to be more equitable. Again though this is just humans. Both the poor and the wealthy essentially want the same thing, more for themselves.

We rise above our own nature not by hoping for good will or finger pointing, but by forcing ourselves too; by writing idealized laws and pushing our members of society to change. Laws that force checks and balances; laws that force us to hire others without factoring in their race or sex; etc. It works because left to own good will the world would be a pretty shitty place for most of us.

Otoki
08-24-2009, 11:45 AM
MM and I are going to go to a brothel here in NV soon. We're looking forward to it tremendously, and are glad that such an experience is legal and local. :)
That's on my bucket list, although not necessarily in NV.

Otoki
08-24-2009, 11:47 AM
This is a fair point and I've made it myself in the past, that if you look at human behavior world-wide, the USA is hardly unique in this regard. Visit other parts of the world and you rapidly learn that Hopper's point that different (not just white) people have advantages in their own countries. People in this country are not uniquely evil because a particular group happened to become dominant. The rest of the world has it's shaded past as well, and in many countries they are still far behind ours in terms of matters like fair treatment of women, treatment of minorities (measured relative to their own society), etc.
Of course "dominant cultures" have advantages. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Saying "it happens everywhere" and it's worse in certain places doesn't excuse that it happens here. No one is saying "white males are evil" or that they are a dominant demographic in every fucking country. I don't know where all these strawmen are coming from.

xdamage
08-24-2009, 12:04 PM
Of course "dominant cultures" have advantages. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Saying "it happens everywhere" and it's worse in certain places doesn't excuse that it happens here. No one is saying "white males are evil" or that they are a dominant demographic in every fucking country. I don't know where all these strawmen are coming from.


See my post #401 above http://forum.stripperweb.com/showpost.php?p=1842124&postcount=401 where I agree ;)

Hopper
08-25-2009, 12:37 AM
Of course "dominant cultures" have advantages. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Saying "it happens everywhere" and it's worse in certain places doesn't excuse that it happens here. No one is saying "white males are evil" or that they are a dominant demographic in every fucking country. I don't know where all these strawmen are coming from.

Surly aren't we. Of course the cultures of various countries dominate in those countries. The alternative is not to have countries of different culture. But then you would just have one worldwide dominant culture and we would have no choices.

Of course cultures have advantages in their own countries. Why is THAT A PROBLEM? I do what I want over here and you do what you want over there. Easy.

We weren't claiming that you meant that white males dominate in non-white countries, we were responding to your comments about racial/cultural domination, not gender. What straw men?

eagle2
08-25-2009, 09:40 PM
So I guess you are agreeing that preferences are now being given to non-white males, which was my point intially. As far as women on the Supreme Court are concerned, the notion of females as lawyers and judges is a fairly recent thing (last half-century) and this is the pool from which justices are picked.

and why is the notion of females as lawyers a fairly recent thing?


No female president yet? Well, once a qualified woman runs, maybe she'll win. BTW there has only been one Catholic president and there's never been a Jewish president, but you don't hear the Catholics and Jews moaning and groaning about it.

Catholics make up less than 25% of the population. Jews make up less than 3%. Women make up about 50% of the population.

I'm sure there are plenty of women more qualified than George W. Bush to be President. Is there anyone who doesn't think Bush would be working in the hardware department at the local Walmart store if he wasn't a white male born into a privileged position?




The fact remains that advocating for or against a person because of their sex, race, or religion is pretty simple-minded. Its what got us the current crew in Washington.
What got us the current people running the government is the horrendous job the Republicans did running the country.

Hopper
08-26-2009, 01:07 AM
^Obama should be working at Walmart too. What bem401 meant was that people's fixation on race got us Obama. Any white man who can sign his name would be a better President than Bush or Obama. Obama is following exactly the same policies Bush did. If people had based their choice of a replacement on principles, we might have got a winner.

I don't like the idea of a woman judge or president at all. I don't want a woman deciding whether I go to jail or with her finger on the red button. Sorry girls but I think you know where I'm coming from.

Over half the population are women but people complaina about "under-representation" of minorities in government too - blacks and immigrants etc.

It doesn't matter that U.S. judges and Presidents are not women, since the U.S. was founded on the idea of small government (one which keeps out of your business) anyway, and it should go back to that. Only with the rise of big government could this have been an issue. It's ultimately up to the people to see that the system is run fairly, and the majority of the people are women. Many of the males are married or related by birth to women. It's not like men in the U.S. don't want women to be fairly treated.

bem401
08-26-2009, 06:30 AM
and why is the notion of females as lawyers a fairly recent thing?

Because it is. When the country was founded, or even back to when the continent was colonized, the roles for women did not typically include being a judge or a lawyer ( or a soldier or a doctor for that matter ). I'm not taking a position here. I'm just stating the obvious.


Catholics make up less than 25% of the population. Jews make up less than 3%. Women make up about 50% of the population.

Are you arguing they should get to complain about it half as much then? When a qualified ( and electable ) one comes along, perhaps that person will be elected.


I'm sure there are plenty of women more qualified than George W. Bush to be President. Is there anyone who doesn't think Bush would be working in the hardware department at the local Walmart store if he wasn't a white male born into a privileged position?

Once again, this fixation on Bush. Let it go man. He's old news. The only reason you attack him is because you can't defend your guy or his policies or where he's taking this country. If Bush only got elected for being privileged and white ( and I was no big fan of his, particularly in his last term ), then are you willing to agree with me ( and Hopper ) that Obama is where he is because he is black? He's hardly a rocket scientist. At least Bush released his college grades, which were better than either Gore's or Kerry's, if my memory serves me correctly. The fact that Obama won't release his can only mean there is something there he doesn't want known.



What got us the current people running the government is the horrendous job the Republicans did running the country.

Well, I won't argue this point much. They didn't do things well, but they also got blamed for things that occurred while the Democrats controlled congress. Oh, and by the way, Obama's '09 deficit is larger than the sum of all Bush's deficits combined. If the Republicans did such a horrendous job, what does that say about Obama and the Democrats?

xdamage
08-26-2009, 06:52 AM
I don't like the idea of a woman judge or president at all. I don't want a woman deciding whether I go to jail or with her finger on the red button. Sorry girls but I think you know where I'm coming from.

Well historically it is the male half of the species that escalates matters to war. Our track record isn't so great really. And when you look at countries that do have female leaders

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php

is there really any reason to believe they are more likely to escalate a crisis to nuclear war (by passing any checks and balances)?

Also I don't see why not a judge? I've been in courts that had female judges. By the time anyone reaches that position they have spent a LOT of years living and breathing the law. Their jobs are not so flexible really that their sex matters much.

princessjas
08-26-2009, 09:48 AM
I don't like the idea of a woman judge or president at all. I don't want a woman deciding whether I go to jail or with her finger on the red button. Sorry girls but I think you know where I'm coming from.



Yes, I do! The land of sexist jackasses! I wish you'd go back there and leave us alone! >:(

Elvia
08-26-2009, 04:37 PM
I don't like the idea of a woman judge or president at all. I don't want a woman deciding whether I go to jail or with her finger on the red button. Sorry girls but I think you know where I'm coming from.

You disgust me. Even more so than when you were defending grown men fucking high school girls.

eagle2
08-26-2009, 08:46 PM
Because it is. When the country was founded, or even back to when the continent was colonized, the roles for women did not typically include being a judge or a lawyer ( or a soldier or a doctor for that matter ). I'm not taking a position here. I'm just stating the obvious.

Do you think it's possible that women were discriminated against?



Once again, this fixation on Bush. Let it go man. He's old news. The only reason you attack him is because you can't defend your guy or his policies or where he's taking this country. If Bush only got elected for being privileged and white ( and I was no big fan of his, particularly in his last term ), then are you willing to agree with me ( and Hopper ) that Obama is where he is because he is black? He's hardly a rocket scientist. At least Bush released his college grades, which were better than either Gore's or Kerry's, if my memory serves me correctly. The fact that Obama won't release his can only mean there is something there he doesn't want known.

My point is that certain people are born with a significant advantage over others, George W. Bush being one of them. It's not just Bush, but a number of other people who have been able to reach high levels of power. Al Gore was born to a Senator. John McCain was born to a four-star admiral. John Kerry was born into a very wealthy family. Do you think it's just a coincidence that most of the recent presidents or nominees from the two major parties have been white males born into privilege? President Obama is one of the few who got where he is on his own, not because he has friends and family in high places.




Well, I won't argue this point much. They didn't do things well, but they also got blamed for things that occurred while the Democrats controlled congress. Oh, and by the way, Obama's '09 deficit is larger than the sum of all Bush's deficits combined. If the Republicans did such a horrendous job, what does that say about Obama and the Democrats?

President Obama was handed the worst economy in 75 years when he took over. The President can't turn the economy around overnight. So far he's been successful in avoiding another depression. I'd rather have a large deficit than a small deficit and a major depression, like when Herbert Hoover made balancing the budget a priority, when the economy was in free fall.

eagle2
08-26-2009, 08:47 PM
^Obama should be working at Walmart too. What bem401 meant was that people's fixation on race got us Obama. Any white man who can sign his name would be a better President than Bush or Obama. Obama is following exactly the same policies Bush did. If people had based their choice of a replacement on principles, we might have got a winner.

I don't like the idea of a woman judge or president at all. I don't want a woman deciding whether I go to jail or with her finger on the red button. Sorry girls but I think you know where I'm coming from.

Over half the population are women but people complaina about "under-representation" of minorities in government too - blacks and immigrants etc.

It doesn't matter that U.S. judges and Presidents are not women, since the U.S. was founded on the idea of small government (one which keeps out of your business) anyway, and it should go back to that. Only with the rise of big government could this have been an issue. It's ultimately up to the people to see that the system is run fairly, and the majority of the people are women. Many of the males are married or related by birth to women. It's not like men in the U.S. don't want women to be fairly treated.



Your statement is based on nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

xdamage
08-26-2009, 08:51 PM
removed... reply to a post that was made in error

eagle2
08-26-2009, 09:17 PM
^ Sorry about that. I responded to the wrong post. I'll edit my post.

xdamage
08-26-2009, 09:20 PM
^^ okay thanks

Hopper
08-27-2009, 12:07 AM
You disgust me. Even more so than when you were defending grown men fucking high school girls.

Opposing women presidents and judges is worse than defending men fucking high school girls? Maybe you are sick.

We were discussing (or some of us were) the sexual eligibility of sixteen-year-old girls, not high-school girls in general and I did not okay fucking even 16-y-o girls in general. You even labelled me a pedophile in that thread, on the basis that having that opinion is the same as fucking small girls. Still think you could be a judge?

Hopper
08-27-2009, 12:15 AM
...

My point is that certain people are born with a significant advantage over others, George W. Bush being one of them. It's not just Bush, but a number of other people who have been able to reach high levels of power. Al Gore was born to a Senator. John McCain was born to a four-star admiral. John Kerry was born into a very wealthy family. Do you think it's just a coincidence that most of the recent presidents or nominees from the two major parties have been white males born into privilege? President Obama is one of the few who got where he is on his own, not because he has friends and family in high places.

Nobody gets to be president unless they have friends in high places. The same people who funded McCain also funded Obama; funded him almost twice as much, in fact. All of the influential, white elites in the Democrat party are also his friends - they picked him to run.


President Obama was handed the worst economy in 75 years when he took over. The President can't turn the economy around overnight. So far he's been successful in avoiding another depression. I'd rather have a large deficit than a small deficit and a major depression, like when Herbert Hoover made balancing the budget a priority, when the economy was in free fall.

Obama is just abusing the same system which led to the crisis in order to bail out the victims (the wealthy ones - !). He is doing everything to make the crisis worse. He definitely hasn't made it better - it is getting worse.

Hopper
08-27-2009, 12:20 AM
Your statement is based on nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

If Elvia and princessjackass were judges, they would oppose free speech and totally misrepresent the defendant's speech.

I don't think that women are mentally inferior. However, generally I think that they react far more emotionally to many issues, and often not at all logically. Most women I know are simply not interested in genuinely thinking about political or legal issues. They are happy not to. However, they still like to be involved. They will be the first to join some emotionally-charged political cause.

I do allow the exceptions to the rule.

Perry
08-27-2009, 01:33 AM
Wow, you suck ass. You suck all the ass in the world.

hockeybobby
08-27-2009, 04:28 AM
^^^that's a lot of ass hehe

princessjas
08-27-2009, 05:17 AM
If Elvia and princessjackass were judges, they would oppose free speech and totally misrepresent the defendant's speech.

I don't think that women are mentally inferior. However, generally I think that they react far more emotionally to many issues, and often not at all logically. Most women I know are simply not interested in genuinely thinking about political or legal issues. They are happy not to. However, they still like to be involved. They will be the first to join some emotionally-charged political cause.

I do allow the exceptions to the rule.

Wow, you are so ignorant I don't even know where to start. Why would you believe I would oppose free speech? That is very, very far from the truth.

Apparently you DO think women are mentally inferior. We just can't control our little selves and allow our emotions to take over all thought processes, huh? How is saying women are illogical and unable to control our emotions anything but sexist??

You most definitely ARE calling us mentally inferior, you just don't have the balls to own it!

ETA - Oh, and btw that was just sooo classy and witty calling me princessjackass! ::) Aren't you just a little ray of sunshine?!?

bem401
08-27-2009, 11:49 AM
Do you think it's possible that women were discriminated against?

50 years or more ago? Yes, quite possibly, but as I said, the role of women was different then.



My point is that certain people are born with a significant advantage over others, George W. Bush being one of them. It's not just Bush, but a number of other people who have been able to reach high levels of power. Al Gore was born to a Senator. John McCain was born to a four-star admiral. John Kerry was born into a very wealthy family. Do you think it's just a coincidence that most of the recent presidents or nominees from the two major parties have been white males born into privilege? President Obama is one of the few who got where he is on his own, not because he has friends and family in high places.

If he got where he is on his own, kindly list his accomplishments and qualifications for the job. He has been groomed by the Left and their accomplices in the media for the last several years. He had a term in the Illinois senate and a couple of years in the US Senate. He has no record of accomplishment in either body and he has never been in charge of anything. He managed to get elected because the country was unhappy with Bush and he represented the biggest change possible. The media and his handlers played the race card beautifully and took advantage of white guilt and black pride to put him over the top.




President Obama was handed the worst economy in 75 years when he took over. The President can't turn the economy around overnight. So far he's been successful in avoiding another depression. I'd rather have a large deficit than a small deficit and a major depression, like when Herbert Hoover made balancing the budget a priority, when the economy was in free fall.

Worst economy in 75 years? Where were you in the late 70's? Things were far worse then. Double digit inflation and unemployment? The misery index? Since taking office, things have only gotten worse and there are storm clouds on the horizon about where this economy is headed.

princessjas
08-27-2009, 12:52 PM
^^Wow! Another Obama basher! How original!

It wouldn't be so bad if you guys ever seemed to be able to think a bit for yourselves, but I have yet to see a right-winger change their opinion on anything political, ever, not even once! (and my entire family and everyone that lives near me are conservatives, so I talk politics with MANY right-wingers). I just don't understand the inability to have changing thoughts and ideals when we live in a mercurial society. It frankly makes you guys scarier than Armageddon.

bem401
08-27-2009, 01:01 PM
^^Wow! Another Obama basher! How original!

It wouldn't be so bad if you guys ever seemed to be able to think a bit for yourselves, but I have yet to see a right-winger change their opinion on anything political, ever, not even once! (and my entire family and everyone that lives near me are conservatives, so I talk politics with MANY right-wingers). I just don't understand the inability to have changing thoughts and ideals when we live in a mercurial society. It frankly makes you guys scarier than Armageddon.

I'm not bashing him personally. I just disagree with everything he is doing. Maybe the reason you've never changed anyone's mind is you've yet to make a convincing argument. Feel free to take a run at me and tell me where I'm wrong rather than do the liberal thing and refuse to debate. ( BTW, the politics section of community groups is probably a better place to do that )

princessjas
08-27-2009, 01:24 PM
I'm not bashing him personally. I just disagree with everything he is doing. Maybe the reason you've never changed anyone's mind is you've yet to make a convincing argument. Feel free to take a run at me and tell me where I'm wrong rather than do the liberal thing and refuse to debate. ( BTW, the politics section of community groups is probably a better place to do that )

I don't argue politics. EVER! It's just pointless. I have never failed to change a right-wingers point of view, because every one I know simply yells their position in my ear, while I politely listen. They tend to get incredibly irate if I ever dare to point out any faults in their logic.

IMO, it's very rare for anyone to change another persons opinion anyway. Your opinion should change occasionally as society changes though. This should happen because everyone should think things through frequently, research our ever changing issues and question all thoughts and ideals. If you've never changed your mind on any issue, then well, you are someone I would be VERY leery of irl.

The reason most of us will not debate is because we have too often been in debates with uneducated conservatives that continually restate their point of view in different words without ever addressing any actual issues or points that are made. Yelling over my opinion doesn't making an intriguing debate imo. I'm small and physical intimidation seems to always be my Republican neighbors and families method of attempting to change my mind. The one time I attempted to debate on this board, the parties of opposing opinions addressed only 1 point I made of about 10, and I had stated that point clumsily, so they hammered that one thing over and over again for 2 or 3 pages, even resorting to name calling, without ever addressing my clarified point or any of the other 10-15 logical points I made through the thread.

Sorry, but I don't avoid debate because I can't defend my position, I avoid it because there is no point in debating someone who will not listen.


"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." Bertrand Russell

princessjas
08-27-2009, 01:38 PM
Check this post for more info on why I don't debate. Notice that in answering an inquiry he goes off on an insane tangent that implies that a liberal would want to take everything from the wealthy. It's just blatant redirecting the conversation off on crazy tangents in an attempt to make liberals look crazy. I read the political discussions and see things of this nature constantly. Uh, way to frustrating to even try to take my ass over there. I'd rather bang my head into a wall, thanks.

http://forum.stripperweb.com/showpost.php?p=1843387&postcount=72

Almost Jaded
08-27-2009, 02:20 PM
Hopper, I love ya' man, but you have a penchant for misstating your point that borders on Bush-like, lol. Even I took issue with what you said until you clarified it, but even that was pretty thin. Frankly, I can't stand next to you on this one. A qualified woman is as good as anyone. Thank God Hillary didn't get it, she's as far from qualified as they come (almost as unqualified as Bush or Obama, but no quite).

I'm still waiting for people to get passed the "liberal/conservative" thing and vote based on informed fact, track record, and belief in the future. Not one of our last several Presidents would've passed THAT litmus test.

If Obama's administration continues the way it is now, the U.S. will be reduced to a 3rd world economy in under a decade. If you think otherwise, you are not properly informed. Those of us who pay attention - regardless of left or right leanings - are scared shitless. Avoiding a depression by increasing teh deficit? REALLY? NO. What he's doing is GUARANTEEING a FAR WORSE depression down the road. This one could have been short and painful - a gunshot wound to the economy that could have been treated and recovered from. Obama is taking that wound, cutting it open, removing all the major organs, and hooking it up to life support machinery. So it's better for now - but he's completely ignoring the fact that the power supply for those machines has no failsafes and is hooked to the city's powergrid. First brownout or blackout that happens, whenever it happens, is game fucking over in a huge way. That is in no way an overstatement.

Their are 2 situations that are the most beneficial to the super rich and the people in power, two circumstances that sow the best seeds for increasing their wealth and influence. Those two situations are war, and so-called "3rd world" economical models. Think on that, and take a nice hard look at recent history, in depth and without prejudice. If you pay attention, you'll be like me and wish you could move to another planet rather than be here for the next 50 years.

hockeybobby
08-27-2009, 05:24 PM
A little optimism wouldn't hurt.

yoda57us
08-27-2009, 05:52 PM
A little optimism wouldn't hurt.

Sadly HB optimism and politics will never peacefully co-exist on any internet chat board.

eagle2
08-27-2009, 08:55 PM
50 years or more ago? Yes, quite possibly, but as I said, the role of women was different then.

Why was the role of women different then? Do you really think there were no women who were interested in becoming doctors or lawyers 50 years ago?




If he got where he is on his own, kindly list his accomplishments and qualifications for the job. He has been groomed by the Left and their accomplices in the media for the last several years. He had a term in the Illinois senate and a couple of years in the US Senate. He has no record of accomplishment in either body and he has never been in charge of anything.


President Obama did not get accepted into top universities because he has friends and family in high places. He did not get elected state senator or US Senator because he has friends and family in high places. He did this on his own.

Obama was in charge of more than a million workers and volunteers in his campaign for President of the US and he successfully won the Presidential election.



He managed to get elected because the country was unhappy with Bush and he represented the biggest change possible. The media and his handlers played the race card beautifully and took advantage of white guilt and black pride to put him over the top.


He won the election because he showed he was clearly the better candidate. John McCain showed his poor judgment again and again, especially with his choice for Vice President.

His opponents did everything they could to go after him because of his dark skin. Do you really think the right wing media would have accused the Democratic nominee of secretly being a Muslim if he had white skin? Do you think the crazy right-wingers would be accusing him of being born in Kenya if he had white skin?




Worst economy in 75 years? Where were you in the late 70's? Things were far worse then. Double digit inflation and unemployment? The misery index? Since taking office, things have only gotten worse and there are storm clouds on the horizon about where this economy is headed.

Our major financial institutions weren't on the verge of collapse in the late 1970's.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090827/ts_usnews/isunemploymenttheworstsincethegreatdepression

The "Great Recession" is the name that has stuck for the economic decline that began in late 2007. But there's some reason to think that using the word recession is being kind.

The U.S. gross domestic product has shrunk 3.9 percent in the past year, the worst drop since the Great Depression. Plenty of observers are willing to say that this recession is much deeper than anything we've seen since the 1930s--including the big dip in the early 1980s, generally accepted as the other candidate for the worst recession since the Great Depression. "I think it's way worse today," says Ridgely Evers of Tapit Partners, a longtime entrepreneur and venture capitalist who founded the software company Netbooks (now known as WorkingPoint). In the recession of 1981 and 1982, "people recognized it as a dip. [Today,] nobody thinks we are going to come back out in relatively short order." This recession seems to have dragged on longer. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the U.S. economy was in recession from July 1981 to November 1982--16 months. But the current recession started in December 2007, says the NBER, so it's already longer than the last big one.

eagle2
08-27-2009, 08:58 PM
^^Wow! Another Obama basher! How original!

It wouldn't be so bad if you guys ever seemed to be able to think a bit for yourselves, but I have yet to see a right-winger change their opinion on anything political, ever, not even once! (and my entire family and everyone that lives near me are conservatives, so I talk politics with MANY right-wingers). I just don't understand the inability to have changing thoughts and ideals when we live in a mercurial society. It frankly makes you guys scarier than Armageddon.

That's because for right-wingers, ideology takes precedence over facts and evidence every time.

eagle2
08-27-2009, 09:05 PM
If Obama's administration continues the way it is now, the U.S. will be reduced to a 3rd world economy in under a decade. If you think otherwise, you are not properly informed. Those of us who pay attention - regardless of left or right leanings - are scared shitless. Avoiding a depression by increasing teh deficit? REALLY? NO. What he's doing is GUARANTEEING a FAR WORSE depression down the road. This one could have been short and painful - a gunshot wound to the economy that could have been treated and recovered from. Obama is taking that wound, cutting it open, removing all the major organs, and hooking it up to life support machinery. So it's better for now - but he's completely ignoring the fact that the power supply for those machines has no failsafes and is hooked to the city's powergrid. First brownout or blackout that happens, whenever it happens, is game fucking over in a huge way. That is in no way an overstatement.


The general consensus among economists is the deficit spending is the best way to fight a recession. Herbert Hoover made reducing the deficit a priority during the economic downturn of 1929 and look how that turned out.

Almost Jaded
08-28-2009, 12:56 AM
Yeah - 'cuz borrowing your way out of debt works every time. :rolleyes:

Increase the deficit a little to turn things around? Fine. Increase the deficit by 25% in 8 months at a time when the country is hemorrhaging money and jobs overseas? When the trade deficit is at it's worst ever and the GNP is in decline? When Americans as a people are in record amounts of debt? Sell that debt to other nations - ones who historically want us destroyed I might add - rather than to the people in the form of bonds, or through other measures?

GREAT idea!

I have this plan to take down what might be the most powerful nation in the history of the world. And get this - we can make hundreds of billions at the same time. No really - wait - hear me out, this'll work. Just the quick version.

First, we spend a few years getting all the people of this republic bickering about insignificant issues, while aat the same time passing laws to restrict their rights. At the same time, we bombard the people with entertainment and marketing, get them enamored with a certain lifestyle beyond their means. Then make credit amazingly easy to get. So now there's these people united only in chasing a pointless dream while bickering about ridiculous shit - and we start to undermine their confidence in their leaders. An unpopular war here, a scandal there - that kinda thing. Wont be too hard as long as we make sure a few of our guys are in influential positions. Now, once this gets out of hand, we throw out our ace - we give them a terrible leader in a time of tragedy, follow up the least popular leader in their history with another one of our guys who tells them he can fix it all, but destroys the long term viability of their economy in the process. See where this goes? It can't fail I tell you!

See - you're going to cut that up and trash on it, but let me tell you something. There was a reporter in China during the Korean war. He met with the communist rebels and befriended them, and got to know these guys. One day their leader took him aside and said - I'm not shitting you - (paraphrased) "I am going to show you our plans to destroy America. It will take a long time, but we are a patient people and we will have our time. I am showing you this because it won't matter; nobody will believe you and even if they did, America cannot undo this thing. It takes a long rope to catch a whale, I am only making that rope. Others will cast it, and their children will haul it in". And he did, and that plan is well underway and right on schedule. The reporter was a young Jack Anderson, and the man that leader was grooming to take over for him and implement the plan was Cho En Lai.

You know - I'm going to write a book. I'm not kidding. Writing that just inspired me, lol. Maye if I spell it out in detail, people will listen. THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT ARE FIGMENTS OF YOUR BRAINWASHING, PEOPLE! Sure - I refer to them to when discussing issues just like everyone else. But the issues AREN'T THE REAL ISSUES!

I really a going to write that book. A few peopl will even read it and open their eyes. I hope.

Hockey - I try to be optimistic. I do. Sometimes I am. And then I talk to the people around me, and see what we as a people are doing. And it hurts.

Earl_the_Pearl
08-28-2009, 02:44 AM
When Americans as a people are in record amounts of debt? Sell that debt to other nations - ones who historically want us destroyed I might add
Well the joke is on them; if they destroy US they will not get their money back.

Besides all of the nations on the Earth could not destroy US without also destroying themselves. Our not so secret weapon are the boomer submarines.


http://www.murdoconline.net/2007/ssgn-thumb.jpg

Hopper
08-28-2009, 03:03 AM
Wow, you are so ignorant I don't even know where to start. Why would you believe I would oppose free speech? That is very, very far from the truth.

I discuss whether sex between a man and a sixteen-year-old girl may be okay and you call me a pedophile. I say that in my experience women are more emotional and I'm a jackass.


Apparently you DO think women are mentally inferior. We just can't control our little selves and allow our emotions to take over all thought processes, huh? How is saying women are illogical and unable to control our emotions anything but sexist??

You most definitely ARE calling us mentally inferior, you just don't have the balls to own it!

I said I don't think women are mentally inferior. I said that women are more emotional and less interested in logic. I'm not an expert on the female mind, so I don't know if that would mean they are mentally inferior. So I don't say so.

I believe that women are very intelligent and capable in many ways. But in my experience, most of them just can't sustain interest in certain topics and cannot keep their emotions from taking over when they do talk. They are not stupid, they are just happy not to know and unhappy when they do. They only get offended by others saying so because they are TOLD that they SHOULD be interested.

Everyone here knows that women are more emotional. It's just that decades of mass-media PC programming and conditionning prevents them from acknowledging it and causes them to react against anyone who does. It's conditionned group-think.


ETA - Oh, and btw that was just sooo classy and witty calling me princessjackass! ::) Aren't you just a little ray of sunshine?!?

Thanks I got the idea from you. Sorry to spoil this terrific mood you are in.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 03:18 AM
...

It wouldn't be so bad if you guys ever seemed to be able to think a bit for yourselves, but I have yet to see a right-winger change their opinion on anything political, ever, not even once! (and my entire family and everyone that lives near me are conservatives, so I talk politics with MANY right-wingers). I just don't understand the inability to have changing thoughts and ideals when we live in a mercurial society. It frankly makes you guys scarier than Armageddon.

I'm sorry pj, but I agree with you about the above. Right-wingers are entrenched in their opinions.


"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." Bertrand Russell

Disagree - liberals are equally entrenched. Obviously you were right for the wrong reasons.

In truth there is no important difference between the two positions.

Earl_the_Pearl
08-28-2009, 03:18 AM
...cannot keep their emotions from taking over...
They do cry when it suites them

Men and women are actually from the same planet, but scientists now have the first strong evidence that the emotional wiring of the sexes is fundamentally different.

An almond-shaped cluster of neurons that processes experiences such as fear and aggression hooks up to contrasting brain functions in men and women at rest, the new research shows.

For men, the cluster "talks with" brain regions that help them respond to sensors for what's going on outside the body, such as the visual cortex and an area that coordinates motor actions.

For women, the cluster communicates with brain regions that help them respond to sensors inside the body, such as the insular cortex and hypothalamus. These areas tune in to and regulate women's hormones, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion and respiration.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 03:31 AM
Hopper, I love ya' man, but you have a penchant for misstating your point that borders on Bush-like, lol. Even I took issue with what you said until you clarified it, but even that was pretty thin. Frankly, I can't stand next to you on this one. A qualified woman is as good as anyone. Thank God Hillary didn't get it, she's as far from qualified as they come (almost as unqualified as Bush or Obama, but no quite).

I'm just happy not to be on your shit-list after the reactions of other people here. Not so much mis-stating as not condescending to qualify myself to those with programmed thinking and conditionned responses. Clarifying does not imply that I was initially mistaken. It wouldn't matter how I worded it to those people. However I am open to intelligent challenges.


I'm still waiting for people to get passed the "liberal/conservative" thing and vote based on informed fact, track record, and belief in the future. Not one of our last several Presidents would've passed THAT litmus test.

Correct-amundo, there are good Democrats and good Republicans. But the bad ones in both parties are the ones that get tapped, unless the people in a given state are awake.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 03:43 AM
...

President Obama did not get accepted into top universities because he has friends and family in high places. He did not get elected state senator or US Senator because he has friends and family in high places. He did this on his own.

Obama was in charge of more than a million workers and volunteers in his campaign for President of the US and he successfully won the Presidential election.

Reality calling:

Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:

Obama:
Goldman Sachs $739,521
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers$391,774
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

McCain:
Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Wachovia Corp $147,456
Goldman Sachs $220,045
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
Bank of America $133,975
Credit Suisse Group $175,503


He won the election because he showed he was clearly the better candidate. John McCain showed his poor judgment again and again, especially with his choice for Vice President.

In one of his campaign speeches, Obama said that Americans could save all the oil the U.S. could get from drilling by tuning their car engines and properly inflating their car tyres. I don't think it is his blazing intelligence that got him into office. Even if he didn't believe it, it was dumb to expect others to.


...

His opponents did everything they could to go after him because of his dark skin. Do you really think the right wing media would have accused the Democratic nominee of secretly being a Muslim if he had white skin? Do you think the crazy right-wingers would be accusing him of being born in Kenya if he had white skin?

If he had a Muslim background and kept Muslim connections, and acknolwedged Islam in his speeches to Muslims, yes. If he was from Kenya, yes. There are a number of blacks I would 100% support for President if they ran. But then, I'm not right-wing.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 04:01 AM
Well the joke is on them; if they destroy US they will not get their money back.

Besides all of the nations on the Earth could not destroy US without also destroying themselves. Our not so secret weapon are the boomer submarines.

The debt AJ is talking about is not real money. In fact, money today is nothing but debt. It is in the interests of the creditors for countries (and businesses and individuals) to stay in debt, since they profit from the loans enormously (through interest).

AJ is talking about psycho-political and economic warfare. Those submarines only work when you aim them at your enemy and shoot with them. When your enemy (in this case your creditor) is in charge, that does not happen.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 04:07 AM
They do cry when it suites them

I was referring more to the way women think emotionally.

Earl_the_Pearl
08-28-2009, 04:29 AM
When your enemy (in this case your creditor) is in charge, that does not happen.
Remember when Herman "Hesh" Rabkin loaned $200,000 to Tony Soprano; Hesh was never in charge and he was the one afraid.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 04:35 AM
Remember when Herman "Hesh" Rabkin loaned $200,000 to Tony Soprano; Hesh was never in charge and he was the one afraid.

I haven't seen The Sopranos. I did say "when". In the case I'm talking about, the creditors have the means to enforce the loans. They also have the collusion of the government of the debtor governments. It's the people who pay.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 05:26 AM
That's because for right-wingers, ideology takes precedence over facts and evidence every time.

Right, because liberals don't conform to an ideology. They base their ideas on facts and evidence.

Hopper
08-28-2009, 05:32 AM
The general consensus among economists is the deficit spending is the best way to fight a recession. Herbert Hoover made reducing the deficit a priority during the economic downturn of 1929 and look how that turned out.

There's that word "consensus" again. It means "everyone agrees with me, at least everyone worth mentionning".

It wasn't reducing the deficit which resulted in the crash of '29. The Fed ran up inflationary credit then reversed that by contracting the credit hard.

Spending big is not wise when you are short of cash.

bem401
08-28-2009, 06:28 AM
Why was the role of women different then? Do you really think there were no women who were interested in becoming doctors or lawyers 50 years ago?

Their role was different back then because it just was. it is no longer that way.




President Obama did not get accepted into top universities because he has friends and family in high places. He did not get elected state senator or US Senator because he has friends and family in high places. He did this on his own.

Obama was in charge of more than a million workers and volunteers in his campaign for President of the US and he successfully won the Presidential election.

Admission into top universities is a complex procedure. Bush may very well have gotten in because of connections. Obama, on the other hand, was a well-spoken black kid with connections of his own ( I believe through his father , I really don't feel like researching it, but there were letters written on his behalf by prominent alums ). I graduated from an institution just like the ones he went to and they cut a lot of slack to rich kids, athletes, artists, legacies, and yes, minorities. The point is neither you or I know why either got into their respective institutions, yet it is Obama who won't release his grades.

As far as his being in charge, Axelrod ran the campaign. Obama didn't even know how many states there were.




He won the election because he showed he was clearly the better candidate. John McCain showed his poor judgment again and again, especially with his choice for Vice President.

His opponents did everything they could to go after him because of his dark skin. Do you really think the right wing media would have accused the Democratic nominee of secretly being a Muslim if he had white skin? Do you think the crazy right-wingers would be accusing him of being born in Kenya if he had white skin?

McCain was a terrible candidate, agreed.

The second paragraph you have it all wrong. His side tried to make everything about race. He was born and raised a Muslim till elementary school. And he still hasn't produce the document would dispel the birthers' allegations.

princessjas
08-28-2009, 06:34 AM
I discuss whether sex between a man and a sixteen-year-old girl may be okay and you call me a pedophile. I say that in my experience women are more emotional and I'm a jackass.

Women show emotions more often than men. That doesn't mean that we are more emotional, just that in society it is more accepted and we don't repress our feelings. (Which coincidentally, is why we are less prone to murderous rages, the most emotional of all outbursts, wouldn't you say?) Some are, some aren't more emotional.

Most women however, don't generally interject emotion into logical decisions and are perfectly capable of reasoning things out. Do you think I would have been able to work in a lab setting or control any sort of studies if I allowed my emotions to color my thinking?

As for your previous assertion that it is acceptable for men to have sex with underage girls, well all of the men here seemed to disagree with you on that point...it wasn't just the women who thought that was over the line. The men here aren't exactly sexually repressed in their thinking if you hadn't noticed, yet most still found that opinion disgusting. That says something about this stance of yours that you keep bashing me for finding offensive.


I said I don't think women are mentally inferior. I said that women are more emotional and less interested in logic. I'm not an expert on the female mind, so I don't know if that would mean they are mentally inferior. So I don't say so.

I believe that women are very intelligent and capable in many ways. But in my experience, most of them just can't sustain interest in certain topics and cannot keep their emotions from taking over when they do talk. They are not stupid, they are just happy not to know and unhappy when they do. They only get offended by others saying so because they are TOLD that they SHOULD be interested.

Everyone here knows that women are more emotional. It's just that decades of mass-media PC programming and conditionning prevents them from acknowledging it and causes them to react against anyone who does. It's conditionned group-think.

So, as I stated before, you are saying it, but just don't have the balls to own it! At least man-up and own your thoughts, then someone other than Cyril might have a tiny little shred of respect for you.

You say we are unable to sustain interest in certain topics and cannot control ourselves and let our emotions take over. Wow, so we are now being compared to a 5 year old with ADD? Your ignorance and sexism continually astound me and I'm appalled that you are allowed to remain on this board that is designed to support women.

Oh, and as for your last point, saying we are brainwashed and conditioned to group-think like the Borg is beyond offensive!! Once again, I can't believe someone who so obviously looks down on women is allowed to participate on a women's support forum at all!! With the near daily, thinly veiled, sexist, often times hate-filled tirades against women, I fear that one day soon there will soon be NO women on this board. It will just be you and a few others to spew about how stupid and/or naive/rude/offensive women are.


I'm sorry pj, but I agree with you about the above. Right-wingers are entrenched in their opinions.

Disagree - liberals are equally entrenched. Obviously you were right for the wrong reasons.

In truth there is no important difference between the two positions.

I wonder if you know any liberals? Have you ever set at the table with them as they kick around various facts and views on the issues. I used to do this regularly with a small group of my politically minded friends and opinions and views were changed fairly often.

I have seen a few left-wingers on TV that are as stubbornly bull-headed as the conservatives, but of the probably near thousand, I've met, I have yet to come across one irl. :P

I wonder why of all the intellectuals and college professors in my friend base, none are conservatives? Hmm, I've never actually met a conservative that would be considered a great thinker...I'm sure they exist, but whooee that is an elusive little creature right there! (Sorry, my southern roots & sense of humor are showing through a bit with that last sentence.)

Hopper
08-28-2009, 07:59 AM
Women show emotions more often than men. That doesn't mean that we are more emotional, just that in society it is more accepted and we don't repress our feelings. (Which coincidentally, is why we are less prone to murderous rages, the most emotional of all outbursts, wouldn't you say?) Some are, some aren't more emotional.

I wasn't talking about women expressing emotions, I was talking about their emotions interfering with their thinking or decisions. I don't think that women are incapable of rational thought, only that in certain situations their thinking would be clouded by emotions. I was talking about judges and Presidents, who would daily have to handle very emotionally-charged issues without giving in to or being adversely affected by emotions.

Why is it not "disgusting" for you to generalise about men being prone to murderous rages? You are using an unfair stereotype to argue against another generalisation you consider unfair.


Most women however, don't generally interject emotion into logical decisions and are perfectly capable of reasoning things out. Do you think I would have been able to work in a lab setting or control any sort of studies if I allowed my emotions to color my thinking?

That depends on what the decision is about. I never said women are incapable of logic in any situation. What is there to get emotional about in a laboratory?


As for your previous assertion that it is acceptable for men to have sex with underage girls, well all of the men here seemed to disagree with you on that point...it wasn't just the women who thought that was over the line. The men here aren't exactly sexually repressed in their thinking if you hadn't noticed, yet most still found that opinion disgusting. That says something about this stance of yours that you keep bashing me for finding offensive.

I never "asserted" anything. You make it sound like I said it's okay in all instances and for any motive. We were talking about 16-y-o girls and debating whether they really are "underage". According to some U.S. state laws they are not. Bill Wyman dated a 13-y-o at about age 30 and nobody caalled him a rock-spider.

And I bet you've gone in stage in a school-girl outfit a number of times. Why, are some of your club's patrons pedophiles? What are they doing watching adult women strip?

We were not talking about "underage" girls in the sense of toddlers or early-teens. "All" of the men here did not think I was disgusting, not even "most". Even some of the ones who did side with you were just "supporting the dancers", as one ardent "stripper friend" told me by PM.

I'm not the one doing the bashing here. You trolled into this thread and started on me. I'd ignore you if I didn't have to defend myself before the others here from your unreasonable charges. You love to fight and you love to hang shit on people. That's all this is really about.


So, as I stated before, you are saying it, but just don't have the balls to own it! At least man-up and own your thoughts, then someone other than Cyril might have a tiny little shred of respect for you.

Read it properly. I said that I didn't say it because I don't know (and don't really care). It is beside the point. How do you measure and compare mental ability when the male and female mind are innately different to one another? I do not consider women to be mentally inferior.


You say we are unable to sustain interest in certain topics and cannot control ourselves and let our emotions take over. Wow, so we are now being compared to a 5 year old with ADD? Your ignorance and sexism continually astound me and I'm appalled that you are allowed to remain on this board that is designed to support women.

I didn't say that women have attention problems, I said that they show little interest and are more emotional where emotional topics are concerned.


Oh, and as for your last point, saying we are brainwashed and conditioned to group-think like the Borg is beyond offensive!! Once again, I can't believe someone who so obviously looks down on women is allowed to participate on a women's support forum at all!! With the near daily, thinly veiled, sexist, often times hate-filled tirades against women, I fear that one day soon there will soon be NO women on this board. It will just be you and a few others to spew about how stupid and/or naive/rude/offensive women are.

I was referring to both males and females here who were reacting against my comments. Find one tirade against women by me and post it here. Unless you mean against particular trolling women such as yourself, but even then I rarely tirade them, merely reply in kind. The way you are going, I think the men are likely to disappear from this board before the women do.


I wonder if you know any liberals? Have you ever set at the table with them as they kick around various facts and views on the issues. I used to do this regularly with a small group of my politically minded friends and opinions and views were changed fairly often.

I have seen a few left-wingers on TV that are as stubbornly bull-headed as the conservatives, but of the probably near thousand, I've met, I have yet to come across one irl. :P

Had one around at my place earlier this evenning. I've kicked around views with him many times and it always quickly ends the same way - he gets emotional, resorts to labelling and slogans and I pull the plug. If you think one on a thousand liberals are stubborn, you must be unreasonable yourself and therefore mistake them for reasonable people.

You are a liberal yourself (I assume from your bias), so discussions between you and a table full of liberals would not involve changing opinions at a basic level.


I wonder why of all the intellectuals and college professors in my friend base, none are conservatives? Hmm, I've never actually met a conservative that would be considered a great thinker...I'm sure they exist, but whooee that is an elusive little creature right there! (Sorry, my southern roots & sense of humor are showing through a bit with that last sentence.)

Because you can't associate with men who have balls. Liberals don't consider any conservative to be a great thinker and vice-versa.

xdamage
08-28-2009, 08:21 AM
I wasn't talking about women expressing emotions, I was talking about their emotions interfering with their thinking or decisions. I don't think that women are incapable of rational thought, only that in certain situations their thinking would be clouded by emotions. I was talking about judges and Presidents, who would daily have to handle very emotionally-charged issues without giving in to or being adversely affected by emotions.

Why is it not "disgusting" for you to generalise about men being prone to murderous rages? You are using an unfair stereotype to argue against another generalisation you consider unfair.


I've read various articles that talk about identifying biological causes for differences in social behaviors between men and women, and I'm clearly open to the idea that our brains are either wired a bit different, or simply statistically our chemical balances are different (e.g., testosterone vs estrogen levels). I'm also 100% convinced that our emotions, and biology are intertwined, and it has been proven so in multiple ways including the fact that our emotions are effected by use of drugs (e.g., recreational drugs, medications that intentionally or unintentionally alter brain chemistry, changes in hormone levels, that people who have undergone sex change hormone therapy report dramatic differences in their thinking/feelings as well).

But all that said, again our track record as males isn't so great. Even if you are correct that statistically women would be more likely to take matters of state personally/emotionally, there is the counter consideration that if you look at which half of the species spends the most time in jails for violence, commits the highest percentage of violent acts, escalates matters to brutal war, that the female stereotype here is an upgrade.

After all if you apply the stereotype, which is really worse? Two leaders who are pissed at each other, and stop talking? Or two leaders who play it cool but are seething inside until one snaps and acts violently, leading to quick, extreme escalation?