So Liberals...

[MattyT]

Feminism and liberalism are two forces that have turned this country into a shadow of its former self.

 

They've both destroyed the nuclear family, they've emasculated aggressive, go-get-em type young men in hopes of propping up women. They've changed the academic environment so that the playing field is undoubtedly tilted toward girls.

 

It's no wonder young men nowadays are so effed up. The system's built to make them that way ON PURPOSE.

 

Granted, when feminism first came about, it was a noble ambition. Women SHOULD be equal to men. But now, like Affirmative Action, it's gone too far in seeking to redress old percieved wrongs and it's caused more problems than it's fixed. And that, boys and girls, is why liberalism is a mistake. it hurts more than it helps.

738215[/snapback]

Jeebus! You're in rare form today.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Jeebus! You're in rare form today.

738221[/snapback]

 

I'm extra grouchy.

 

[GG]

Hell, feminism gave us Girls Gone Wild. Who's against that?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hell, feminism gave us Girls Gone Wild.  Who's against that?

738255[/snapback]

 

If it was my daughter, I would be

 

[Alaska Darin]

If it was my daughter, I would be

 

738256[/snapback]

So it's OK for women to act like whores, as long as they aren't related to you. Got it.

[GG]

So it's OK for women to act like whores, as long as they aren't related to you.  Got it.

738262[/snapback]

 

Maybe if they're stupid spoiled whores.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So it's OK for women to act like whores, as long as they aren't related to you.  Got it.

738262[/snapback]

 

Sure. My responsibility extends only to my daughter. Why should I raise someone else's daughters for them?

 

That's state nannyism at its finest.

 

Some clown wants his daughter to grow up to be a drunken slut, that's his problem not mine.

[Chilly]

Sure. My responsibility extends only to my daughter. Why should I raise someone else's daughters for them?

 

That's state nannyism at its finest.

 

Some clown wants his daughter to grow up to be a drunken slut, that's his problem not mine.

738395[/snapback]

 

omg I actually agree with you on something

 

Mark down 08/08/2006.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

omg I actually agree with you on something

 

Mark down 08/08/2006. 

738424[/snapback]

 

you can be taught! excellent!

[ExiledInIllinois]

self esteem doesn't have to be developed through coddling

 

if so, that's not the self esteem you want flowing through the nation

738131[/snapback]

 

Good point... But, it is...

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

Sure. My responsibility extends only to my daughter. Why should I raise someone else's daughters for them?

 

That's state nannyism at its finest.

 

Some clown wants his daughter to grow up to be a drunken slut, that's his problem not mine.

738395[/snapback]

 

Regardless of your particular political bent, conservative or liberal, the idea that the stupid behavior of others within your "community" doesn't have an impact on you is short sighted at best.

 

Where I live, 75% of the college graduates are women, 99% of the prison population is men. It is a "community of 100,000, we are on a pace to have well over 50 homicides this year (40 and counting this year, two more yesterday). I have no children, nor do I have much contact with the population segment that has most of the homicides. Does the above have negative impact on my qulaity of life?? Absolutely, in ways that are too numerous to mention in a posting on this forum.

 

I don't know what the answer is, I am not sure what the governments role is, but I believe the government does have A role to play in whatever solution hat is applied. I also think that etiology of these problems ("some clown wants his daughter to grow up to be a drunken slut that's his problem, not mine") si short sighted and is, in part, your problem.

[chicot]

Regardless of your particular political bent, conservative or liberal, the idea that the stupid behavior of others within your "community" doesn't have an impact on you is short sighted at best.

 

Where I live, 75% of the college graduates are women, 99% of the prison population is men.  It is a "community of 100,000, we are on a pace to have well over 50 homicides this year (40 and counting this year, two more yesterday).  I have no children, nor do I have much contact with the population segment that has most of the homicides.  Does the above have negative impact on my qulaity of life?? Absolutely, in ways that are too numerous to mention in a posting on this forum. 

 

I don't know what the answer is, I am not sure what the governments role is, but I believe the government does have A role to play in whatever solution hat is applied.  I also think that etiology of these problems ("some clown wants his daughter to grow up to be a drunken slut that's his problem, not mine") si short sighted and is, in part, your problem.

738930[/snapback]

 

Of course, the actions of others within the community has an effect on other members of the community. I fail to see, however, how whether or not someone chooses to bring up his daughter as a "drunken slut" is related to the murder rate.

[RickW]

Of course, the actions of others within the community has an effect on other members of the community. I fail to see, however, how whether or not someone chooses to bring up his daughter as a "drunken slut" is related to the murder rate.

738942[/snapback]

 

It could be the drunken slut's boyfriend that is in prison for murdering the "drunken slut-chasing" male(s) that he caught her with.

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

Of course, the actions of others within the community has an effect on other members of the community. I fail to see, however, how whether or not someone chooses to bring up his daughter as a "drunken slut" is related to the murder rate.

738942[/snapback]

 

It probably doesn't. My point was what you stated, I used JSP's statement as an example of the attitude that "what stupid people has no impact on me". It does. To put it simple english that PPP afficianodos will understand, stupidity needs to be controlled, or dealt with. If it isn't, your quality will suffer. Simplistic to posts are one of the less endearing parts of PPP, although I expected a better response from you.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It could be the drunken slut's boyfriend that is in prison for murdering the "drunken slut-chasing" male(s) that he caught her with.

738948[/snapback]

 

Could be she starts turning tricks and ends up with the wrong john dumping her body somewhere...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

To put it simple english that PPP afficianodos will understand, stupidity needs to be controlled, or dealt with.

738953[/snapback]

 

Ignorance needs to be dealt with. Stupidity is congenital.

[chicot]

It probably doesn't.  My point was what you stated, I used JSP's statement as an  example of the attitude that "what stupid people has no impact on me".  It does.  To put it simple english that PPP afficianodos will understand, stupidity needs to be controlled, or dealt with.  If it isn't, your quality will suffer.  Simplistic to posts are one of the less endearing parts of PPP, although I expected a better response from you.

738953[/snapback]

 

The problem was you chose a pretty bad example to make your point. Where would we be without drunken sluts?

 

I don't know how stupidity should be "controlled" or "dealt with". If laws are broken, then obviously the people involved should be prosecuted. If not, what are you going to do? I'm not sure that you can or should somehow pass legislation to deal with stupidity.

[RickW]

Could be she starts turning tricks and ends up with the wrong john dumping her body somewhere...

738994[/snapback]

 

Could be her father who kills the boyfriend that convices her to get the tramp stamp on her lower back (no offense to anyone, of course) that starts the whole drunk-slut thing to begin with. The combinations are endless.

[Orton's Arm]

<regis_philbin>

So Adolf, is that your final solution?

</regis_philbin>

736011[/snapback]

This has got to be the first time I've been called a hippie and Adolf on the same thread. When I realized this had happened, I envisioned Hitler wearing a tie-dyed shirt, shouting at Germans to make love, not war!

 

But despite your best intentions, you did manage to point out something useful--the fact that eugenic goals for governments are associated with the Nazis, and therefore are considered socially unacceptable.

 

This wasn't always the case. Before WWII, eugenics was embraced by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Chuchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University), H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and other intellectual luminaries. We now know that, given a basic standard of living and nutrition, intelligence is determined primarily through genetics.

 

Despite this scientific support, the theory is considered socially unacceptable. New social conventions were established in the aftermath of WWII. People were shown ghastly video footage of starving concentration camp inmates, and were told that Jews unfit to work had been gassed to death. They were told they must reject all things Nazi, in order to prevent similar tragedies from taking place in the future.

 

However, the Nazis had many beliefs. Because people weren't informed about non-Nazi genocides, and because they hadn't been taught critical thinking skills, they were unable to isolate the specific factors that lead to genocide. I'll mention four other genocidal acts: the marches of Sherman and Sheridan, the Ukrainian famine, the extermination of the Tibetans, and tribally-based genocide in Africa. During the Civil War, Union generals Sherman and Sheridan marched through the South, destroying whatever food supplies they could lay their hands on. In addition, they burned down people's homes; thereby letting the civilian populace die of hunger and exposure and disease. Far from being motivated by any theory of racial supremacy, the victims were the same race as the perpetrators. The Ukrainian famine and the Tibetan extermination effort took place because the communist governments in question had established hostile relationships with specific ethnic groups. Not only do communist governments reject the idea the government should be improving the gene pool; they even reject the concept that one's genes have anything to do with one's potential. So strong was this belief the Soviet Union suppressed research into genetics. As for the tribally-based killings in Africa, it's doubtful the governments and rebel groups responsible had formulated any systemic view of heredity.

 

So what opens the door to genocide? All government types are capable of it, including Western democracies (the Union during the Civil War), communist governments, and traditional Third World dictatorships. Moreover, governments with very different ideas about heredity--including a dogmatic rejection of the concept--engaged in genocide. The common thread among the four genocides I mentioned is that the governments in question were hostile towards specific ethnic or cultural groups. To prevent nearly all genocides, all you have to do is to ensure governments don't rule over groups of people towards whom they feel hostile. Would this maxim have prevented the Nazis' concentration camps? Absolutely. It would also have prevented countless genocides that had nothing to do with Nazism.

 

The Nazis believed in physical fitness. But if you join the local gym, nobody warns you about getting on a slippery slope that will someday end in a gas chamber. Nobody tells you that by embracing something the Nazis also embraced, you become like them. Well, maybe Mike Williams feels this way about physical exercise.

 

Eugenics is the same way. There's nothing wrong with giving smart people big tax breaks or other incentives to have more kids. There's nothing wrong with the government creating financial incentives to discourage stupid people from having kids. Such actions are reasonable, prudent, and humane. They are also vitally necessary.

 

Some would say that while these measures may be reasonable in themselves, they represent a slippery slope. That argument doesn't hold water with me. The fact of the matter is we're already on a slippery slope. As the quality of the gene pool declines, our political system becomes increasingly vulnernable to demagoguery. The two most recent presidents--Clinton and W--are demagogues. As long as the genetic decline at the root of this problem continues, its symptoms will inexorably worsen.

[Alaska Darin]

TD's picks in rounds 3 - 7

 

2001 picks: no current starters

2002 picks: no current starters

2003 picks: Angelo Crowell (3rd round), Terrence McGee (4th round)

2004 picks: no current starters

2005 picks: no current starters

 

742104[/snapback]

Belichick/Pioli picks in Rounds 3-7

2001: No current starters

2002: No current starters

2003: Asante Samuel (5th Round)

2004: No current starters

2005: Nick Kaczur (3rd round)

 

Your football is as ridiculous as your politics. Didn't think that was possible.