|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:15 AM December 5th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
A story about men and boys lagging behind, and it turns into a whine-along about how hard women and girls have it.
Men don't get educated? It's their fault, they're stupid, the job market discriminates and gives men more opportunities without education, any talk of trying to attract men should be "light hearted and joking". Let's not do anything to try and help boys with the developmental stumbling blocks they hit, let's mock them for it and demand more funding for gender specific initiatives for girls, because they can never be "more equal than others" enough. Let's not try to attract men to teaching to give boys role models or provide a boy-friendly learning atmosphere.
Oh, wait, I can hear the conversation in the all-woman board of education meeting now: "there are only 11% visible minorities on the already 90% female staff, so we can't hire any more men - there's too many men, that's obviously where we're discriminating, so not hiring men is the best way to increase the representation of minorities (including women, who are of course a minority as well, even on our own staff!) We wouldn't want the visible minority girls in our school district to feel left out, since they have two factors working "against" them. Besides, not hiring women would be discrimination! What sort of example would that be setting for young girls in our schools?"
I've got two words for all the greedy, irresponsible, sexist pigs (in other words, feminists) who've encoded their marxist sexism and hate into law, and they aren't happy trails.
What self-respecting man would want anything to do with the misandric, androphobic bullshit that goes on at the average girls-first, girls-only college or university campus? Women's centers, V-Day, Vagina Everything, You're A Rapist Re-Education Camps, Women's Studies, self-entitled, spoiled little angry misandric leftist vegan assholes everywhere, preferred admissions and financial support for the 60-70% "minority" of women on campus, the list is practically endless. The time has come for separate educational institutions where boys and men can be free of the constant barrage of hate and filth feminists dump on them every day. They're supposed to be there to learn, not to be told what horrible, evil rapist/oppressors they are for the benefit of the hyperinflated self-obsessions of the already overprivileged spoiled brats known as feminists.
How can boys compete if they're drugged into submission and told all through their development how worthless and evil they are by the feminists that "teach" and raise them or the androphobic idiots in the media that pander to women and bash men to sell them more useless consumer crap? How well adjusted would any creature be if you beat it and insulted it and humiliated it for your own gain and amusement at every opportunity for 20 years?
I suggest an immediate change to gender-segregated education - boys's schools and girl's schools, from nursery school to graduate school. Make it a bona fide occupational requirement (you know, like the ones that prohibit men from working with women) that all teachers must be the same gender as the students at all levels until you get to competitive higher education (i.e. thesis-based research). Let these self-obsessed little girlz compete with themselves and piss and moan about "date raping" themselves for a change. They can sell eachother t-shirts that recommend throwing rocks at eachother for a change. That way, when they do hit the real world or have to compete with men in academia or business or someplace people actually DO something, they'll be so busy talking about everyone's feelings and complaining about how oppressed they are that they'll be completely screwed.
DAMN this stuff makes me sick. Sorry to rant, guys, but men and boys deserve the same or better treatment as their female colleagues, and I'm sick to death of hearing the estrogen-poisoned media pander to women by blaming little boys and grown men for the impact of feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by guyrights on 07:28 AM December 5th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I totally understand your view.
I am currently in year 12 at the moment in a co-ed school and for english advance, there are 3 (almost full) classes with only 6 guys spread through out. My friend found himself the only guy in an extention class. The excuse for this... that guys aren't smart enough!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:49 AM December 5th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone doubt that the Male gender is under assault? Same old historic story, when the "people" get tired of one form of abuse the ruling factions change the system by setting the most oppressed against the least oppressed, that by the way buys them considerable time. The fault with this of course is that we live in a different world that has ever been seen in our history. The information age, the age of enlightenment (I sure as hell hope so). Has anyone ever wondered how this actually happened, wouldn't a person deduce that they had to have a lot of help, maybe from the system? I have seen young Men, teens actually, look at their Fathers with a lack of respect and distain, for young Men look to their Fathers as an example, and most fathers are found lacking by their sons'. It is time for Men to set the example for their sons' as nature has intended. Stand as a Man, act as a Man, use the finest tool we all have, your brain. NO ONE EVER SAID IT WOULD BE EASY BOYS'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 11:34 AM December 5th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"I say this as a father of both a son and a daughter," he said from Carlisle, Pa. "Boys just seem less interested in proving themselves. I wonder whether there's a safety issue about staying at home and not worrying about your future -- a problem I think is endemic among the male population today."
What is there to work for? In the olden days you worked hard to get a job so you can get married settle down and raise kids. Now days you can get “Free love” or more rightly should be labeled as free sex. And why in names god would you marry. So you can end up having kids and get divorced just like your parents. And if you’re the unlucky one you may never have the chance to see your children.
“The gender shift raises other issues as well, notably what women with higher degrees will do when it's harder to find a man who's their educational peer.”
This is a good point. Fact is men don’t have an issue marrying down. In most cases it is more desirable. However it normally does not go the other way around. Not many females want to marry down and not many males want to marry up. The breakup of society is being accelerated through this process. The UN is doing the same with scores of girls in 3d world villages being taught valuable skills while leaving the males to rot.
Personally I think the system is partially to blame. When a society breaks down more and more women would come crawling to governments to take more action. More control over what we say and do. More power over men and is that not want men of power want?
There was an also an interesting studies about the attitudes of men when there masculinity is being challenged. It is rather obvious they become more loutish in behavior. It is not cool to do work. To get that girls attention you need to be cool & sporty. Does anyone here remember school, how many of the geeks got girls?
“Boys constitute the lion's share of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses, get poorer grades (though test slightly better on standardized exams), are disciplined in school more often, and drop out of high school in higher numbers.”
Solution poison them with drugs: Tons of drugs made by evil companies who spend more money on advertising and marketing than research.
“The big story of the past half-century, he said, "is the relentless progress by women in education. The parallel story is the lack of progress for men.”
"They're stuck where they were 40 years ago."
It is not that they are stuck, they are regressing. Here in the UK boys are performing not only worse than girls but the issue is that they are performing worse than boys of generations past. Something is just not right!
I agree with RandomMan; Single sex schools where boys are taught by men. Maybe their teacher would be the only man they have in their lives.
Davidadelong
"I have seen young Men, teens actually, look at their Fathers with a lack of respect and distain, for young Men look to their Fathers as an example, and most fathers are found lacking by their sons'. "
Because maybe there mothers show the father no respect? Maybe the fathers have no understanding of what a father is. Or maybe it is the fact their children and not being raised by their parents but by the system; by nurseries then TV and computer games where it is cool to go against your parents wishes. Where now days looking after a kid implies buying all the toys the kids desires.. an idiot can do that.
Does anyone have any teen kids that never like to be seen with their parents? Isn’t that just plain wrong? Did that happen 50 years ago? I doubt it.
Whatever happened to hard love; now it is allow the children to be free; treat them as little people, as friends. Children don’t need you to be their best friend; they need you to be their father or mother as they can only have one of each. They need you to discipline them, admonish them, praise them and love them. Now days if you give your child a smack in public you will have the NSPCC on you tail question your parenthood and threatening to take your child away. How the heck is one suppose to parent them. And then there is the opposite if you’re a man and you give your child to much affection in public or play with by tumbling in the grass then you’re a pedophile. Note that I condone smacking but neither do I believe its a crime.
Now if a child pushes a teacher he/she can get away with it. Push, shove, spit at, curse, pretty much everything and little is done about it.
Maybe one should read this; it is a good article on the crime ridden parts of Britain and reason behind them (Feminists though it labels it as liberal)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-18929 87_1,00.html
Link taken from angryharry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:05 PM December 5th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
At the beginning of the article it claims that the situation boys and men find themselves these days was "Unplanned".
Are they KIDDING?!?
Of COURSE it was planned.
What do they think the feminists have been working so hard at achieving, the past 40 or so years?
This is EXACTLY what they wanted, and worked to have happen.
Now, the question is what is going to be done about it?
Well, we can't count on the grade schools, high schools and universities to fix the "problem". They have been taught that to be male is to be "evil". and to favor females while disparaging and discouraging males.
We can't count on the media to illustrate the "problem" because, as we all know, by now, they are a staunchly anti-male institution.
And finally, I don't think we can count on the federal government. The Democrats are run by the P.C. crowd including (and especially) militant feminists. And we certainly can't count on the Republicans and their falsely placed sense of chivalry.
So WHAT, then?
A new civil rights movement? a revolution?
what?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:46 PM December 5th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe.
But are you certain these conservatives can be trusted to do the right thing by both women AND men? If so, why?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 11:54 PM December 5th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>But are you certain these conservatives can be trusted to do the right thing by both women AND men? If so, why?
For two reasons:
1. We should choose who the replacements are, not wait for the luck of the draw as we do now, voting on whomever decides to run or choosing only from a pool of persons who apply to get a particular position.
2. If they get out of line and start looking like the previous loser, we pull that weed and replace him/her with a better pick.
This, of course, can't be done without we men being united.
Dittohd
All anonymous postings on my screen are filtered. To talk with or debate me, a user ID is now required. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 04:22 PM December 5th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Please drop the now nonsensical Amercian propaganda versions of "liberal" and "conservative". Those two terms have been so badly distorted by the American media and administration to serve a ruling party's line that they have become completely without meaning in constructive political discourse. For instance, "neo-liberalism" describes trade-oriented, degregulated capital markets favouring free trade when you're talking about economics, yet it is a centrepiece of Republican economic policy in your country (assuming you are American, of course). Given that the governments in the west during the era of globalization were largely social conservatives, and that this was when latter-day, androphobic feminism took hold, you would actually describe men's activism and masculism as liberal political philosophies as well, since feminism is now part and parcel of what would otherwise be a social conservative movement in politics. It is of course also tightly interwoven with neo-liberal political thought, but for different reasons.
You need to get your head out of America's Manichean obsession with two-party, right-wrong rule if you're going to make any headway on these issues.
Also, you might be interested to know that "wrong thinking" and "right thinking" are terms most commonly used by the Communist parties of North Korea and and Vietnam to discuss a party member or worker's purity of thought on Marxism or Ho Chi Minh or Kim Il Jong. Again, not wise words to use, given that the fundamental basis of feminism is Marxism or Communism, depending on the economics involved in a particular case. There is no "wrong thinking" or "right thinking", only "thinking" and "not thinking". If what you're after is a one-party theocracy or oligarchy with only "right-thinking" ideologues in charge, you can count me out brother.
Anyhow. Wherever you see sexists and racists such as feminists doing things which discriminate against a group, you should attempt to intervene and stop them. But don't let your nationalist politics and the recent propaganda campaigns coming out of your television and AM radio get in the way of what is ultimately a human rights issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:18 AM December 6th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Another HUMANIST? I sure as hell hope so! Any institutionalized "party" is nothing more than a dictator system trying to dupe the masses into submission, so that they can continue. A Humanist believes in equality, and that the system serves the People, as it should be, not the other way around. Tell it like it is, for the TRUTH shall set us free. Speak the truth, act the truth, and the future shall unfold before us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:03 PM December 6th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Sort of, but I'm not much for -isms of any kind, they always seem to lead to trouble, Davidadelong. However, if forced to accept one -ism as a guiding sociopolitical philosophy, I suppose that would be it, rather than neo-liberalism, evangelism, fundamentalism or neo-conservatism.
Humanism (in its multitude of forms) variously rejects organized religion or concentrated secular power, but those have proven time and again to be occasional necessary evils in organized societies, so there's a balance to be had. I do however agree with you on the fundamental belief in equality, and that a law or system should be considered in terms of its benefit or harm to humanity as a whole, rather than a specific group.
Which is, of course, why I flatly reject feminism, along with communism, anarchism, terrorism, fundamentalism, fascism, leftism, capitalism, socialism and feudalism, among other -isms: all of them serve the interests of one group over another, and have no place in society, in my opinion. Feminism, communism/socialism (in their practical forms), fascism and fundamentalism are simply the worst offenders in terms of depriving human beings of their dignity for the benefit of a small group, despite what their propaganda might say to the contrary. Then again, I think that Orwell's Animal Farm is one of the most penetrating pieces of political satire ever written, so I guess I'm pretty simple after all. While it was written as a negative comment on Great Britain's collusion with Stalin in WWII while he murdered millions (remember that Orwell couldn't find a publisher during the war as he was critical of Stalin), all in the name of socialism and equality, it's also a perfect illustration of what's wrong with feminism and why we need to do everything in our power to stop it. The pigs really are walking on two feet and re-writing the rules of society these days. Just remember the words written on the wall of the barn at the end of the book (any error in the quote is my lousy memory): All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 02:27 PM December 7th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had some time to consider your stance and read a bit more of your posts and I don't agree with you.
>..."liberal" and "conservative". Those two terms have been so badly distorted by the American media and administration to serve a ruling party's line that they have become completely without meaning in constructive political discourse.
The fact that different people have different opinions of what liberal and conservative mean to them shouldn't stop anyone from using them, as long as they use them correctly. Based on my observation, there aren't too many words in the English dictionary that don't have more than one meaning. Furthermore, when I entered the miliary many years ago, I quickly learned that different people from different backgrounds will very often assign different meanings to the same words based on their different upbringings and experiences. That doesn't stop us from using these words to communicate and being vigilant when misunderstanding is perceived.
The term "right-thinking" also will mean different things coming from different people depending on who is doing the talking. I've read that when Hitler was in power in Germany, their trains were always on time. That doesn't forever assign "on-time trains" to Naziism. If you have any questions about what I mean when I use the term, either read some of my previous posts or if you can't figure it out and wish to know concerning a particular subject, ask me.
>There is no "wrong thinking" or "right thinking", only "thinking" and "not thinking".
So you're implying that all people who think will come up with the same conclusions and since you obviously think, everyone who disagrees with you is not thinking? Being a conservative rather than a liberal Democrat, I think there is right and wrong in this world.
You've said that you don't like "ism's". If you don't like capitalism or socialism, I wonder what you really stand for, if anything. Saying you stand for what's good for the majority of people (humanism) is a cop-out because everyone is different. If you support everybody, you by definition, stand for nobody. So what's your solution to our problems? Have a government that case by case decides what is best for the majority of people? What about all the people not in the majority? How about we try to fine tune each policy by making exceptions for each group that complains the loudest? No loud complaing means happiness. Seems like that's pretty much the system we have now. Many years ago I saw a plaque at a restaurant I stopped at while traveling that stated (sorry, I don't remember the exact wording) basically that when you try to satisfy everybody, you end up satisfying nobody.
I personally think that capitalism is the best system because it enables everyone to accomplish exactly to the level and type of success they desire. It doesn't hand everything to people on a silver platter, but I don't think that is bad either. People also have the freedom to fail, which also isn't bad if you learn from your failures, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go at it again utilizing what you've learned.
Being a conservative, I believe in limited government intervention because every time the government sticks its big, fat nose into our business, just about everyone involved gets screwed up in one way or another.
I suspect that if we looked at most of the problems we presently talk about on this website and got the government out of the picture completely, those problems would either improve markedly or go away completely.
Dittohd
All anonymous postings on my screen are filtered. To talk with or debate me, a user ID is now required. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 05:25 PM December 7th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Disagreement is a good thing sometimes. You are entitled to your political beliefs, and I'm entitled to mine. I never claimed to be a humanist, or any other -ist, although I am probably more like a humanist than any other sort of political animal. Except that I am also religious to an extent, and believe in certain other things which would irk secular humanists to no end. Tree hugging, braindead hippies piss me off, but so do lumber corporations that clearcut old-growth forests. I can't stand fascist assholes who beat their kids for letting their hair touch their collars OR spoiled kids who act like the world owes them something.
Simply put, the middle way is sometimes best. It may seem contradictory to you, but that's life. While I'm comfortable with the way I see the world, I'm always open to new ideas. Unlike you (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my presumption here), I refuse to buy one of only two "package deals" of belief structures which you have labeled "liberal" and "conservative" or "blue" and "red" or whatever the buzzwords are today.
I simply believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings as a guiding principle, and that any law or regulation must be weighed in terms of its overall impact on society as a whole. No law will serve everyone's interests, and occasionally it is necessary to break the mob rule of pure democracy to protect a group or individual. But trying to serve artifical and over-hyped special interests is what created this mess when it was combined with a mixture of hate, intolerance, bigotry, racism and sexism. Unfortunately, the perfect solution to our problem involves the eradication of several basic human behaviours, which isn't going to happen. In other words, I don't believe the problem can be solved, only mitigated. That is best accomplished through political and social activism and continued pressure by people like ourselves to establish more of a balance in favour of men's rights and social justice. The tug of war will never end as long as more than one gender, nationality, race, religion or other variety of human being exists. It's too much a part of our identity, and we're far too prone to conflict.
On to your other points:
No, I don't imply that anyone who thinks will reach my conclusions. I say that anyone who thinks will reach a conclusion, which may differ from mine, and that not thinking is undesireable. Not thinking is what got us here, and what propaganda writers pray for. This is why the idea of "right thinking" or "wrong thinking" is repugnant to me. These concepts do not exist outside a propagandist's toolbox. All I ask of anyone is that they think for themselves. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the very concepts we're debating would be non-existent.
The phrase "at least the trains run on time" isn't always associated with Hitler. It's almost always associated with his pal Mussolini.
Are you a social conservative? Religious conservative? Economic conservative? Political conservative? These all have different meanings and are part and parcel of different right-left, black and white American political movements. Hence my characterization of their meanings as Manichean. I'm being facetious, of course: I understand perfectly well what you, as an American, mean by the term "conservative", but I'm sure you similarly understand my point: the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been grossly over-generalized and co-opted for political purposes within America, and are invariably used out of context when you're discussing things with the 94% of the world that doesn't live there. The purpose of this over-generalization is to keep you from thinking for yourself.
I happen to agree that a modified, carefully regulated form of free enterprise appears to be the healthiest way to run an economy, and I've observed over many decades that very slightly left-of-centre democratic governments appear to consistently turn in the best economic performances. Far left and far right governments inevitably lead to stagnation, debt and recession. Unfortunately, that idealized form of market and government is not what exists in America, Canada or much of the West today. But beyond that statement, I won't debate macroeconomics with you, this is an inappropriate forum.
Similarly, I will not debate you any further on American politics unless it relates to men's rights: this isn't an appropriate forum for that topic either. Let's stick to men's issues, alright? On that, we are allies in perfect agreement. Still, feel free to disagree with me on any issue, any time: opinions are welcome. Not thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place, and open debate is the only way out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:07 AM December 9th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, of course. I simply meant that I won't argue about the whole liberal-conservative mess here. However, the government and laws are absolutely a part of what we need to be talking about. My bad.
And here I thought I was the only one who actually used the acronym "IMNSHO"...
Yeah, having considered the fact that it is very definitely the governments of our fine nations that are making the laws which are screwing with our rights, I guess we are going to be talking about politics (American, Canadian and other) a whole lot more after all.
Please don't take anything I said as an insult, Dittohd: I think the American (and Canadian) social/political conservative movements are right about alot of things, and I think the American (and Canadian) liberal and, where a third viable option exists, like here, centrist movement, are right about some as well - no insult was intended re your beliefs. Given that we've "defined the terms", I'll start using liberal and conservative very cautiously in my discussions around here, as we all appear to be on the same page as to their meanings. If you have to call me an -ist of some kind, I'd most likely be a "centrist", which is a lost art these days, and probably a "humanist" in the vaguest sort of way.
I've read over your posts and agree with most of what you have to say. It's just that I see so many good conversations out there get killed by the liberal-conservative deadlock that it kills the issue at hand, so I avoid it like the plague and try to get others to do the same. Also, it gives the leftists out there who tie feminism up in their baskets an easy argument to use against us: "men's rights are a conservative/Republican/bad thing, if you aren't a feminist, you're our enemy, blah blah blah". You get the picture.
As for libertarianism, you're gonna pull me into another -ism, aren't you? Well, like humanism, it's got its high points, even if it can be an opposite from time to time. Occasionally what's good for the individual is coincidentally good for society as a whole, and if something benefits society as a whole, it's probably because it's good for alot of individuals.
It gets pretty muddy when you try to mix humanism OR libertarianism into conservative/liberal politics. There, I used the terms again. Hey, they are the proper names of the two leading political parties in my country after all, and we're in a snow-bound federal election now. For reference, the "Liberal Party" here in Canada is actually the centre party, the Conservatives are the right, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) is the Left, along with the Greens, who are surprisingly not so bad (in their Canadian form) as long as you drown 'em in dressing, because you can't have either humanism or libertarianism without having a very limited, ineffective government when you get right down to it. Strong governments make either -ism impossible in its pure form. Limited government is a good thing, IMO. There's that middle way I was talking about. I can be a moderate and still have strong convictions about it, odd though that may sound...
So, what do I think? The individual right to self-determination and liberty is important, but needs to be balanced by the overall good of society. I shouldn't be allowed to possess a dangerous animal as a pet if it poses a danger to my neigbours, no matter how well I might secure it, and so on. But my neighbours shouldn't be able to make a million bullshit by-laws telling me what size and colour of goldfish I can have so it coordinates with their roses, you know? Hell, try getting a friggin' gun license up here. Your WIFE has to sign it. Check it out if you don't believe me! And you can't get one if you've been divorced or separated in the last two years, or if you've ever been ACCUSED of domestic violence. I'm talking about a hunting rifle or shotgun here, not a handgun or assault rifle! This is one of those things where the libertarians have it right, IMO.
In other words, I'm not a libertarian, I'm not really a political anything because I stand for a position on each issue, not as a package - don't mistake that for not standing for anything at all. Believe me, I'm a tenacious fucker in an argument about most everything. But take heart: I couldn't lean left no matter how hard I tried in Canada: I'd have to castrate myself while apologizing, tear down my house, live in a cave, walk to work and plant trees in the middle of my damned driveway, all while apologizing for being the wrong gender, race and religion in a country where I'm the "majority".
It's been good talking with you, Dittohd, and I'm looking forward to alot more of it in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 04:15 PM December 5th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats & Republicans... two faces that belong to the same coin. Both are after power and wealth to please their corporate masters. Don't you know it is the dollars that count not the number of votes? I don't think you can count on “governments” to govern fairly and justly.
Reminds me of an article I read today:
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."
-- George Orwell.
Here in the UK there is no difference between labour (Left) and Tories (Right). Both are extremes. One wants to privatise everything and tax us to death, the other wants to privatise everything & tax us to death and go to war, and make a climate of fear, take away our rights, build a DNA database, feminise every public sector, and sleep with your daughter. Ok the last one is a lie. The rest is true.
With all this fiasco of the war on terror and the lies you would think that labour would lose, they didn’t. Mind you can understand why, Tony Blair however much I hate him has charisma, intelligence, a good liar and is able to hold his own when it comes to a debate. The other two don’t have it as good, though I do admit that Charles Kennedy can hold a debate.
We also have a third party called the liberals. I use to be labour now I’m liberal. A party without a leader (Charles Kennedy is a ghost) or goals. But oddly it is still better than the other two.
What the heck is America’s excuse for voting in that monkey president again; he’s stupid, arrogant, geographically challenged, liar and a bad one at that, and always has that smug expression on his face.
In my humble opinion those who think the Democrats are better than the Republicans or vice-versa are deluding themselves. It is always the moderates on both sides that are best of the two “worlds”.
On the FAR left corner we have the nanny state and on the FAR right corner we have police state and in the middle is punching bag (moderates).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl
(tbessR3m0Ve2SendNEIN[SPAM]@R3m0ve.2.sendAt.mail.ru)
on 09:26 PM December 5th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
While the left/right prison is largely a false prison, is still has some indication on whether one will push certain programs and views.
While in college I sat through plenty of classes that were more like blunt indoctrination than serious education. This was a major turn off. The twin robbers of probity were in full force: Being made to be silent when hearing the lies, and the worst, being forced to repeat them. It got worse the farther into it I went. At this point, its not possible to attend without supporting the very evil we wish we reduce, but still need the piece of paper to open doorways - even if the education it buys is severely lacking.
Money is also an issue. I had a 4.0 most of my time in college, and a 3.85-3.95 cumulative - yet the number of scholarships I was eligible for dwindled every time I applied. Merit was less a factor than skin color (I should have wrote NA on my application!), and gender for a large number of scholarships. I still managed to find the money most of the time, but the numbers competing for merit in the age of 'grade inflation' - and that fact is very real - wedges a lot of people out.
Health depending, I'm going back for pharmacy. At least the hard sciences reduce ones exposure to the indoctrination & have not yet been as corrupted.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:13 AM December 6th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
You said a mouth full! I call myself a HUMANIST, a title which I earned in many a debate in college. If it isn't good for everybody, then it isn't good................Any logical debate on this subject would of course be welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:09 AM December 6th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud, a new civil rights movement would be a revolution. "IF WE THE PEOPLE" start to demand our rights, then "them" the system would naturally take action. But either way we must demand what is right for ourselves, and our future, OUR CHILDREN, and their CHILDREN, etc. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU! If people treat you differently than that, then it is those people that have violated your trust, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Tumescent writes "According to