In The News

[DoomRulz]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marijuana-broken-bones_55ad1e24e4b0d2ded39f7bef

Scientists in Israel are exploring another medical use for marijuana: Their research indicates that a compound in the plant helps heal bone fractures.

[THE CITY HUNTER]

James Cameron's going to bomb ISIS? That would be amazing... huh David Cameron? Who the hell is that? 

Any of you guys has comments on David Cameron speech on ISIS do you think his ways could work my opinion is that UK should not interfere in Syria but get other Arab states to get involved like the UAE.

It's a sound idea, you're just forgetting that Arabs can't fight wars. Their "professional" military's are garbage, the only forces who have any sort of combat capabilities are groups like the Kurdish YPG, the only problem is that there's not enough of them. Anytime the Iraqi military has gone up against ISIS they retreat and leave all their US weaponry behind. One of the main reasons you see ISIS with things like TOW missiles is because the Iraqis leave the moment they hear a group of ISIS fighters is heading their way and they leave all their shit behind.

Shit even ISIS is dogshit when it comes to fighting wars, they captured a few monkey model Abrams tanks with enough fuel and ammo to last a few months and what do they do? They blow them up in a propaganda video. They still use WW1 infantry charge tactics for Christ sake and they're still kicking the shit out of a relatively modernized army. If a western power were to go full boots on the ground ISIS would revert back to living in caves and planting IEDs at night.

The truth is they simply do not have the will to fight and we do not have the will to fight for them either. I do wonder where the arbitrary line in the sand is drawn though, the point at which we do make war.

The line will probably never be drawn, at least not for a while. War hasn't been politically popular since WWII, and as long as the media has access to front line footage they'll find every way to twist it into "the West is the bad guys, pull the troops out of buttf**kistan". Sure war is ugly, but sometimes it needs to be fought, and while it's become apparent you can never outright destroy groups like ISIS, you can at least suppress them.

Speaking of, apparently ISIS groups are infiltrating the Balkans. Who the f**k in ISIS woke up and said, "hey lets f**k with the Balkans, those guys get scared and subdued easy, I bet they are also pussies who will run from war".  It's like they behead a few dudes on camera and suddenly they think they have a handle on atrocities enough to go toe to toe with the Balkans.

The guy who read that the two world wars had ties to the Balkan theater, probably. For as dumb as that sounds that is how western ISIS members think. Same thing with the Abrams tanks, for as well built and deadly as they are, it still needs a well trained crew, spare parts and being a dessert environment, a high level of maintenance. All they could do was blow it up for propaganda.

This is what pisses me off about how we conduct war for the past 70 years. When you make war you do it to win war and that means a full surrender of enemy forces unless it is mutuality beneficial to both side to call it off. When you have the overwhelming advantage you use it. I still can't believe the idea of "united nations police action" that was the Korean war, the entire hands off of major supply routes in Vietnam and then having the media portray them as resistance fighters chain ganging supplies to the battle front. The simple truth is that the US military was barred from engaging them. Even the news media's coverage of the slaughter of the Iraqi army that made GHB stop the war prematurely. What the hell was the brass thinking allowing the (studio) media a font row seat to war?

The one thing that I can't stand is this blind eye that way too many people put to the truth. A solider is a weapon. The art of soldiery is to commit mass murder. This peace keeping bullshit has got to go; you want peace keeping send in the cops. War is ugly but soldiers have a job that they are well trained to do, we should let them do that job when called forth.

As ISIS goes, something needs to be done and boots need to go onto the ground before they actually get f**king organized. I just don't see the wisdom of letting this shit simmer like this. The political atmosphere of course isn't going to let that happen. No one wanted to pull troops out of Iraq but it's true, the American Public isn't going to support military action until it swims up and bites us on the ass. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I can't stand seeing people getting their heads cut off in droves. Of course with the last round of sequestration cuts and another round to happen in October... shit what's the point of arguing I suppose.

Even Putin said that the US are repeating same mistakes  they supplied the rebel groups and guess who came out with those guns that's right ISIS just when they supplied the mujhadeen and then the Taliban came out or Osama bin laden,now before you call me a fanatical Russian supporter you have to agree with him right

[Gate]

Sure, cite the Korean War but don't talk about how Mr. Asshole MacArthur nearly made Nuclear Weapons conventional. So glad Truman sacked his ass before China got destroyed.

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

I'm not seeing much of it in action. It's there in sparse moments in YouTube and Facebook comments which is encouraging but given how pervasive feminism's influence is along with gynocentrism in general, it's unlikely to change anything.

You and I seem to live on two different planets, or more like, focusing on different things. I focus on the productive mainstream feminism, the down-to-earth everyday feminism that is the women's rights movement, whereas you focus on the crazies, vindictives and the opportunists, which is a loud but tiny part of the overall movement. Just like Islamists, the radical extremists of the movement want to be heard and are often the most vocal, and the people scared and hateful of the entire feminist movement, which is usually right-wingers, are more than happy to support that picture as it vilifies feminism as a whole. As whiterabbit said - it's the extremists that screws it all up. Being anti-feminist is the same as supporting right-wing sexists as well as the feminazis as it empowers them.

Any why do you think that is exactly? It goes a bit beyond muh soggy knees, as you're probably thinking.

Yeah, wonder why? Could it be that any attempt of women organizing themselves, striving for equal rights and opportunity, have been fought hard and shot down before gaining traction. If it wasn't for women starting working during WWII and all that followed, the women's right movement would've been pretty bloody. Women showed men that they are just as capable as them and are more than just baby machines and pretty things for men to look at. Even so, the women's rights were always demonized and vilified by men and conservative women and always under fire, bad-mouthed and trash talked, doing everything to give it a bad name and burry it.

That's why.

Oh God man. Because the radicals are the ones who are writing books (Dworkin, Solanis [they may be dead but their influence on modern day feminism is unquestionable. Just look at Jessica Valenti, writer for the freaking Guardian]), drafting policy (Hillary Clinton), or teaching in academia (Adele Mercier, Elizabeth Sheehy [the former is a bona fide rape enabler, the latter advocates for spousal (read male) murder).

Yes, they do write books. So does people with less radical ideas and concepts.

Hillary Clinton being a radical is laughable and Solanis is more of a theoretical think-tank person working conceptually, trying to open people's eyes like an artist. After all she was a friend and colleague of Warhol & the Factory.

Except that Muslims make regular attempts at distancing themselves from radicals and some rather major attempts at that. So yeah, I can other ideologies like feminism to the same standard. Muslims make an honest effort to weed out those retards. I can't say the same for feminists.

Well, they/we do. Feminists question each other.

I'm against none of those things. What I am against is totalitarianism and authoritarian control which is what feminism is. Heck, it's pretty much been that since the suffrage movement.

No, it is not. It is not totalitarian or authoritarian, but it is organized for very obvious reasons (*scared shitless white men in power).

It sounds like you think the women should've stopped fighting for their rights mid- to late 19th century since women had it so good 1890...

Listen to yourself Doom.

And you sir are making the assumption that women everywhere call themselves feminists. Not every feminist is female, anymore than every female is a feminist. I know you've heard of Women Against Feminism.

Yes I've heard about Women Against Feminism. There are also African-Americans that are for slavery and wish that the South had won. What is your point?

Like I said, a lot of people don't want to call themselves feminist in public or at all because the name has been so defiled, both by feminizes but most of all by conservatives and reactionaries in general. The latter are in power more or less worldwide, the former not so much.

Credit where it's due: shouting at feminism and feminists is absolutely not the way to go about it. That's why I no longer label myself as an MRA or visit AVFM. It's all they ever seem to do. They're more interested in getting in shouting matches with feminists on Twitter or catching them in "Gotcha!" moments which go nowhere. So maybe you proved a feminist on the internet wrong about something. So what? Now what? Who cares? What have you done to help advance the cause of men? I'm more interested in tackling traditionalism and gynocentrism, the root cause of most of gender-related problems in my eyes.

Tradtitionalism? And how did those traditions, systems and structures come to be? Who enforced them? Who were in power?
Traditionalism is directly patriarchal since our civilization is patriarchal. Gynocentrism is the direct effect of women being ignored through most of our history except for being some kind of sub-human asset or device for men to control and toil with.

What you call patriarchy, I call traditionalism. Society operated the way it has for generations because they were born out of the biological need for survival, where men did the hunting and women did the nesting. Now, since we don't live in caves anymore, those gender roles don't mean much because both sexes need to do their fair share. The problem is that women (not feminists) aren't too keen on that whole "fair share" part. Everyday it seems like women are receiving some sort of handout to make their lives easier. And you may call me misogynistic, evil, patriarchal, whatever, I really don't care. When I hear about shit like hiring quotas or lowering the standards for women getting into the military or STEM fields, it makes me think that women aren't really interested in doing what it takes to succeed in life and would rather rely on Big Daddy government while shouting "I'M A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN". Feminists routinely push for that sort of thing because they aren't interested in equality. They want supremacy. As an example, forcing the military to lower their standards tells me that women just aren't as good as men. If a woman really can do anything a man can do and do it better like Gloria Steinem once said, what's with the handouts? Please tell me.

Parts of my paragraphs above apply for this as well.

Hiring quotas etc. are necessary to introduce a "minority" to a new field and to make the ball keep on rolling. It sounds really lame to men since we're used to do whatever we want to do - the world is ours.

Of course there is a limit to this as people will abuse it and we don't want standards to be too low. I'm not worried though, especially since there are tons of men, conservatives and even feminists out there who are very sceptic about the whole thing. It will level out eventually, at least as long as we continue working on equal rights and opportunity for all, and as women and minorities traditionally have had less rights and opportunities than (white) men, it is only natural that the focus should be on them reaching the same level of equality as (white) men.

I like you too man. You're insufferable at times, but what's a little friction amongst friends? ***

Yeah, well, that's the way things are! I don't think we're going to agree on anything when it comes to feminism as you and I have two completely different ideas and convictions about what feminism is.

Feel free to reply to this post if you feel like it, but I'll take my time to reply as these never-ending walls of text are quite exhausting, especially when you have to reply to three people at once...

These quote trees are too much for me to process. I'm starting to think the problem with the world is that too many words end in ism.

*manhugs everyone. Now isn't it Friday night... shouldn't we be out there corrupting the youth?

YEah, getting to be a little bit too much for me as well. Taking a break. I promise!

Actually SpreadEagleBeagle, what exactly does that nick mean. What comes too my mind is a Beagle Spreading Eagle. Which I guess you can't get more progressive than that. Am I close?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I picked the named while I was making a skate video where there was a segment with spread eagle tricks, and as witty as I am I used the song "Spread Eagle Beagle" by Melvins for that segment. It was during that time I also started hanging out on Alien forums (started with Alien Experience and then AVPGalaxy), probably around 2006-2007.

Whiterabbit is just the name of a site I used to mod at a long time ago that is now dead. It has no meaning. If anyone cared.

I thought you were a Jefferson Airplane fan or something.

Yeah but come on, it was basically a terrorist attack, I've read up on it and it just sounds like bs to me. Why would he specifically target military personnel on military premises? oh and he's Muslim...I don't buy into what they're trying to sell. The main difference here is the attack was on American soil, not another country, I would have thought that makes a big difference.

You just can't help it, can you?

If the White House can go all rainbow coloured for same sex marriage (when they should of stayed neutral) then half-staff for this doesn't seem much of a stretch, Jesus!
I honesty don't get your President, he makes some very odd decisions as if he's trying to upset people. I've never known America in such turmoil (in my lifetime).

I honesty don't get you, you make some very odd decisions as if you're trying to upset people. I've never known AVP Galaxy in such turmoil (in my lifetime).


If you knew anything about U.S. politics you would not put the blame solely on Obama for the U.S. being in turmoil. The Congress is Republican, the Senate is Republican, the Supreme Court has a Republican majority -- and as we all know the Republicans were "infiltrated" (...more like incorporated) and taken over by the freaking Tea Party, which is an extremist right-wing party and organization with no qualms whatsoever.

Their representatives (now mainstream Republican) announced right of the bat that they would do anything to make sure that Obama wouldn't get anything done during his presidency, even if it means that regular Americans is going to suffer from it, because that's the patriot thing to do, right?

They have vilified him, they turned their back to their own ideas as soon as Obama wanted to incorporate them (see so called "Obamacare", which is originally a Republican, quite capitalist plan and alternative to the socialist universal healthcare that people in the center and on the left promoted for), shutting down the government TWICE - the list goes on. If Obama says that the sky is blue, the Repubs will be outraged, tell you that the sky is as RED as Obama's Muslim Kenyan Communist heart, and they will demand him to apologize and preferably resign for being so audacious and divisive!

I am not a huge Obama fan or supporter as I think he's been too meek and not tough enough, especially considering the rabid werewolves he knew he would have to deal with. And I think he is way too lax with Wall Street, big corporations, Israel lobby and the war hawks out there. But when it comes to social issues he is definitely one of the Top 10 American Presidents hands down.


Also, why should they have staid neutral when it comes to gay marriage? Please elaborate, I'm curious...

[whiterabbit]

Sure, cite the Korean War but don't talk about how Mr. Asshole MacArthur nearly made Nuclear Weapons conventional. So glad Truman sacked his ass before China got destroyed.

That was Curtis LeMay, MacArthur wanted to attack Chinese forces and drive them out of Korea. Yea that probably wasn't a good idea at the risk of an expanded war but North Korea would have been free and unified if he did, in hindsight. Turman was right to fire him however.

@SpreadEagleBeagle: You skate? and I don't even know what Jeffersons airplane is.

So when was the last time feminist tried to blow something up. I think people forget that feminist are still women, usually unattractive ones at that (well the ones in charge, any who) or without the traditionally assumed femininity but they are women non the less who form packs for comfort and protection. Societal definitions of beauty be damned, the proof is in the pudding and I don't mean Cosby's dick. Some of them of course want to rule the world and think that if they have enough followers that goal can be achieved. Yet the truth of the matter is that it's a minority philosophy with very vocal practitioners.

It's like a very fat women screaming that she is beautiful because she has really fat tits, no you're not.

The next time you see a feminist rally notice how the pretty ones love to go topless and give the ugly ones a firm handshake for a job well done. Go Go Feminism. Feminist really just want to be the dominate party in a relationship and you know what, they're plenty of guys that would love that but femis, you've gotta take care of yourself. Hot abs go both ways.

Now let me find an abrams tank to hide in because good god I'm going to get so much flak for this shit.   

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

@SpreadEagleBeagle: You skate?

Here and there. Not as much asI used to. Getting old and scared of hurting myself.

and I don't even know what Jeffersons airplane is.

...

So when was the last time feminist tried to blow something up. I think people forget that feminist are still women, usually unattractive ones at that (well the ones in charge, any who) or without the traditionally assumed femininity but they are women non the less who form packs for comfort and protection. Societal definitions of beauty be damned, the proof is in the pudding and I don't mean Cosby's dick. Some of them of course want to rule the world and think that if they have enough followers that goal can be achieved. Yet the truth of the matter is that it's a minority philosophy with very vocal practitioners.

It's like a very fat women screaming that she is beautiful because she has really fat tits, no you're not.

The next time you see a feminist rally notice how the pretty ones love to go topless and give the ugly ones a firm handshake for a job well done. Go Go Feminism. Feminist really just want to be the dominate party in a relationship and you know what, they're plenty of guys that would love that but femis, you've gotta take care of yourself. Hot abs go both ways.

Now let me find an abrams tank to hide in because good god I'm going to get so much flak for this shit.   

You're too witty and tongue-in-cheek to get mad at, and there is no malice in what you say, and in fact you're probably feminist and a proud one on top of that. You're just too smart to call yourself one 

[Hubbs]

@SpreadEagle...

The dude who just committed the shooting of military personnel in the US, he specifically targeted military personnel, he's a shooter and he's Muslim. I'm sorry if you think I'm being racist but in my book that's a terrorist with an agenda...a Muslim terrorist, and we all know about them. No point trying to play any kind of righteous justice warrior bs on it, it is what it is.


I think the White House should of remained neutral over the same sex marriage decision because they are the government, its not a good idea to take sides with such big decisions and piss off a huge section of your population. Whether or not you agree with that decision is up to the individual person, but the President and the White House should remain neutral, its just the professional thing to do. You now have masses of American's you are very upset over that decision (no national vote, no say) and upset with their government who they think has turned its back on them. I'm not saying I don't agree with the decision, but as a government you don't rub peoples faces in a huge decision like that, you don't see the Houses of Parliament doing that.

The Democrats have also possibly shot down their own Presidential chances next year too because most religious folk will probably now vote Republican in anger over that decision, and there is a lot of religious people in America! Also add to that all the pissed off people in the South and the Confederate flag business.



Take this, NYC major threatens Trump over his political views as he tries to jump on the tiresome liberal bandwagon. Yet he himself has come under fire because of his liberal governing of NYC and the fact its gone to hell (apparently).

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/20/news/trump-de-blasio-new-york-city-contracts/index.html?sr=fbmoney720nyctrump500story

To top that, all these companies are doing their usual righteous, knee-jerk reaction PR moves, yet Trump is apparently kicking ass in the polls! I doubt he'll win (presumably) but it just says a lot about the current feelings against liberal control. We have the same thing here in Europe and the EU, people are getting sick of all this namby pamby bs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-surges-to-big-lead-in-gop-presidential-race/2015/07/20/efd2e0d0-2ef8-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html?tid=sm_fb

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-presidential-race-donald-trump-leads-republican-field-as-ohio-governor-john-kasich-becomes-latest-contender-10405971.html

[PVTDukeMorrison]

SpreadEagleBeagle I have to ask because you bring it up at least once in practically every single post for the past few pages, are you scared of/hate white people?

I hope none of you guys/ladies have been having affairs, it may just come back to bite you in the ass 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ashley-madison-infamous-infidelity-website-target-of-data-hack-1.3159643

[Hubbs]

Obama is really making it too obvious now...

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/chattanooga-victims-white-house-flag-gop/

Seriously, this long?

[Shinawi]

Shark Attack Disrupts World Surf League Event

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shark-attack-disrupts-world-surf-103858370.html;_ylt=AwrXgiKYPq9VAncAXwTQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByYnR1Zmd1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

[whiterabbit]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/newly-released-dashcam-video-shows-sandra-bland-arrest-n396191

Oh man here we go again. Obvious how he dragged her off camera too.... and then as she was about to receive money for bail she is found dead via a plastic bag over the head in jail. Something smells.

[DoomRulz]

I'm not seeing much of it in action. It's there in sparse moments in YouTube and Facebook comments which is encouraging but given how pervasive feminism's influence is along with gynocentrism in general, it's unlikely to change anything.

You and I seem to live on two different planets, or more like, focusing on different things. I focus on the productive mainstream feminism, the down-to-earth everyday feminism that is the women's rights movement, whereas you focus on the crazies, vindictives and the opportunists, which is a loud but tiny part of the overall movement. Just like Islamists, the radical extremists of the movement want to be heard and are often the most vocal, and the people scared and hateful of the entire feminist movement, which is usually right-wingers, are more than happy to support that picture as it vilifies feminism as a whole. As whiterabbit said - it's the extremists that screws it all up. Being anti-feminist is the same as supporting right-wing sexists as well as the feminazis as it empowers them.

I don't know how many different ways I can say that the ones who matter are the extremists so I'm going to pass on this one.

Any why do you think that is exactly? It goes a bit beyond muh soggy knees, as you're probably thinking.

Yeah, wonder why? Could it be that any attempt of women organizing themselves, striving for equal rights and opportunity, have been fought hard and shot down before gaining traction. If it wasn't for women starting working during WWII and all that followed, the women's right movement would've been pretty bloody. Women showed men that they are just as capable as them and are more than just baby machines and pretty things for men to look at. Even so, the women's rights were always demonized and vilified by men and conservative women and always under fire, bad-mouthed and trash talked, doing everything to give it a bad name and burry it.

That's why.

That's a laugh. Is that why white, privileged c**ts like Emmeline Pankhurst were busy handing out white feathers as a symbol of cowardice to young men who refused to fight overseas? Sure, she was all for screaming and crying about "oppression" because she couldn't vote but blatantly ignored the fact that with the right to vote, came the responsibility of serving in the military. She was all for young boys and men (many of them living in poverty) dying needlessly overseas just so she could enjoy her cushy lifestyle, but not for actual equality which would have meant women fighting in the trenches. I'm guessing you didn't know that men and lots of them didn't have the right to vote because they came from poor families? Voting rights were tied to class status, not gender, unlike what modern history books tell us.

Credit where it's due: shouting at feminism and feminists is absolutely not the way to go about it. That's why I no longer label myself as an MRA or visit AVFM. It's all they ever seem to do. They're more interested in getting in shouting matches with feminists on Twitter or catching them in "Gotcha!" moments which go nowhere. So maybe you proved a feminist on the internet wrong about something. So what? Now what? Who cares? What have you done to help advance the cause of men? I'm more interested in tackling traditionalism and gynocentrism, the root cause of most of gender-related problems in my eyes.

Tradtitionalism? And how did those traditions, systems and structures come to be? Who enforced them? Who were in power?
Traditionalism is directly patriarchal since our civilization is patriarchal. Gynocentrism is the direct effect of women being ignored through most of our history except for being some kind of sub-human asset or device for men to control and toil with.

Human biology is where they came from. Men didn't choose it anymore than women did. It just happened. Women have not been ignored as much as you think. Women receive far more attention in every aspect of modern society from healthcare funding to market research to government treatment. Gynocentrism is the result of biology. Men are natural protectors (which is partially why men are considered disposable utilities) and we have a vested interested in protecting women from harm. Why? Because of the Golden Uterus. Women hold the keys to reproduction and we can't risk having them die en masse.

What you call patriarchy, I call traditionalism. Society operated the way it has for generations because they were born out of the biological need for survival, where men did the hunting and women did the nesting. Now, since we don't live in caves anymore, those gender roles don't mean much because both sexes need to do their fair share. The problem is that women (not feminists) aren't too keen on that whole "fair share" part. Everyday it seems like women are receiving some sort of handout to make their lives easier. And you may call me misogynistic, evil, patriarchal, whatever, I really don't care. When I hear about shit like hiring quotas or lowering the standards for women getting into the military or STEM fields, it makes me think that women aren't really interested in doing what it takes to succeed in life and would rather rely on Big Daddy government while shouting "I'M A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN". Feminists routinely push for that sort of thing because they aren't interested in equality. They want supremacy. As an example, forcing the military to lower their standards tells me that women just aren't as good as men. If a woman really can do anything a man can do and do it better like Gloria Steinem once said, what's with the handouts? Please tell me.

Parts of my paragraphs above apply for this as well.

Hiring quotas etc. are necessary to introduce a "minority" to a new field and to make the ball keep on rolling. It sounds really lame to men since we're used to do whatever we want to do - the world is ours.

Hiring quotas are dangerous and very short-sighted. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from working in any field he/she chooses, except perhaps the necessary resources to study in a given field before getting a particular job. Hiring quotas do not solve the problem. If anything, they only exacerbate it. That's why women aren't taken seriously in certain fields. Did they get that high-paying job because they legitimately earned it by working their ass off or because the company was forced to hire a less-than-qualified individual due to a government-imposed quota? How can I take a co-worker seriously and treat her as my equal when she received her position as a result of affirmative action? You tell me who's the bad guy here; me or the groups that push for quotas.

On this point, I also want to ask. What exactly is supposed to happen by getting more women into certain fields? I keep hearing we need more women here, there, everywhere, but no one has actually explained what the practical benefits are. If more women want to work in a certain field, fine, go right ahead. It makes no difference to me. But, for example, what does having more female doctors than male doctors accomplish in real terms? Does this somehow affect the quality of medicine or treatment that a patient receives?

And also, when they say we need more women, are they talking about white women? Black women? Asian women? What about trans women? And why is it only women? What about black men, or trans men, etc? This kind of logic is baffling.

Of course there is a limit to this as people will abuse it and we don't want standards to be too low. I'm not worried though, especially since there are tons of men, conservatives and even feminists out there who are very sceptic about the whole thing. It will level out eventually, at least as long as we continue working on equal rights and opportunity for all, and as women and minorities traditionally have had less rights and opportunities than (white) men, it is only natural that the focus should be on them reaching the same level of equality as (white) men.

But we do have equal opportunity! That is why we live in a meritocracy. If you work hard enough and take responsibility for your own actions and learn from your mistakes, you can go anywhere in life. Sitting in a corner and crying about how the world supposedly hates you isn't going to help your case.

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

@SpreadEagle...

The dude who just committed the shooting of military personnel in the US, he specifically targeted military personnel, he's a shooter and he's Muslim. I'm sorry if you think I'm being racist but in my book that's a terrorist with an agenda...a Muslim terrorist, and we all know about them. No point trying to play any kind of righteous justice warrior bs on it, it is what it is.

But when white right-wing extremists commit terrorist acts it's never labeled as such, which is just depressing as the absolute majority of terrorist attacks and acts here in the U.S. are committed by right-wing extremists; bomb attacks, assassination attempts, shootings, arson etc. against abortion clinics and doctors, black people and churches, ethnic and religious minorities, and even the fed.

But I guess it doesn't count if you're Christian and white, right?

If you're gonna label Chattanooga shooting as a terrorist attack then you should count the Charleston shooting as such as well.

I think the White House should of remained neutral over the same sex marriage decision because they are the government, its not a good idea to take sides with such big decisions and piss off a huge section of your population. Whether or not you agree with that decision is up to the individual person, but the President and the White House should remain neutral, its just the professional thing to do. You now have masses of American's you are very upset over that decision (no national vote, no say) and upset with their government who they think has turned its back on them. I'm not saying I don't agree with the decision, but as a government you don't rub peoples faces in a huge decision like that, you don't see the Houses of Parliament doing that.

What are you talking about? Here in the U.S. being married is more than just for fun. Marriage has a really heavy legal and financial function as simple partnership is not acknowledged. Before, if you're not married you get less tax benefits and such. If you're not married you're not guaranteed to inherit your partner if he/she dies. If you're not married and you have a non-U.S. citizen partner that partner can't get a spousal visa to move with you to the U.S. ...in other words, before the ruling, homoseuxals had less rights than hetrosexuals, i.e. they were treated as sub-citizens just because they were gay. That is a POLITICAL issue and a huge one and not just a matter of opinion.

The Democrats have also possibly shot down their own Presidential chances next year too because most religious folk will probably now vote Republican in anger over that decision, and there is a lot of religious people in America! Also add to that all the pissed off people in the South and the Confederate flag business.

So what's the alternative? Let intolerant people keep on pushing people down and keep on pretending that we're a democracy when in reality a large portion of American citizens are denied their rights? Shut up and suck it up to religious whackos and racist crackpots? I don't think so.

Take this, NYC major threatens Trump over his political views as he tries to jump on the tiresome liberal bandwagon. Yet he himself has come under fire because of his liberal governing of NYC and the fact its gone to hell (apparently).

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/20/news/trump-de-blasio-new-york-city-contracts/index.html?sr=fbmoney720nyctrump500story

NYC mayors, no matter party affiliation, usually mess up and are hypocrites. But compared to the bigoted blowhard buffoon Trump light-weight sleaze bag De Blasio can feel pretty good about himself, especially for being a NYC mayor. He's doing a hell of a job compared to the two Republican mayors before him, especially that opportunistic super creep Rudy Giuliani (remember, I grew up and lived most of my life in NYC).

To top that, all these companies are doing their usual righteous, knee-jerk reaction PR moves, yet Trump is apparently kicking ass in the polls! I doubt he'll win (presumably) but it just says a lot about the current feelings against liberal control. We have the same thing here in Europe and the EU, people are getting sick of all this namby pamby bs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-trump-surges-to-big-lead-in-gop-presidential-race/2015/07/20/efd2e0d0-2ef8-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html?tid=sm_fb

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-presidential-race-donald-trump-leads-republican-field-as-ohio-governor-john-kasich-becomes-latest-contender-10405971.html

He is doing "well" amongst the Republicans in the primary election where they're picking who is going to represent the GOP in the 2016 election. Even so, his numbers went down after starting puking bile over fellow Republican war hero John McCain. He is still the favorite even though he took a nosedive.

The Republican Party don't want Trump to be their presidential candidate because he is such an abrasive clown and a living joke. They know that NO swing voters and independents will vote for him, and he pretty much lost the entire Latino vote. Having him as their champion in the 2016 election, against any candidate, is suicide. He has no credibility. That's why other GOP candidates are taking every chance they have to shoot him down. They don't want him as he could possibly be the one killing the Republican Party.

Personally I would  a b s o l u t e l y  L O V E  it if he wins the Republican primaries! Can't wait for the constant stream of slurs and gaffes he's gonna unleash on us for us to laugh at, and the presidential debates are gonna be painfully entertaining... Might be the most hilarious election year in American history.

SpreadEagleBeagle I have to ask because you bring it up at least once in practically every single post for the past few pages, are you scared of/hate white people?

Is that a serious question or just some kind of joke?

[DoomRulz]

SpreadEagleBeagle I have to ask because you bring it up at least once in practically every single post for the past few pages, are you scared of/hate white people?

Dude, come on.

I hope none of you guys/ladies have been having affairs, it may just come back to bite you in the ass 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ashley-madison-infamous-infidelity-website-target-of-data-hack-1.3159643

That's funny in a sad way. Credit card info was targeted as I understand it but geez, there are a lot of lives about to be exposed.

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

I don't know how many different ways I can say that the ones who matter are the extremists so I'm going to pass on this one.

The ones that matter to you maybe.

That's a laugh. Is that why white, privileged c**ts like Emmeline Pankhurst were busy handing out white feathers as a symbol of cowardice to young men who refused to fight overseas? Sure, she was all for screaming and crying about "oppression" because she couldn't vote but blatantly ignored the fact that with the right to vote, came the responsibility of serving in the military. She was all for young boys and men (many of them living in poverty) dying needlessly overseas just so she could enjoy her cushy lifestyle, but not for actual equality which would have meant women fighting in the trenches. I'm guessing you didn't know that men and lots of them didn't have the right to vote because they came from poor families? Voting rights were tied to class status, not gender, unlike what modern history books tell us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qIndoWEkaU

What are you on? Are you saying that the reason feminism has a bad name is because of Emmeline Pankhurst?

Of course I knew that Doom. The women's right movement goes hand in hand with the workers' rights movement, and the civil rights movements and any other movement that is struggling for equality. All the different movements are in the end about class (class system) despite focusing on different groups in society. They're all organized to kick upwards instead of downwards or to the sides of the proverbial pyramid.

Human biology is where they came from. Men didn't choose it anymore than women did. It just happened. Women have not been ignored as much as you think. Women receive far more attention in every aspect of modern society from healthcare funding to market research to government treatment. Gynocentrism is the result of biology. Men are natural protectors (which is partially why men are considered disposable utilities) and we have a vested interested in protecting women from harm. Why? Because of the Golden Uterus. Women hold the keys to reproduction and we can't risk having them die en masse.

I'm not going to argue with that. But does that excuse the fact that women have been treated as sub-humans through most of history?

Hiring quotas are dangerous and very short-sighted. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from working in any field he/she chooses, except perhaps the necessary resources to study in a given field before getting a particular job. Hiring quotas do not solve the problem. If anything, they only exacerbate it. That's why women aren't taken seriously in certain fields. Did they get that high-paying job because they legitimately earned it by working their ass of or because the company was forced to hire a less-than-qualified individual due to a government-imposed quota? How can I take a co-worker seriously and treat her as my equal when she received her position as a result of affirmative action? You tell me who's the bad guy here; me or the groups that push for quotas.

Quotas should only be temporary measures to introduce minorities to different parts of societies. They should always be changing and mirroring societal needs. It should be one tool of many to level things out and not be some kind of static law written in stone. It goes both ways. Quotas for men to work as preschool or kindergarten teachers I'm all for. It's all about change gaining traction.

On this point, I also want to ask. What exactly is supposed to happen by getting more women into certain fields? I keep hearing we need more women here, there, everywhere, but no one has actually explained what the practical benefits are. If more women want to work in a certain field, fine, go right ahead. It makes no difference to me. But, for example, what does having more female doctors than male doctors accomplish in real terms? Does this somehow affect the quality of medicine or treatment that a patient receives?

That's not the point. It should feel just as possible and natural for women to go for any job they want as it is for men. We (men) are used to it and take it for granted that we can pretty much do whatever we want without being questioned because of our gender. We have countless male role models in any and every field. We're not systematically questioned and called incompetent just because we're men when we mess up. Women on the other hand still are.

And also, when they say we need more women, are they talking about white women? Black women? Asian women? What about trans women? And why is it only women? What about black men, or trans men, etc? This kind of logic is baffling.

Well, again, you believe that feminists are nazis that only care about women and hate men. I on the other hand say that feminism should, and is, encompasses all of that.

But we do have equal opportunity! That is why we live in a meritocracy. If you work hard enough and take responsibility for your own actions and learn from your mistakes, you can go anywhere in life. Sitting in a corner and crying about how the world supposedly hates you isn't going to help your case.

That's just a myth. We don't live in a meritocracy and we never did. But we're working on getting there one day, and feminism should, and is, a part of that progression and struggle. Sitting on your hands shutting up and just accepting the way things are won't do anything. Women would still not be able to vote, discrimination against homosexuals would still be accepted and different variations of slavery would still be around.

Dude, come on.

Dude, come on, what?