LustfulAngel Posts

I thought you were smarter than Loli to resort to semantics. Who is keeping Women in a cage? Once upon a time, we made this philosophical, political decision as to protect women. To men, it was once unbearable to imagine. Now to you its acceptable? As I said, once before and again: Degradation. The men themselves have lost pride.

Women hold a higher value than men and always will, that's not my choice but their genetic design. Populations that were sexist towards female fetuses and/or where the idea of childbirth was looked down upon are declining.

Of course, the most important value of a woman is her motherhood, she teaches, she nurses, etc. Allowing women to thrive as they are is far from keeping them in a cage, in fact I'm letting the bird fly.

The only thing I'm not doing, is letting the baby chick fly before her wings are ready and some predator eats her alive. And if you think thats "Freedom", then we have different ideas about freedom.

People have freedom to do as they wish, that's certainly true. And sometimes there's accidents that occur even when freedoms are granted. That's true. But usually with every freedom granted, there's something beneficial.

In this liberal world of death, do tell me where there's a benefit? What rights are
Females getting that they didn't have before, and please spare the word "choice", I mean an actual benefit which is developing their lives.

They aren't, unless death is a benefit. And as I said, we normally call that suicidal. I have nothing against people committing suicide, but this is much worse.

Those women, if some should manage to actually come home alive will no doubt develop PTSD and others, their caring ability all but gone and they have the right and access to military weapons.

So tell me, what do you think will happen with just a few of those cases? I think whatever fabric of society is left will be ruined and of course, the supporters of this policy will be held to account.

Consequences, my friend. They exist and the consequence of this game of Russian Roulette are far too great. If America had a backbone, they would protest this policy but that too is long since gone.

This country will never have insomuch as another Vietnam revolution, never mind the other revolutions. The consequences of an apathetic citzenry, the death of America. There's no need for terrorists to continue their fight, america's moral decline has already been self-evident.





I'll continue to question it, Fiery. You know as well as I do, that many of those women didn't have to grow up in a situation where they thought "Oh, it'll be cool to join the military." The military in fact, has such trouble recruiting members period that they offered scholarships and such. The sad thing, again, is you'll only see those benefits if you actually come out alive.


And whether they held patriotism towards joining the military or not, isn't even the slightest bit of my concern.(Though the number of those who do is probably around 50,000 or so).

That's far too many women in the military, and that's pre-Panetta's decision. If we continue hovering around average in birth production, losing potentially hundreds of mothers, the loss of life would be catastrophic.

They can have the freedom to do whatever they want, as long as they don't threaten the larger society and their own families with their choice. Those of us who conduct political policy have to think of society at large, not the whims of average Jane and Joe who can't even comprehend the meaning of policy.











You present a false choice(IE: You act as though the females would be a bird in a glided choice). You know full well that I'm not going to choose option number two. And I already explained why.

Some choices are better not made, some freedoms are better off not had. The freedom of death and degradation of female benefits no one, it certainly doesn't benefit the children of the future generations whom are left without parents.

I feel as though I'm arguing with drunkards who are defending their right to booze. Sure, kill your brain cells if you'd like but don't drink and drive and kill people in the process.

However, with drinking I can understand some psychological benefit. Is a false sense of patriotism the best result from this? You could argue "protecting the country", but as I said earlier. Thousands of battles ultimately end up pointless. and hundreds of thousands of soldiers die lonely, miserable, pathetic deaths.

The ones who are in a cage, ironically are females by females. Forced to live out this feminism experiment with the results being death, deprivation and humiliation.

I will free them from their self-inflicted wounds, and create a society that best suits the strengths of both genders of our human race.

Yeah, you're right. This country has become pathetically hopeless, even more humiliating is that this country's proud of its own stupidity. I'll try to explain it to you, once more and try to listen:

-Women are the only source of life, without women the population would be culled dramatically. In China, the sex-abortion policies is a part of what has led to their questioned future decades down the line. But not only this, but women are mothers, caretakers, teachers and nurses.

Could men fulfill these roles? Possibly, as well as a woman? Most probably not. Is there any benefit to trying this idea? Well, the era we live in now is one of crime, disease and death. So I can't honestly say there's been any benefits.

Dreams are one thing, reality's another.



At least they were trying to save lives, what honestly were the soldiers accomplishing? In all honesty, throughout war there may only be a few "missions" that end up being significant which utterly change the course of history such as Stalingrad.

Every other battle to that point, was meaningless. Thousands of untold, meaningless and pathetic deaths. You've now subjected women to a fate of dying without friends, family members and without any memories of love and affection. Oh, the Humanity! You've advanced the cause of the Human Race.(Note my sarcasm)

There aren't many women(In fact, I bet very few women) who grew up dreaming of their own deaths. Partially, because we were a sane enough society to prevent that from occurring.





But women don't want to be treated with class, you yourself said that the Sacred Feminine didn't exist. Loli, a woman, agreed. So, I'll treat women as they supposedly desire.

You leave me no choice Loli, I apologize to everyone in advance but I think its about time we stopped talking in semantics and got a real visual look at the world that Loli-chan's so fond of:









Just imagine women in those coffins on a massive scale, imagine women fallen to the ground in the desert, thousands of miles away from the homeland. And while late-term abortion is one of the more graphic abortion procedures, its not like the other ones are any less so.

In fact, about a quarter or so of woman(if not more) suffer PTSD effects as a result. A Vacuum with powerful force going inside the vagina and forcibly sucking the life out of the womb, violating the woman.

If death itself is "worth it to the person", we normally call that suicidal. And I really doubt a woman grew up thinking "I'm so patriotic I want to join the army." So we can cut the sentimental crap.

Statistics do not "dance around" the truth, Loli-Chan they represent the truth. The videos and pictures I've demonstrated also represent the truth. And I never said that "having sex" ruined anything, in fact I haven't even invoked the word once in our conversation.

I spoke to how families are being destroyed, and how we can accomplish women being paid on fairly high salaries, while not taking them away from the children.

This is your world, this is how the future looks like. The death and degradation of women, and you wanna know the ironic thing?

Women are to blame for it all.

I hate repeating myself, but let us look at it objectively:

-You desire a world where women can commit actions that would very well lead to their deaths for no one's benefit at all, certainly not their families.

-I desire a world where women would be protected as the eternal beauty that they are.

So, which of us is misogynistic? Which one of us harbors hatred? I think its the one who thinks of female life so lowly as to throw it away.

Your era of human history is already declining. 54 million lives were sacrificed, the value of a woman's femininity has been degraded forever and I am the evil one?

The value of marriage? Meaningless. Relationships? If they can even be sustained in the first place. This is your era, your world, the record for which world history will judge.

Judge it for yourself, not in the vague terms of the future but here and now.

I ignore you not by choice, but due to the fact you, Cruz and Loli-chan present pretty much the same debate. And it can get very tiring posting my philosophical approach numerous times, especially since I don't think this crowd of opposition will get it any time soon.

Its true that revolutions, new philosophical approaches, etc went through their difficulties before being accepted as factual(IE: Many once believed the world was once flat.)

However, despite the difficulties and we certainly haven't achieved "perfection" in the ideal sense yet; we have at least moved closer to the ideal. Certainly a lot closer then centuries past.



Perhaps I should slightly rephrase: Putting as much effort into our weaknesses, as our strengths, is a waste of said effort. Of course, if you can improve you should. But why do the impossible? Just to say: "I can"? Many might cite the story of the train, who thought to himself "I think I can, I think I can." However, there was nothing logically to stop that train from doing so.

Logic dictates that there are physical differences between the two sects of our human species, these physical differences, if they don't make things impossible, certainly make them far more difficult than worth the application, especially for little more than political showboating.





Are you misquoting me now? Or deliberately taking me out of context? Do you expect the average female to be sufficient in combat? Of the female applicants in Israel for example, only 3% made the cut. Three percent! And yet, is it worth it? To what are we progressing towards? Meaningless casualties?

And it is still very much blasphemous for a female to attempt to do something that, logically and physically may very well be very difficult for her to do so. Just the same as it would be blasphemous, hell, impossible for a male to give birth.

And again, even if it were possible for a male to do so, what would be the purpose?
What potential good could possibly come out of it?

Humanity has been given a design, by whom or for what purpose, neither I, you or anyone else knows. But what we do know, is this was no fluke. And I believe our grand purpose is to advance humanity even further. To fulfill that purpose, there are some ideas I agree with and some that I think have defeated our common purpose.

And before you ask what it would be blasphemous against, I answered once before and again: Nature. We are products of Nature, the highest products to be sure but we still answer to her. As proof: We still can't control weather.



Same guy, some of these political/naive-oriented decisions which may very well break the fabric and foundation to which our ancestors built and in my mind is breaking it. Ever since this nation's prime(Early 50's), we've experienced a gradual decline to the present moment.

To me, we've been handed wealth beyond our imagination and we've managed to squander it. Why shouldn't I be pissed? Why shouldn't I identify that virtually everything we've done to this point is wrong?

I don't "discriminate" against people who support such decisions, I simply look down on them. In the same way that you likely look down on me, we're not discriminating against each other: We're holding an opinion about the other.



But not empirically so, there's no such thing as a wrong philosophical approach until its proven so. And I believe there are cases for both of us. Remember The Wheel? The Wheel was the base on which our modern-day Cars were invented :).

And my smiley wasn't passively aggressive or aggressive at all. I'm tired of this back and forth.

Even when offering a concession to everyone, you still find a way to oppose it. Interesting :)

I suppose when you say "Evolution is Messy", you're saying that to defy my notion that Evolution is Simplification? But, how is it not? Michael Jordan practiced about a thousand baseline jumpers. Athletes practice the most simplest moves to perfect their craft.


Also, I wouldn't say I'm in support of Natural Selection, seeing as I've included the entirety of the Human Race in my philosophical approach. I've selected no one and I'm biased against no man or woman.


My philosophy also extends to geopolitics, I believe that all nations on this wonderful planet of ours have something wonderful to give to it. Their individualism is what makes them unique. I harbor no racist thoughts or feelings, I merely acknowledge Existence As It Is.

Why should I? We have two different perspectives on what is right, is all. And that's no different throughout human history. Wars were fought and people died on their beliefs.

Of course, things won't be as dramatic here. I have no hard sentiments either way, but what will determine the historical outcome of this debate are the actors currently in our society. If the society to which the others here have defended is victorious, then we should experience evolution.

And if/when we do, I'll happily join as a member of said society. However, if we don't experience evolution, if this society suffers a setback then is it safe to say that these ideals, noble as they were became impractical?

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Amnesty? That will also bring millions of people into the economy. People who will have to buy houses, get jobs, etc. Most of whom will be mostly in poverty.

Outside of that, we both have acknowledged several things. For one thing, the hole of debt. But what is the basis of that debt? Let's take a look shall we?

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/budget_pie_gs.php

As of last year, 68% of our spending(or 3/4ths) went to: Defense, Health Care and
Pensions! Welfare/Education accounted for 16%. Keep in mind, none of this takes into account for unfunded spending such as derivatives.

But I know what some Democrats would say: That's all Bush, Obama's had only one administration, etc. So let's just look at projected numbers:(Giving Democrats the false hope that projections aren't exactly exact but in this case, I wouldn't be surprised:

13:15%
14:13%(It's actually going down! Same person who said we needed to commit to compete in the "Global Economy")
15: Same percent(So where is all the new money going to, oh, right, the health care plan)
16:12%(COMBINED. Education is an absurd 3% of the U.S Economy now)
17:Same percentile.

If anything else went up, it was the interest on our spending. If things happen as projected, I wonder where the blame will go to? It most surely can't go to Republicans, many of whom face democratic outcry from voters.

If anything, we've confirmed as early as last year, that "new bodies" are far from what's causing our debt. The private sector's been destroyed. And our barometer for the economy now seems to be Wall Street(Oh, look the DOW went up!)

The Movers and Shakers of the economy isn't Wall Street, it's Middle America. Whom government has systematically abandoned in favor for its health care system.

I propose Middle America above all else, I want the economy to grow, I want our home grown families to grow and educate them. I don't have the time to build Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Nor do I have money to waste on insurers getting their fat cat checks. It certainly isn't making America any healthier.





The teenage marriage system wasn't all that bad now, yes it was mostly against the woman's will but did you ever stop to think that likewise, it was also against the man's will? The parents of both children discussed it over. And such a system does have its benefits. Those children grew up together, lived together and in some cases such relationships ended up being spectacular.

This isn't arguing for the system, or, well, maybe it is with a little bit of an adjustment: If a teenager or a child should so refuse, allow that person to have the free will to fall in love with another and evaluate that potential partner.

Adjusting the system, I can see our Divorce Rates decrease dramatically. And I can see our children growing up with role models. Gangs and such decreasing. There was no need for a total makeover, just a little polishing.

And so, I looked up the Dowry System. For a moment I was worried, did America enact the female version of the Jim Crow Laws? I thought to myself. But when I looked it up, I felt relief. The basic of the Dowry system is that European traditions had developed in India: IE: Giving gifts to the bride and her family. A little background history into India:

-Ruled by Britain as a Colony, India didn't gain her freedom and independence until about the mid-60's After the successful struggle of Gandhi and his followers. We can safely say that India is barely 6 decades old as a country.

Its not the Dowry System, of course which is negative against women. But the reaction to it, via India's developing and recently struggling economy. It resulted in the sex-selective practices. In other words, aborting female fetuses.

But Loli-chan, a question: You support abortion here in America as a means for population control, what's wrong with abortions being sex-selective? Is it because its female fetuses?

What if India decided to selectively abort male fetuses instead, is it the least bit awful? Also, it seems as though an under-reporting of female births may also be part of the cause as well in some of these other countries.






Oh Loli-Chan, we have two very different definitions of what it means to be a Humanist. Do you know what the Superman Theory is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

Why don't I put a new, 21st century twist on Nietzsche's philosophy? Superhumanism. Or in other words, the perfection of both man and woman on the planet. And how is such perfection achieved? Through self-efficiency, growth and development.

We both have limitations, humanity has long thought that by surpassing those limitations it could evolve further. That's also a part of this movement, by doing things that historically were male-dominated, females were attempting to evolve.


I find that to be a mistake, in my own life as well as philosophical. By going against our limitations, we only find that its much harder and ultimately less rewarding. Only so few times does the fairytale story of us exceeding our limitations actually happen.

We should only be focusing on our strengths and bettering those strengths. By making ourselves the best we can possibly be at what we're good at. Marriage is symbolic of this principle, two people mutually love each other and strengthen the other, without the other partner the person is half-complete.

Evolution comes from perfection, and perfection comes from simplification. Males and Females, combining their unique skillsets, perspectives of life into one force of humanity. This is my Humanism.

I did, and it pointed out that while females can certainly obtain a more physical build, its of a different kind and not of the type of testerone that males have.

Simply put, we're different and that's okay. It's okay if we enter into different fields and carry different parts of society. In fact, its what makes our society strong to begin with.

We need to support each other where the other is weak.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

"a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

Some respects, being the key word. You said that differences didn't matter, I presented to you a scenario in which differences would matter and you'd have to properly weigh out the pros and the cons.

It's the same in society, our differences do in fact matter. These differences allow us to work as a cohesive unit. No different from how society is run amongst the animal kingdom(Ants and bee's being two such examples of dividing tasks among groups)








Okay, generally we don't want women to work in construction, the best they could do is work with a crane. Sexist? No, a simple reality of physics! Baring exceptional intelligence, we go through one grade a year. Why? Because a child simply isn't equipped to do Calculus. Are we being "ageist" now against the child?

Work has been opened up to women in the police force, yet do you see them diving in doves to be a cop? Hell no, and for good reason. If anyone's read the news lately, you see the hundreds of shootings. Tell me, in the name of equality is it sane to let the typical average U.S. female dress up in a uniform and chase after people who have no regard for the law? It takes just breaking one law, to break another(ie: Murder.)


http://nuweb.neu.edu/nhe/He%20Police%20stress%20article.pdf

This one such study compares and finds that for the most part that male and female officers face similar levels of stress. Even more interesting, is that female officers rely more on family support. prayer, etc as positive relays of this stress.

What that means, and the statistics bare it out is that negative reactions(IE: Forcing it on the family) are also much closer than we would otherwise like. What would such an environment be for the children?

Regardless of male or female, such an environment is always stressful. But tell me, what is the benefit of this equality? To have females in between the matter of life and death?

But hell, I'm fine with that. At least that's a choice, not a conscription.

What Panetta's controversial decision does, is it conscripts every single female to at least sign up for Selective Service, and I'll wager my life that more than half of our U.S. Female population which has never trained for warfare, fighting or anything of that nature simply won't be able to perform much if at all on the battlefield.

So tell me, where's the equality in this? Equality means allowing both male and female to prosper. It means forming our society to be strengthened, not weakened. The current notion of equality threatens to weaken our society.

Apart from that, there are many females who've also cried out: "Hey, I never asked for this." Why should some females be forced into this new world, for the benefit of others? Is this too, equality?

We have laws that state that you can't smoke, drink until you're an adult. You can't register to vote until you're at least 18, in some states you have to be at least 21 to get your licence.

Are those laws "ageist"? Aren't they being prejudice against young people? You can't argue "no" and then argue that former restrictions from male-oriented jobs, which were so oriented because they required specifically the attributes of a male were prejudice against women.


Truth be told, women have a lot of things that men don't have. I'd like to be a ballerina but I'd have to wear a skirt, I'd stand out and it probably would disrupt the class. I probably won't be on the dance floor any time soon, oh well such is life.

I'd argue sex is more pleasurable for females than males(Well, after you get past the first time of course). Whereas a male's orgasm is generally weak, by comparison females have multiple of orgasms.

And suffice to say, females have more in looks, accessories, etc than men. I have Deodorant, Body spray, Cologne and maybe Gel. That's it, for a male to look "sexy", as it were, he'd have to be really good with clothes.

And then there's the human body, it's really quite simple: Buff, average or chubby(There are some girls who like it, but lets get real).

And with the advent of the internet and access to information, it becomes even more difficult to find the best possible way for you, yourself as a male(or even as a female) to attract the right possible partner for you.

Whereas a female, unless she completely lets herself go will be attractive to males in almost, pretty much every way. The power of a female's beauty, is infinitely more superior to that of a male's.

And because of the aforementioned "evils" that is women being groomed for society, I'd say that women have a longer, easier civilian life than say that of most average, violent-oriented males. But heck, who am I kidding?

LustfulAngel, the supposed woman hater is worshiping women! I don't hate neither women nor male, I hate the idea that we would just throw away the attributes of both males and females, and to destroy the social structure to which we've lived since the stone ages.

And worse: We're throwing it away with no idea of whether it actually works or not.
I mean, even though women are entering the work force, it's legal justification for rising the prices! Screwing both genders over actually, not just one.






Again, it depends on our notions of equality, Black Jesus posted an interesting link(which I read) that pointed out how these abortions are notoriously expensive and out of pocket. There are tax credits that you can get, for either adopting or having a child, building businesses, etc. But I won't blame this alone, it's just a small blimp on the very ugly radar.

Families being taxed higher, divorce rates as high as they are. And our moral justification is outright sickening. We should be thinking of improving the quality of life, not micromanaging it.

The more America grows, the more we will prosper. Prosperity starts here, not elsewhere. It starts inside the homes of every family.





I won't deny the religious crusades, but I really don't think women have been reprived of that many rights. By the 1850's, the revolution for women to have the right to vote succeeded here in America. A century later, said opportunities have now opened up tremendously.

Progress to me, is enabling women to work in fields they can excel in(This would allow them to go up the ranks higher, quicker and get more money!. Gasp, I thought I was Evil Incarnate.) But also, I'd have women working less hours for high quality pay. So as to enable men/women to spend more time together as a family with their significant spouse and other.

A society is only as strong as its weakest link, and right now we're incredibly weak by forcing ourselves into roles we are not equipped for.

No I compared your silly notion that it doesn't matter, to a situation where if you said the same thing you'd likely end up dead. Try to keep up ;)




We most certainly don't concur and I take offense to those words coming from you. My idea of accepting differences, is in allowing women to be women and men to be men. These "differences" in fact are a necessity for our society's survival.

Liberal ideas are now attempting to disrupt and erect a new culture, with no history as its basis or any reason for which it could possibly work. Without any basis to stand on, this "society" will crumble. Hell, its already crumbling.

But as we can see, we'll deflect its crumbling onto other areas of blame. A question: Why didn't other, older societies get this bright "idea"?

That's a question worth discussing, if our ideas are so great why weren't they thought of before? There were many great intellectuals during the time of development of Modern Europe-Western Society , so much so it's dubbed the Age of Enlightenment.

It is off topic, but I'll end it with a question: Do you really think there was no trade prior to the wars? Trade certainly opened up during the era, but let's not act like people weren't outreaching to each other. As late as the 17th century, Christopher Columbus sailed out to the North American Continent.


And if globalization had such an impact, then why is it that we struggle now as we move forward into this new globalized era? I thought it was supposed to be wonderful.

Incorrect, I think bringing births into the world will create an artificial demand for jobs, which will in turn lead to a higher employment rate, which will in turn lead to a revitalized economy.

Would my idea work? It worked a few decades ago, what I do know is that the present 'idea' is a miserable flop.

Funny, I could say the same about debating you. And you're committing the same "crime" as 623 here, you're grossly offtopic nor did you even prove why arguing with me is a folly.

Why is arguing with me a folly? Is it because I stay true to my convictions? Be that as it may, if the general populace's argument were good enough(it isn't) I would adjust my convictions to the so-called "correct" perception of reality.

In addition to my willingness to accept this perception if I could actually be convinced of such, in my own arguments numerous times I had posted links defending a number of issues. Often times, sadly the information I take the time to use in these debates is often ignored by my opponents.

You yourself have admitted to hating me in private, it is utter folly to try and convince someone who hates you of your own legitimacy.



Seriously? Let me give you an analogy: It doesn't matter that the mushroom is poisonous and is thereby going to kill you, its food! Actually, it matters. If you want to eat and you're starving I don't know about you but odds are you're trying to live.

To say differences don't matter, is once again an "ideal", one that is not aligned with our reality. These differences make up our social makeup, and allow us to have various experiences with various people.

Here, read this:

http://jefferson.library.millersville.edu/reserve/SOWK505_Girvin_GenderRoles.pdf

This describes several of the social agents that develop us from when we are babies, and into the adults we are today. The article confirms that many women would like to try their hand at becoming more, shall I call it bi-gendered. However, even towards the end they acknowledge the inconsistencies with this desire.

It's an idea, and that's great and all but what's the end game? How do you intend to implement this world and what makes it better than the old one? Proponents of this idea don't have the answer to these questions.

But, if you were to ask me the question in reverse, I would tell you: The mistake that was made in cultural development was in not allowing women to feel the importance of what makes them women. As I said once before, the Sacred Feminine.

Had such an ideal been preached, we're likely not having this discussion. Women don't really want to "become men", they merely want to be acknowledged as all people do.

A truly equal society, is one that acknowledges these differences and allows people to live as they are. Robbing oneself of one's self-identity is the same as discriminating oneself.

This depends on the philosophical definition of a right. For example: Do all people have the rights to bare arms? The Founders believed so, as we see that's not always the best thing. Here's my belief:

People have the rights to do whatever they want that doesn't hurt others, or inflicts self-injury. If we bestow upon ourselves, rights then the least we can do is allow children unborn to have the rights to that same choice.

Let us not be hypocrites, what right we bestow upon ourselves is equal to another. But also, some "rights" are related to a specific group's abilities of carrying said "rights" out(No sane human being can proclaim killing someone(warfare) is a right.)

What I've espoused here is not a conspiracy theory, but modern western philosophy. I have simply clarified and defined it further to state that everyone doesn't fit in a borg hive. That these differences are real, they've governed our lives and the attempt to break through them is a unknown dynamic that poses threats to our society.

The difference between us and dinosaurs, is that we won't go extinct via natural changes to the earth(short of meteors blowing it up or something.) What will put the Human Race in extinction, is the constant changing of its societies.

Can we adapt? Yes, but the more we adapt, the more we'll end up losing. The more we sanitize war, the more we'll end up sacrificing.








Why not, via the outcries of "Pro-choice", a vocal media outlet has dictated this country to move closer and closer to that direction. Indeed, no one is "stopping" the pro-lifer from living the life that he/she chooses, but he/she has to do so in a country that so contradicts the meaning of life itself, the philosophy of the person. It's infact a debate whenever a young woman(whose pro-choice) ends up having a baby, one side tells her to keep it and the other tells her to ditch it.

The family members proclaim they "support her", but they look at her(now) born baby with disgust.

That's "Pro-choice" America in a nutshell. I want to make this a pro-life country, as it was originally founded to be. That is what made this country the world's superpower.




I'm not talking about explaining human behavior, I'm talking the grand scheme of things. The design of this planet, the plains, the oceans, the forests. There's no authority on whom the "Supreme Being" is, or if it's even a Being but rather an Existence(IE: Material Energy as it were. Such as the Big Bang theory.) But one thing we can clarify for certain is that without doubt there's a purpose to our lives and to the evolution of the Human Race.

Hence, calling it Intelligent Design. I've no qualms with a woman who wants to make her own choices that I don't necessarily agree with(IE: I'll call it the Worship of Death.) But do tell me, where's my choice in all of this? Our government has told me in effect that I have to risk watching my wife and daughter die, for the sake of political correctness.


If you tell me that I cannot use my political theories to adjust this country to a more proper status then so be it, but can those who proclaim to be pro-choice say they're justice? The only choice they concur with, is their own. Equality is a nice word to hide behind, for which those who preach it don't truly believe in.





Of course you can't, the odds of this planet popping out of nowhere and us popping out of nowhere for no reason at all are absolutely slim.

The only thing we don't know, is the "what, when and why". But we do know that logic is the determining factor in life, it always has been. Or do we disagree there as well?






No one really knows, this creator may not even have so much of a thought at all. But let's play a game and presume that it does. And let's say the only thing the creator wants, is the evolution and progress of the life to which he/she/it has created. By proclaiming our elimination as progress, we're definitely spitting in its face.

At the very least, eliminating a creator from the equation, we're spitting in our own faces by taking our own lives.




Do you know what occurs in deserted areas like Arizona when there's a drought? The crops die out, even though there was plenty of rain before the drought, just a month or so without water can kill plants. Just the same, when there's too much water, they die and when it snows the crops are ruined.(Hence, no one smart would plant crops in the winter lol.)

Its not because "they can", Cruz, the advantage and I suppose disadvantage for our politically accepted theory of "living" is that Humanity is a self-sustaining organism. Whether you like it or not, we must continue to live. Of course, the alternative choice again is our own death.

But there isn't a third choice, there isn't a "Oh, whenever I feel like it." That third choice has had the illusion of existence because while people may have choose that, there were others who choice to continue to promote life. But, if we should ever lose significant numbers then the illusion of choice will disappear.


This, perhaps would mean nothing if the illusion of political correctness didn't just put our female counterparts in harms way. Tell me, what do you think would happen if we lost a significant portion of our female population?

Oh, I know, I think our population would decline. Despite the world's wars, we have populated in size. True eugenics is going to be wiping off the female species.

I look forward to seeing this "equality"(Actually, more like I'll be weeping. But I want to see if the supporters will cheer the blood that will follow.)






As above, so below. Just as we'd suffer a population decline if we were to take current policies to the extreme(and yay, we're heading there!), can you imagine a society where men just said "Fuck it, we'll do it whenever."?

Be it sexist or not, we men make more(slightly. 0.75 to every dollar) than women.
Its precisely economic issues that end up separating couples. If we don't take up this responsibility, then who will?




Never denied that they both "could", but there's a difference between theory and actually implementing said theory. Tell me, Cruz, would you say that the New Left has succeeded in its revolution? Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. The LBGT movement has gained significant steam and so forth. By every measure, things have changed significantly.

And so one question: Has anyone benefited? Has the LBGT community been able to realize true love through its politicization? Has the massive debt we've accumulated via our social programs been worth it? Have people benefited from said debt?

Not a single group has been fulfilled, the ones who promoted these ideas can only cling to the success of having been initiated. But if one's to be truly objective, one realizes this: Liberalism's dreams and the reality are polar opposite.

-If the LBGT Community wants to realize true love, its quite simple: True Love transcends all boundaries, that of course means all judgments. In today's America, we all preach from our lungs that we don't care. We only care when its brought to our attention.

So, the LBGT community should actually de-politicize itself.

-Instead of indebiting our government, we should simply put the social security funds in a trust fund, to every senior citizen. We're moving towards this of late, with economics becoming more prominent in classes but it should've been
done earlier.

See how simple that was? My ideas are also ideas, but my ideas are backed by pragmatism. Progress the country however you'd like, move forward. No one likes those ideals more than I.

But, only a pragmatic idea can work. If an idea lacks a pragmatic vision, a long-term objective then it will never succeed. You can certainly "feel good", but I'll say it once again: These thinkers are in charge of the most prosperous country on earth. Whether they feel good or not is irrelevant, what is of importance is that this country continues to prosper.







How so? Modern day technology doesn't defy nature. We've combined lightning(the monitor) with steel(the base of the computer) to form modern day PC'S, TV'S, etc.

If anything, we have evolved mother nature. We have taken her/it further. As I said above, if that's mother nature's desire then we've done her justice. When we defy Order, is when we proclaim we can procreate whenever we want. Or that we can let a few hundred thousand women go to war and not miss a beat.

I already explained how that's defying how we've lived for the last several hundred years or so. And perhaps in the short term, we can defy it. But can we avoid the long-term consequences? If we could, that's an even bigger smack in the face of the laws of nature. All things have consequences.





Only restraining in respect to current lifestyle opinions. Allow me to simplify: It would be a combination of the philosophy of our European traditions, with modern westernized technology.

The best of both worlds, and indeed my interpretation of a Utopia. Perhaps you may disagree, but just imagine what a world like that would be like for a second.

Me, want more control? Laughable. If anything, the government has enabled the degeneration of this country and thereby the female part of our society. The social decline is what leads to more crimes, ironically committed against women themselves! By glorifying sex, we make it so that women are viewed as tools. More so than any of my own political philosophies. In fact, I know my philosophy to be humanizing women.

By acknowledging them as a unique component in a dual-sex society. You know, like the other animals in the animal Kingdom.

3. Said trade has lowered our manufacturing production by 50% Should we still do as we please or can we stop this insanity?

4. You mean its possible to move even further back than we are now? Where as Biglundi points out, the country is divided, patriotism? Give me a break, there's a facade to which we want to keep but that facade is no more real than a dream. You're right that I'm not responsible for what others should think, like or want. But there are things in society(Like stripping freedom from those who've yet to live. Or for openly allowing a gender of our race(male or female) to blatantly commit suicide in the name of fightin combat.) that we simply do not allow.

It's on this basis the gun debate is currently being held. Absolute freedom=Anarchy, the freedom we're aiming for is a balance between civil and social responsibility.

"Feminists" as it were, wish to disrupt the social union and the order of nature itself and they expect the world to comply with them. It'd be real interesting to see if we could get a study on how many feminists believe in Intelligent Design.(I do), because if they did, they'd know that everything here is for a reason.

I don't care what you prefer to call the Designer, but who/or what it is, had a specific intention for this planet, from the animals, to the plants to the humans to even freaking dirt.

That's not a coincidence. We are now attempting to spit in the face(or being as it were) of the Creator and say "Hey, you didn't do a good enough job."

5. I don't worship fertility either, hell, its safe to say I don't worship anything at all.(I'm spiritual, but my connection with the Supreme Being is more benevolent than to hold myself in worship.). I hold the Feminine in great light, appreciation, understanding of the role that females are meant to play.

Just as we men have a role, we're meant to play. The difference is that men are more inclined to play that role.
Whether through simplification or understanding, most men instinctly know the role of provider, of strength and of self-reliance is what defines them and carries them.

I'm a naturalist, I'm not going to defy Order in the arrogance that I may somehow "know better." And politically,
how could I consciously say I'm a leader of the people as I let them do whatever they please, how they please and consequences be damned?

True progression will be the unification of men and women in a society that enables their best strengths, a society with high employment, high gross production, low debt and a fairly highly child birth rate.

I worship nature in its natural order, because that in of itself is the primer of life. It's the appreciation of life, which drives me.

As one poster(I forgot that poster's name) pointed out in a thread, this goes to the definition of Liberal. The Founders opposed the idea of slavery and dictatorship on philosophical grounds. To them, King George's tyranny wasn't acceptable.

Social Liberties may have been an idea, but the theory at least was plausible. And at least it involved securing life.

I don't mistake them for "Modern day progressives", they were statesmen.

You say Sweden, let's look at Sweden for a moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

9 Million inhabitants, as compared to the 300 million here in the Homeland, do you think its remotely feasible?

Well, its non-interventionist foreign policy is actually what the Founders spoke of. But, as long as we have a "responsibility" to uphold to the rest of the world, hell will sooner freeze over than America becoming Sweden.

We probably could and should transition to a Mixed Economy. But oh wait, we're committed to Free trade which invokes us giving our economy to Mexico, China and anyone else who asks.


Sweden actually agrees with me on Abortion: Only in cases regarding medical threats to the life of the mother, etc.

You say you'd idealize Sweden, but several of their ideas conflict with modern American-"Liberalism".

Now, onto your absurd notion that I look at women like some kind of "object" or "Pets" that need to be taken care of. If you proclaim that of me, then what's different of a parent taking care of his/her child?

A parent wants what's best for his/her child, the child is very much young, naive and sometimes even stupid. They don't permit them to do whatever. As our policies here in America have confirmed, several women have shown that even as they hit adulthood, maturity is severely lacking.

Women no longer respect the qualities they have, nor do they value their own lives. In a state so pathetically helpless to secure its own, Sweden is a far dream from where we are.

If you believe me to be a sexist, then there are also a hundred authors who are also sexist:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Sacred+Feminine

It is from this spiritual philosophy from which governs my current political thought. The idea of women dying and sacrificing their youth spits in the face of their own lives, it spits in the face of their parents who raised them.

Its the opposite of an advanced country, its a country that's degrading.

Yes, this shit again. Because unlike Liberals, I don't have the interest of turning the United States of America into Mexico, Venezuela, Apartheid Africa/Israel or any other second or third world country.

I don't admire those countries, neither did our founders. Up until Liberalism, Western society didn't look at them either. I refuse to follow the trend to admire failures. They failed as did their ideas.

I feel women are equal to men, spiritually and ethically speaking. To call women equal to men physically, is a natural lie. I pointed out a link to you before, but basically

Women: 5'5, 110-ish or so on average
Men: 5'10, 150-ish or so on average

This is a difference, where in it am I being sexist? Where am I being sexist, acknowledging that women face psychological, sexual and violent dangers in war time? If women feel as though civil society poses these threats, then why the hell do they consider throwing themselves into the fire, as equal?

Those 'feminists' might be the only people I know, who want to actually put themselves in a worse situation, and for what? To try and grow out of their natural limitations?

Did men make women physically weaker? No, we had as much say(none at all) in the intelligent, physical design as you did. And I never said I had anything against a woman pursuing a career(though it has had its economic setbacks and in fact is a part of America's inflation. Brilliant.)

If anything, I'd like women to get the same pay, working less hours. Its more socially important to develop the family, develop the child. Hell, according to some statistics, couples that were able to make the same money and spend roughly the same time at work had a better time because of it.

What I feel some women don't understand is the value of life Men don't go to war because they want to, the Call of Duty kiddies not withstanding. But until governments get their asses together, the 'system' we live in requires us to have an open hunting season of human heads


I'll oversimplify what war is:

You shoot a person
Person shoots back
If you're lucky, you killed him.
Problem: There are about hundred of other soldiers and so the process repeats.

It's an infinite loop of death, this is why hundreds of thousands of U.S. men simply don't come home. So, be brutally honest with yourself:

Do you expect the average woman to survive this infinite Russian Roulette? Nope, neither do I.

Am I sexist? Hell no, I care about the survival of the female species. Your death is meaningless. Death itself is meaningless.