I'm sure you don't think it's odd when men walk around without a shirt on.
For the record, I despise "peacocking" regardless of gender.
Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #00
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » It's pretty sad that in 2015, women are still expected to pretend they don't like sex. I'm sure you don't think it's odd when men walk around without a shirt on. For the record, I despise "peacocking" regardless of gender. I saw some guy the other day walking around town with no shirt. I thought it was a bit odd. At home, sure, or some other setting, but not just walking around the city.
Offline
Posts: 35422
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » I saw some guy the other day walking around town with no shirt. I thought it was a bit odd. At home, sure, or some other setting, but not just walking around the city. Wearing no shirt is the new fashion trend for 2015. I recommend all women do it ! Offline
Posts: 35422
Odin.Jassik said: » It's pretty sad that in 2015, women are still expected to pretend they don't like sex. No reason to pretend it is the one thing they hold over men for I don't know 2 maybe 3 thousands years. Offline
Posts: 35422
Bismarck.Leneth said: » Lakshmi.Aelius said: » Viagra,... These aren't randomly political!? Of course it is political it is a the war on women the Republicans have been waging since 2000 or so. Denying birth control sex pills etc. Offline
Posts: 35422
Meanwhile in Tunisia:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/women-rights-mini-skirt-protest-fizzles-tunisia-150607145324852.html TLDR: miniskirts of freedom !!! Only a handful of women have answered a call by a Tunisian rights' group to protest the repression of women in the Muslim world by demonstrating in mini skirts. Saturday's rally was organised by Tunisia's League for the Defence of Secularism and Freedom in response to an online campaign in Algeria a week ago which called on Algerian men to not let women revealing clothes appear in public. Rachid Ben Othman, the league's leader, launched a counterinitiative and created a Facebook event, calling on women worldwide to rally on June 6 wearing mini skirts. The Facebook page attracted thousands of "likes", but only a few dozens of women attended the actual rally in Tunisia's capital. Protest organisers blamed the low turnout on women's fears of their families and of Islamists. "It is sad that we are moving backward," Lilia Kammoun, a teacher at the protest, told the AP news agency. "My mother used to wear a mini skirt. I used to wear a mini skirt. And today, my daughter is hesitating to wear one. That's unfortunate." Ines Ben Othman, another protester, said she was still wearing "whatever" she wanted. "I don't really listen to what people say and I feel free to wear whatever I want. Now, could we have an accelerated Islamisation of the Tunisian society? Maybe," she said. Samir Abadi, a male spectator of the protest, said: "They have the freedom to wear what they want, so I don't know why they're doing this right now. They want to make people forget that there is a revolution." A different group of women, originally protesting for another issue on the other side of the city, attempted to highjack the mini skirt demonstration, by chanting slogans calling for women to dress modestly. Quote: Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that George W. Bush was wrong to try and push democracy on Iraq and that NATO has become unfit to deal with modern threats and should be replaced by a more global alliance to fight Islamist extremism. Rumsfeld’s remarks, made in an interview with The Times, mark a rift between the views of his then commander-in-chief, President Bush, who tried to push democracy right across the Middle East in the aftermath of toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003, although Rumsfeld apparently did nothing at the time to assuage his concerns. “I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories. The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.” Rumsfeld also said that NATO and the UN were no longer capable of coping with modern threats such as Islamic extremism, chemical weapons, Iran, and slavery, and instead said there should be a coalition of “right thinking” nations from across the globe. He also expressed doubts that the West would easily be able to defeat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and said a new Cold War style offensive was needed against the group. He warned that Arab nations are disintegrating, and said that the West’s airstrikes in Libya had served to further destabilize the region. “The movement for a caliphate, the movement against nation states is central and fundamental. And no one’s talking about it. Have you ever heard anyone at the UN begin to think about that concept?” he asked. He pointed the finger at President Obama, saying he had failed to show leadership and that this was having an effect both in the Middle East and in the Ukraine conflict. “We can’t police the world, it’s too big, but people want to know what to think about their futures and the risks. Leaders need to tell them what is happening and have the guts to stand up and say, ‘This is what I think.’” “If leaders aren’t willing to do it, why the hell should a guy with a wife and kids in the community put himself at risk?” he added. He predicted that IS would take decades to defeat and that it was about countering their ideology rather than bullets and airstrikes. “You begin to look at this thing not like a war but more like the Cold War ... you’re not going to win this with bullets, you’re in a competition of ideas. You’re going to have to squeeze down bank accounts, to find out who’s teaching whom what, to find ways to promote and encourage moderates,” said Rumsfeld, in his office at the Rumsfeld Foundation, an educational organization. Offline
Posts: 35422
I demand Obama make a visit to Tunisia and free them of the repression of wearing "modest" clothing. America's goal in the world is to get all women to dress like *** or to a lesser extent *** !
fonewear said: » I demand Obama make a visit to Tunisia and free them of the repression of wearing "modest" clothing. America's goal in the world is to get all women to dress like *** or to a lesser extent *** ! We can't claim credit here. France is way ahead of us. Unpopular coinvasion of ideas and countries trying to change a country....yea, i could totes see how that would lead to the hydra that is ISIS. You cant beat radical religious zealotry with automatic rifles, zealots maybe. You cant kill ideas with bullets.
Odin.Jassik said: » It's pretty sad that in 2015, women are still expected to pretend they don't like sex. Enuyasha said: » You cant kill ideas with bullets. Valefor.Sehachan said: » Odin.Jassik said: » It's pretty sad that in 2015, women are still expected to pretend they don't like sex. I hadn't heard that, but the push back began before any clinical trials, even if it was incidentally legitimized after. fonewear said: » Odin.Jassik said: » It's pretty sad that in 2015, women are still expected to pretend they don't like sex. No reason to pretend it is the one thing they hold over men for I don't know 2 maybe 3 thousands years. Just because they don't like sex with you doesn't mean they don't like it at all... Breaking News:
Quote: The Supreme Court declined Monday to insert itself into the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ruling just a few months after a feud between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the justices refused to allow Americans born in Jerusalem to have their passports changed to reflect Israel as their birthplace. In denying the challenge waged by the Jewish parents of a 12-year-old almost since his birth in 2002, a majority of justices heeded the State Department's warning that a simple passport alteration could "provoke uproar throughout the Arab and Muslim world." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 6-3 decision for the court. "The power to recognize or decline to recognize a foreign state and its territorial bounds resides in the president alone," he said. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito dissented. They sided with Congress, which passed a law that same year allowing Americans born in Jerusalem to have Israel listed as their place of birth on their passports. The status of Jerusalem has been at the top of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever since Israel was recognized in 1948. The official U.S. policy is spelled out in a State Department manual: "For a person born in Jerusalem, write JERUSALEM as the place of birth in the passport. Do not write Israel, Jordan or West Bank." President George W. Bush signed a massive foreign relations law in 2002 that included a section stating that for Americans born in Jerusalem, "the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel." However, Bush indicated he would ignore that provision as unconstitutional, and the Obama administration agrees. The parents of young Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky began their legal battle later that year. Had they won, it could have led to a long line of other Jerusalem natives seeking to change their passports; about 50,000 U.S. citizens were born there. But a majority of justices sided with U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who warned in November that a ruling for the Zivotofskys would undermine the president's authority to set policy for "the most vexing and volatile and difficult diplomatic issue that this country has faced for decades." The court's four liberal members — including its only three Jews — sided with the administration from the outset. During oral arguments, Justice Elena Kagan called the congressional act "a very selective vanity-plate law," intimating it would not do the same if Palestinians born in Jerusalem wanted their passports to say "Palestine." But Scalia chided the State Department for wanting to "make nice with the Palestinians." Kennedy had sought a compromise in which passports listing Israel as the holder's birthplace would specify that they did not represent a change in U.S. foreign policy. While most of the focus has been on Middle East policy, the court's ruling also was important in answering a question never before resolved in the nation's history: Which branch of government gets to recognize foreign countries? The Zivotofskys' supporters, including most major Jewish groups, contended that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that Congress, not the president, has the upper hand when it comes to immigration, naturalization and passport policies. The administration's supporters said Jerusalem is the most delicate issue in the world's most intractable dispute, and that only presidents have the power to recognize sovereign nations. Arab groups have lined up on that side of the debate. In his dissent, Scalia said the balance of power issue between the president and Congress is more important than Zivotofsky's passport and that of others born in Jerusalem. "The text and structure of the Constitution divide responsibility for foreign policy, like responsibility for just about everything else, between the two coordinate, equal political branches," he said from the bench. "A principle that the nation must have a single foreign policy, which elevates efficiency above the test and structure of the Constitution, will systematically favor the president at the expense of Congress." While this story cites a specific case, Reuters, which has no story up yet just lists what this means: 'Supreme Court says president has exclusive power to recognize foreign governments.' All hail King Obama and his decision on what governments he alone wishes to recognize! Yeah, recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel -- or siding with any party in that conflict in such a way -- couldn't have massive repercussions in the world. Why don't we go ahead and tacitly do just that for the sake of some "feels"?
Because really, that's what this issue boils down to. As for the "broader" issue, that's nothing new. And given they refused to see the case and thereby simply upheld the lower court's ruling, it doesn't mean it couldn't be brought to them at a later date in a different context in which they'd render a more definitive ruling in the matter. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » All hail King Obama and his decision on what governments he alone wishes to recognize! Also, red herring statement. This applies to all presidents, not just the current one who is in his last 18 months in office. Nope just Obama and his last 18 months.
Bahamut.Ravael said: » The utopian idealism is that it'll be "a curriculum planned by educators and academics, independent of political motivations, special interest, or public opinion." Good freaking luck. Making it national is putting all of your eggs in one basket and hoping nobody makes a mess of it. It's really amazing, he claims to be libertarian yet sees no issue with centralizing power because "politicians know best". I really don't know what brand of libertarianism he subscribes to. I don't even know why Bush signed that law, he promptly ignored most of it as it is way out of Congressional authority. Why didn't he just veto it?
Some people have values and ideologies that transcend political partisanship.
Not everyone thinks everything is red or blue. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » The utopian idealism is that it'll be "a curriculum planned by educators and academics, independent of political motivations, special interest, or public opinion." Good freaking luck. Making it national is putting all of your eggs in one basket and hoping nobody makes a mess of it. It's really amazing, he claims to be libertarian yet sees no issue with centralizing power because "politicians know best". I really don't know what brand of libertarianism he subscribes to. The inverse can be true also, however, when a state wants to save money and just decides that education isn't worth the space in their budget... Think of all the money people waste (privately) on worthless degrees that never get put to use. Now multiply that times 318 million. Sometimes throwing money at education isn't all it's cracked up to be.
We're not talking about post-high school education here. We're talking about the basics of life.
Incidentally, higher education is a good example of what happens when you do let individuals run free to do whatever the hell they want, in all the various great and terrible ways it encompasses. Ramyrez said: » We're not talking about post-high school education here. We're talking about the basics of life. have common sense. don't be an ***. play well with others. be financially responsible. don't have kids or get married if you can't afford it sorta thing? Ramyrez said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » The utopian idealism is that it'll be "a curriculum planned by educators and academics, independent of political motivations, special interest, or public opinion." Good freaking luck. Making it national is putting all of your eggs in one basket and hoping nobody makes a mess of it. It's really amazing, he claims to be libertarian yet sees no issue with centralizing power because "politicians know best". I really don't know what brand of libertarianism he subscribes to. The inverse can be true also, however, when a state wants to save money and just decides that education isn't worth the space in their budget... Are you talking about cutting an education budget or removing it entirely? No state would ever remove it entirely, so it's a pointless "what if". volkom said: » Ramyrez said: » We're not talking about post-high school education here. We're talking about the basics of life. have common sense. don't be an ***. play well with others. be financially responsible. don't have kids or get married if you can't afford it sorta thing? To an exent. A basic understanding of civics, math, English. Some level of appreciation/involvement in the arts couldn't hurt so you have some well-rounded human beings. It's part of the reason I'm so vehemently against home schooling. Part of school is the social element, learning to play ball in a field of peers where not everyone is going to like you, and some people will be downright adversarial. Home schooled and "specialized" school kids (kids who went to the "gifted" schools or art/sports/etc. schools) never seem to do real well on their own in the world in my experience. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are you talking about cutting an education budget or removing it entirely? No state would ever remove it entirely, so it's a pointless "what if". Gut it down far enough and there's little to no practical difference, and you're basically running daycare on people through age 19 or so. I know people like to be stuffy know-it-alls and say "well that's all it is now!" But that's really not the case. School districts already rely heavily on bond levies and local lotteries, as do a lot of municipal and county level programs. Cutting their budget just pushed the reliance more toward things like property taxes. Cutting things out of the general fund doesn't mean they don't get funded, it just means a greater amount of administrative time is spent finding funds and more of the burden is placed on land owners.
It's a pretty backwards way to move forward. Ramyrez said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are you talking about cutting an education budget or removing it entirely? No state would ever remove it entirely, so it's a pointless "what if". Gut it down far enough and there's little to no practical difference, and you're basically running daycare on people through age 19 or so. I know people like to be stuffy know-it-alls and say "well that's all it is now!" But that's really not the case. Yeah, I still don't see what you're getting at. States can't alienate their population too much or people will leave. Cutting the education budget to the degree I think you're suggesting won't happen, and if it did it would be reversed from all the backlash. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ramyrez said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Are you talking about cutting an education budget or removing it entirely? No state would ever remove it entirely, so it's a pointless "what if". Gut it down far enough and there's little to no practical difference, and you're basically running daycare on people through age 19 or so. I know people like to be stuffy know-it-alls and say "well that's all it is now!" But that's really not the case. Yeah, I still don't see what you're getting at. States can't alienate their population too much or people will leave. Cutting the education budget to the degree I think you're suggesting won't happen, and if it did it would be reversed from all the backlash. Social mobility being what it is, most people aren't going to move to a different state because the schools' computer labs are still running Windows 98. Cutting educational budgets rarely have negative consequences for lawmakers. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|