Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

I should have been more clear, by profitable I meant, not hemorrhaging money. Even if the system could break even or be close to breaking even would be much better than the current system we have. Currently, the county's public transit system is facing a shortfall of $31 million while the state's public transit system (and entirely different system) is facing a $33 million shortfall.

Ultimately, if a system isn't managed and run properly then the taxpayers ends up having to foot the bill to cover a wasteful system they aren't even using. Yadda Yadda *insert libertarian statement here*.

Actually, all you've managed to do is pontificate your outdated concepts of what women should do all while proclaiming the this "liberal culture of death" is leading to some apocalyptic scenario.

You're entire philosophy on women can be summed up quite easily. "You can't go outside dear, you might scrape your knee". While it's semantics the comparison is still apt. You refuse to let women "go outside" of their gender roles otherwise something bad might happen to them. I personally don't care if women want more difficult jobs such as infantry so long as they don't bitch to have the physical standards reduced. If you can't run 5 miles with a 100lb rucksack and a 35lb rifle, then you don't belong in the Marines regardless of your gender.

Please do me a favor, stop referring to yourself as a libertarian or that you even have the slightest of libertarian leanings. You just give us all a bad name and god knows that we have enough misconceptions as it is.

Even with my extensive knowledge of history, I do not recall any civilization where women were "protected" outside of minor actions such as "women and children first". The Germanic tribes that fought against Rome fielded women amongst their ranks. Spartan women were expected to be as equally as strong as their men to act as the city-states protectors while the men were off fighting. No culture was ever built upon protecting women.



Actually, western nations are the ones in decline. China (one of those nations that was "sexist") is actually doing much better than us in regards to populations with only a mild problem of gender ratio's coming to light which was already predicted decades ago that the ratio would be out of balance. This point is moot as Western nations with our apparent blasphemy against the sacred feminine are actually seeing an increase in female births. A society that apparently degrades women is actually allowing women to excel in areas beyond men. Perhaps you should look into it.



That's the cage we speak of. You expect women to ONLY fulfill the role of a mother, a nurse, a teacher. You arbitrarily restrict women from roles such as the military because some ill may befall them. By restricting them to certain gender roles (be a nurse, a teacher, avoid the military) you are placing them in a cage.




Adult women are not "baby chicks". They are adults capable of reasoning and logic. It's their right and responsibility to live their lives as they see fit. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant.



Liberal world of death? I can't even take you seriously anymore. You make all Ron Paul supporters look bad by spouting this gibberish.




You got me, for a moment there I thought you were serious. The fabric of society is going to be torn asunder because we allowed women into combat positions. It's been a while since I fell for a troll, kudos to you my friend.




I know that's a blatant lie but, I'm not sure if it was intentional or just ignorance. The military is not having difficulty recruiting. They are actually rejecting people left and right because they have too many applicants and not enough spaces to fit them all. They are in such a good position with this flood of applicants, they can afford to be picky. I've seen people turned away from becoming enlisted because they didn't even have 1 semester of college under their belt. Everyone in my recruiting station (and I literally mean everyone) has some level of college under their belt. Anyone with just a high school diploma or G.E.D. is told to enroll in college until they have 20+ college credits then told to check back in.




There's that figurative cage again.










The only person presenting a false choice is yourself. You keep pressing that women should be "allowed" to be "free" "only if" they do certain "approved" actions.



That is not your choice to make. It is a decision best left to every soverign individual to decide for themselves. If you can't agree to that, then you're no libertarian.



I feel like I'm arguing with either; someone is desperate need of psychiatric help or a solid platinum level troll.

If someone wants to booze themselves to death. It is a violation of their natural rights (i.e property rights over their body) to prevent them by force. As someone whose called himself a libertarian in the past, I felt you would have understood such an argument. Either you're not a libertarian, or you've somehow managed to forget what being a libertarian means in my absence.

My state's public transportation, well more specifically the capital's public transport can't even turn a profit so the service is just terrible which in turn places a greater demand on the local government for subsidies paid for by the tax payers which continues to permit them to run an unprofitable venture and continue the vicious cycle of leeching away valuable tax revenue.

Every person who signs up for the military knows full well that we're likely to die in combat. Every woman I've spoken to or trained beside during PT knew the consequences of their enlistment. You do everyone a disservice by your prattle of "sacred feminine" and other nonsense. If women want to enlist and possibly die then let them. It is their right as sovereign individuals to determine the course of their life by their own actions. Women are not your pretty songbirds you can keep in some cage because of some inane "sacred feminine" philosophy you adhere to. Your arbitrary rules of what women should and should not do are nothing more than that, arbitrary rules.




As of 2010 there are 203,695 women serving as either Officers or Enlisted of all branches of the military. They couldn't possibly have decided to serve because of patriotism right? You really insult them and their families by questioning their patriotism.



Which is more degrading; being the bird in the gilded cage, or being allowed to choose your own destiny with all that comes with it? If the answer isn't obvious, you need psychiatric help.

My advice would be

Get a newer model car or an older "economy" sized car.

If your car has a lot of junk in it, empty it out. You vehicle's engine has to work harder the more weight there is in the car. You typically lose roughly .5 km/l for every 113kg you have packed in your car.

Adjust your driving habits i.e don't speed, accelerate fast or brake hard as these behaviors are hard on the engine and the fuel economy.

Keep your car maintained, such as placing dirty fuel or air filters, keeping your tires inflated properly, etc.

I'm not sure about Canada's laws but, in the U.S gas stations are not required to adjust the pumps based on the volume of gas being pumped which varies depending on the temperature of the day (hot days will see you pay more for less dense fuel)

There is a problem with that view. Gun owners have made numerous sacrifices over the years because they believed they could somehow come to a compromise with anti-gun individuals. That is a very naive belief, to think that groups such as the Brady campaign will stop before they have a total and comprehensive ban on all private ownership of firearms while maintaining excessive bureaucratic controls such as expensive licenses, expensive " government approved" safety classes, excess regulations over where you can keep them, what kind of security devices, how you can transport them, where you can transport them, etc over anything they can't get a Federal ban on.

So it very much is all or nothing with these groups. Every inch you voluntarily give up only puts them that much closer to achieving what they want. I've already referenced how the Brady campaign provided false information for their campaigns. You can't reason/compromise with a group that has shown it has no integrity.

I get the feeling you were trying to imply you disagreed with me somewhere but, I'm not sure if it's an error on your part or if I misread something.

I pulled this from a quick google search.

The Australian Classification Board has stated that it will not give a rating to any film that includes a cup breasts which effectively makes them illegal to sell in Australia. This policy also extends to films that include female ejaculations.

Perhaps, it's because the anti-gun fanatics seem to think that the U.K. is a perfect example of how guns should be treated. These individuals keep pushing for restrictions and bans on certain firearms despite the fact that gun ownership is going up.rates are going down. Not to mention that various legislatures are proposing bills that are eerily similar to this.

So we've got people who ignore the facts about guns and gun control who continue to push forward with their knee jerk legislation. Then we have people such as Rep. Donna Edwards who is on the record saying that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools.

So these individuals, misrepresent information (read: lie), ignore the facts about how gun control doesn't work nor actually has any tangible affect on the levels of violence a country suffers and actually is unrelated entirely from the levels of violence.

It only seems paranoid to you because you simply didn't know any better. You probably felt you could trust those elected officials in Washington or that you could trust the media to always give you the truth. I mean, there couldn't possibly be ulterior motives behind someone's actions in regards to potential control over others right?

Hammers kill more people than rifles. Y'know, we just need to ban hammers. They're just too deadly for anyone other than the police or military to use.

I was thinking more along the lines of Australia's ban on A cup breasts when I made the previous statement. Plus, it's no surprise when you bring up America when we talk about this kind of stuff because America is just schizophrenic, we're too damn conservative and liberal at the same time.

Could you possibly link to something about this? I'm interested in a western country banning porn (ignoring Loli/Shota obviously).

Nobody is telling women how to dress in public. They are merely pointing out the fact that some manners of dress are the equivalent to baiting a hook. There are more laws that tell men how they can dress more than there are ones telling women how to dress. Getting upset with someone commenting on your clothing is equivalent to getting upset with someone who recommended you lock the door to your house.

Let's draw a scenario shall we?

Let's say I put on a shirt that has the text "Fuck " the group could be any demographic, Christians, Atheists, Hispanics, Blacks, etc. I'm certainly not asking to get my ass kicked, because I like my teeth right where they are. However, common sense dictates that for me wearing a shirt with such a statement is going to going to have consequences namely, someone may very well commit a crime, namely assault, battery, attempted murder or possibly be successful and kill me. I'm certainly not asking to be assaulted, battered, or possibly murdered but, again I reiterate that actions have consequences. What could I do to minimize these consequences? Well obviously I could abstain from wearing the shirt but, barring that, I could make sure I'm capable of defending myself from any attacker(s) or make sure I don't go anywhere alone. Same system we as a society teach people in self defense courses.

I want to note that I'm not saying that clothing is the cause but, it's a factor because rape has 4 motivations behind it and those are Something I want to note is that rape has 4 motivations those being








In India, rape is more often committed for other than sexual reasons. Displaced aggression is a common reason. To take this further, many unemployed frustrated youth might rape a woman belonging to an affluent class because of jealousy or revenge, not just lust. And the other way too. People of a higher class/caste may do it to a person whom they consider inferior, often due to land disputes.
Calcutta’s DCDD-II (Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department) Ms. Sumanbala Sahoo says, †˜Gangrapes are more common in India (particularly in rural India), and are often motivated by revenge.



How would I handle it? Continue to teach women how to protect themselves from these mentally ill individuals as there isn't anything more to do prevent rape unless we develop technology like Minority Report where we can predict rapes before they happen or somehow find a way of identifying rapists with 100% accuracy. Then you have the problems of arresting people who haven't committed a crime.

This is why society promotes teaching women how to "not get raped". Yet, some feminists think this idea is sexist and wrong because in their eyes all men are evil, vile, disgusting rapists.

You forgot to mention that at the national level a citizen has less of a voice unless they mass together as a special interest group, which have already been shown to corrupt the political process.

You are more likely to have influence over your state level congressman than your federal level one.

The bold text implies men are just impetuous beasts walking a hair trigger before we violent force ourselves on any woman within reach. You clearly did not understand what I was saying.

Let me be clear; We do not need to teach men to not rape because society already does that. We do the following to anyone convicted as a sex offender.

- Incarcerate them for several years, then when they are released we;
- Force them to publicly register as sex offenders.
- Make sure the information of the offender including their name, face, last known place of residence is easily available to the public.
- Legally require those individuals to tell their immediate neighbors that they are a sex offender.
- Restrict where they can live to laughable degrees.
- Finally shunning and treating sex offenders with outright contempt in society.

The concept of "teach men not to rape" is misandrist and any person who believes in actual equality should never fucking use it. Sexism vs men is still sexism and a feminist should never be a sexist otherwise they're a hypocrite.

Let me stop you right here. According to the text of the bill. It would only remove Federal funding, NOT make abortions illegal.



While it is true, those who seek something will do so regardless of it's legality. Again I must point out the bill does not make abortions illegal, it simply prevents the Federal Government from stealing money from people to pay for someones abortion. The main difference between marijuana and abortion funding is, in order to buy weed you have to use your own money. For an abortion, you can make the Federal Government take that money by force from someone else. Just so you'll understand what I'm saying in regard to the use of force, perhaps you should watch this video.



If this bill was passed, you wouldn't be denied access to a clean, safe and standardized facility. You simply would be able to use other people's money to pay for it.

I get the feeling you didn't read the amendment.


@lolikittie

Most people miss is the fact there is no such thing as objective information. Every tidbit of information you are fed throughout the day is bias to some degree or another. If you turn on your t.v. you're bombarded with party/company backed talking heads who all parrot the same talking points as they bicker with each other. If You try to Google a relevant new sites you're forced to sift through thousands upon thousands of idiots who managed to get a website and can post without impunity all the Liberal/Conservative propaganda their hearts can muster. You try to look up objective statistics from various organizations you'll soon realize those numbers are skewed towards a political objective.

I used to fear that we were living in George Orwell's 1984 but, now I believe we're living in Aldus Huxley's Brave New World. In other words, drowning in a sea of irrelevance while being enslaved by that which we love.

If you just argue that it's bad for government to have x power. Most people that lean "left" will just scoff as they tend to be devout followers of the church of state. I have met many people of the "left" persuasion who believe the gospel that only government can elevate out conditions and that "private" anything is so evil that this is a typical board meeting. However, if you can explain to them how government has become the catamite for corporations then, they are more open to restricting government.

The "wings" of both sides are just hypocrites. When their guy is in office, all expanses or abuses of power are fair game but, when the other team is in power, then the very things they supported are no unconstitutional. I remember in 2003 when Hilary Clinton said



That was when a Republican was in office but, the moment we have a Democrat? Now, it's just un-American to question or oppose the government (and if you do you're obviously a racist, neo-nazi, white supremacist). That is, until a Republican is back in office then it's your patriotic duty to oppose them.

Then again what do you expect from a president with a "truth team"