The Politics Thread [Archive]

KKOB

12-03-2008, 02:03 PM

Nothing is certain at this point, but when it goes all the way to the Democratic convention and Hillary wins it without the greater number of elected delegates, that's going to greatly undermine both her and her party. She needs to score the popular vote before then, or submit to Obama. All this legal wrangling over the previously ignored Florida vote isn't helping things either.

As for the budget, I'm glad to see the increases in winter fuel and child benefits. The alcahol tax increases, freeze in fuel duty and reduced growth outlook suggest an awareness and realism about the thinking behind it. Wish he had taxed plastic bags though.

What David Cameron said was right, we should've paid off the debt the government is in when we had years of growth and surplus money. But hey ho, we're here now.

Has anyone else noticed how anti-Hillary the internet is. Seriously, on digg, there is never an anti-Obama story and always 3 anti-Clinton ones. If it does go down down to conference, which it is likely to, the republicans will be at an advantage as McCain's people will have a more unified party and a presidential election campaign plan.

I couldn't stand it if McCain became president, he's almost as dumb as Bush, and seems to be just as gun totting, and a puppet for party members hiding behind the scenes. The US needs a democratic leader, and i hope they get one.

Noodleman

12-03-2008, 02:55 PM

I couldn't stand it if McCain became president, he's almost as dumb as Bush, and seems to be just as gun totting, and a puppet for party members hiding behind the scenes. The US needs a democratic leader, and i hope they get one.

While I havent really been following it that much thats just simply not true. He really isnt gun totting in the slightest, hes probably the most liberal republican American candiate ever. heck the NRA dont even like him.

"The National Rifle Association gave McCain a 'C' grade (fair) as of 2004,[177] and the Gun Owners of America gives a lifetime 'D-' (very near failing) grade for 2000 through 2006"

Thats not to say I want him to win, tbh I dont really care as long as its not Hilldawg. Everytime I have heard her speak I have cringed and felt embaressed for her. Offering Obama the vice presidency when he is ahead iof her in the poles just reaks of desperation to me.

Monopolyman

12-03-2008, 02:58 PM

A politics thread, eh? I would have though that each political story would warrant it's own thread, but I'll bite. I like talking about this stuff anyway.

The budget, IMO, seems quite fair, but I have to agree with Cameron on this one. Britain's economy is quite quickly falling. House prices keep dropping, mortgages are rising, banks are not getting enough customers and ultimately, people are spending less and less; and adding on taxes like Darling did certainly isn't helping.

It's not exactly an easy problem to get around. I just think the government should really get there areses into gear and have a big think about it.

As for the Democratic primaries, it's not going to get resolved until the Pennsylvania primary. If Obama wins there, he has the nomination locked, but if Clinton wins, it'll go down to the super-delegates, which I think Clinton might just edge.

Obama is ahead in Pennsylvania, though.

yoyo

12-03-2008, 07:12 PM

OK ATTENTION!

I know most of you probably don't care, but i'm in deep shit.

I have an As-level english debate tomorrow, the school screwed up and we only have had since monday to do it. I should be able to blag it, but can some people please give me some points to work with? I have to argue that:

"The reason there is so much focus on American Politics in the British media is due to UK politics being boring."

I know nothing of politics! I should be able to blag it a bit, but can someone give me some points that I might be able to stretch out?

Thanks a million,

YoYo

Slaggis

12-03-2008, 07:17 PM

I really hope Obama goes into power. I would hate another Clinton in the white house. Give someone else a chance to better America, Jeez.

The fish

12-03-2008, 07:19 PM

Obama for president!

David Cameron should be shot, and Gordan Brown is just too dull to listen too (at the mo, Lib Dems are where it's at, as Gaggle will agree).

Slaggis

12-03-2008, 07:22 PM

Obama for president!

David Cameron should be shot, and Gordan Brown is just too dull to listen too (at the mo, Lib Dems are where it's at, as Gaggle will agree).

The political system in this country blows. They should just get rid of all the parties and start again, because they all blatently suck. And I agree with you on the whole David Cameron/Gordan Brown thing, they're both terrible.

MoogleViper

12-03-2008, 07:33 PM

I think it's time people woke up and stopped voting for labour and conservatives.

Platty

12-03-2008, 07:47 PM

I don't really get too involved in politics except for voting. I'm also not allowed to due to my job. But all I know is he has put 4p on my beer god dammit!

We got London Mayor vote coming up and I hate Ken so much im gonna vote for that bungling idiot Boris instead. However there is a candidate running from the "get rid of the congestion charge party" who may get my vote. Wasted vote but funny.

ipaul

12-03-2008, 08:38 PM

The one thing that concerns me with the current US election is the media turning it into a stupid battle of characters rather than what the representatives actually stand for. I'm sure people may just vote for Obama because he is black and not have looked at any policies he has given, or that anyone else has. If McCain wins in November it will clearly be thought or made out to be that it is not because america thought he would make the better president, but because they are racist/sexist. I have not looked at any of their policies or whatever and consequently I have no preference for any candidate at the moment, but I think alot of people seem to be missing the point due to the prospect of a black president. Which is seems kind of ironic to be honest /rant over :heh:

KKOB

12-03-2008, 08:46 PM

Obama's record of bills passed and bills that have been passed that he has created is very good, and a much longer list than Clintons i believe.

LazyBoy

12-03-2008, 09:36 PM

The fish

12-03-2008, 09:41 PM

I hate to sound like the Donkey from Animal Farm, but nothing will change in America. Whoever wins, health care will stay privatised, military spending will still take precedence over everything else and the second amendment will remain.

Actually, Obama is very, very pro-gun control. The NRA have given him an F rating, "an enemy of all gun owners and their rights". :heh:

LazyBoy

12-03-2008, 09:44 PM

Actually, Obama is very, very pro-gun control. The NRA have given him an F rating, "an enemy of all gun owners and their rights". :heh:

He could publicly denounce anyone who had ever owned a gun and i'd still be sure nothing would change. There may be a few tighter restrictions, but you'll still be able to go out and buy one with a hamburger.

The fish

12-03-2008, 09:47 PM

He could publicly denounce anyone who had ever owned a gun and i'd still be sure nothing would change. There may be a few tighter restrictions, but you'll still be able to go out and buy one with a hamburger.

You need a license to buy a hamburger in Vermont? You do to buy a firearm.

LazyBoy

12-03-2008, 09:49 PM

You need a license to buy a hamburger in Vermont? You do to buy a firearm.

That should be true. May help their obesity rate. Then again if was anything as easy to get as a gun license then maybe not.

ipaul

13-03-2008, 09:09 PM

While this thread is here, which 'wing' are people on politically? I really am not sure where I fit in =S

Pete

13-03-2008, 10:28 PM

I don't really get too involved in politics except for voting. I'm also not allowed to due to my job. But all I know is he has put 4p on my beer god dammit!

We should thank our lucky stars its only 4p!

Before the budget when over my parents I picked the paper my parents get a couple of times (the daily mirror-usless rag but i digress ;) ) and they were running stories about cheap drink and of course the problems that 'go with' it, IE chav scummers booze d up and City Centre yobs (the latter always there, always omni present if the papers are beleved :rolleyes: )
(To parapharse the Mirror 'Crates of Carlsberg from tescos that equate to 6p a can discusting!', £1 for a G&T at Weatherspoon evil!'-(Ah yes Mirror, G&T the choice drink of middle aged woman everywhere, the scouge of our land :rolleyes:).

Now what this boiled down to is the paper wanted a higher tax/or higher pricing on booze (and I dont think they just meant tennents super stength here) to help combat its ills, of course completely glossing over the fact this idea also punishs the majority of all drinkers over 18 that just enjoy a drink or (god forbid) a few and dont cause any bother at all.

Taxes effect the rich less of course, I wonder what the average salary of a fleet street Reporter is? hmm

God forbid we get a drink without paying though the nose for it!

Of course the paper suggesting harsher punishments for those who cause trouble on drink or greater powers for the police must have been too fair an idea for them.

This may not seem to be the most important thing to put so much thought into but never under estimate how much power media has in/over politics that can effect us all.

Jesus right now im glad I dont drive ;)

MoogleViper

13-03-2008, 10:34 PM

'Crates of Carlsberg from tescos that equate to 6p a can

6p a can? Since when?

Pete

13-03-2008, 10:37 PM

6p a can? Since when?

I read this a couple of weeks ago but as it was in the paper it's proberbly shite anyway ;) .

MoogleViper

13-03-2008, 10:50 PM

I read this a couple of weeks ago but as it was in the paper it's proberbly shite anyway ;) .

What the beer or the story? :D

Pete

13-03-2008, 10:50 PM

I'm glad to see the increases in winter fuel and child benefits.

Same, My friend.

What the beer or the story? :D

Haha the story. Carlsberg rules of course mate.

fex

13-03-2008, 10:54 PM

Vote me into Power! I will make this country the bees knees. I am harsh but fair.
________
Walmart Gift Cards (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/walmart-gift-cards/)

McPhee

13-03-2008, 11:03 PM

I think it's time people woke up and stopped voting for labour and conservatives.

But people like to vote for the winning party! It gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside to think that they guessed right :p

I must admit though, i did like Blair. He was the only inspirational political leader we've had in the past 15-20 years. The only other person i've thought of as worth voting for is Charles Kennedy. I was really annoyed with the way the media dragged him through the gutter for being an alcoholic.

It's pretty symbolic of why so few people go in to politics these days, you're under payed, over worked and at the end of the day the media trudge through you're personal life and rip it to pieces. Much better and safer to work you're way up the corporate ladder, you get payed more, the company look after you and nobody cares what you do outside of 9-5 Monday-Friday.

IMO this country is in desperate need of an inspirational political leader, the whole system needs a good shake up. Unfortunately who's left to do that? The names are pretty thin on the ground...

Mikey

13-03-2008, 11:05 PM

Fuck the state.

Go libertarian.

MoogleViper

13-03-2008, 11:07 PM

Pete

13-03-2008, 11:17 PM

Vote me into Power! I will make this country the bees knees. I am harsh but fair.

;) Ok you have my vote.

The fish

13-03-2008, 11:19 PM

Fuck the state.

Go libertarian.

Libertarianism is flawed, as people are always closed in by their choices by their morals, which, to an extent, are influenced by their upbringing.

McPhee

14-03-2008, 12:08 AM

Well the Media have quite a large influence on how the country is run. All of the retarded fuckwits spouting out what the tabloids print as if it's their own views. When they clearly haven't had their own views since the day they stopped reading The Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar.

Agree completely. To be honest it's the freedom of the media that is ruining British politics. The media has it's own agenda, both political and financial and due to them being stupidly powerfull in this country they have way too much influence on policy.

I've never understood why so many people don't trust politicians yet trust the papers. At the end of the day the politicians are doing what they think is right for the country, they have no other agenda (bar a certain amout of personal ambition). They make mistakes, but they're hearts are usually in the right place.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 12:15 AM

Much better having free will than the alternative we have now. Fathers not being able to see their kids because of the state says no when it's none of their fucking business, ideolgies being enforced instead of being a choice. Free will is gone, and has been replaced by the bully state telling every one what they can and can't do.

Lefties particulary piss me off. They love the state and want to use it as a weapon to bully everyone to go along with any horse shit they come up with.

Fuck them.

Need to mind their own fucking business.

Back off state.

Pete

14-03-2008, 12:30 AM

The media has it's own agenda, both political and financial and due to them being stupidly powerfull in this country they have way too much influence on policy.

Bang on the mark sir.

Much better having free will than the alternative we have now. Fathers not being able to see their kids because of the state says no when it's none of their fucking business, ideolgies being enforced instead of being a choice. Free will is gone, and has been replaced by the bully state telling every one what they can and can't do.

Lefties particulary piss me off. They love the state and want to use it as a weapon to bully everyone to go along with any horse shit they come up with.

Fuck them.

Need to mind their own fucking business.

Back off state.

I agree with this a lot as well.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 12:45 AM

Unfortunately, the state is a needed evil. But people who love free will must try to keep it as small as possible. The state should only be there to serve and protect people, when it comes to anything else, it needs to keep its mouth shut.

The state can't possibly be impartial, because the people in charge always have their own shitty agenda. So what's the next best thing? Limited government, and people having more freedom to sort out their personal affairs.

ipaul

14-03-2008, 12:52 AM

Lefties particulary piss me off. They love the state and want to use it as a weapon to bully everyone to go along with any horse shit they come up with.
.

Wait....are your views not fairly 'left wing' :wtf: Unless I am missing something here, I feel I am =/

Mikey

14-03-2008, 01:04 AM

Lefties love using the state to bully people to go along with their ideology. This is why I can't stand them.

As for my views. Well they're irrelevant. I don't want to use those state thugs to enforce my opinions like liberals do. Feminism is a disease in my opinion, yet the state enforces its shite on this country. Yet me, as a massive anti feminist, wouldn't want the state to make it illegal. Leave it as a choice, then whether or not it's right or wrong doesn't matter.

Liberals won't have that though, they just love to use the state to force people to go along with it.

Sanchez

14-03-2008, 01:29 AM

So Mikey under your libertarian wonder government what would you dispose of?
Would you keep the NHS?

Mikey

14-03-2008, 09:27 AM

Not too sure on the NHS. Part of me think it'd be better to scrap it, and have every one to pay for it theirselves. People who couldn't afford it could then be helped by private charities. Another part of me thinks it should be free on demand, because no one asks to be sick, so why should they have to pay to get better?

I'd definitely rid of ideology being taught in schools. When I was in school, I was taught that racism and such is bad. There's nothing really wrong with that message, but it shouldn't be taught in school. If I was a parent who was a racist, or homophobic, I wouldn't want the state to go against me by teaching my child the opposite. Unfortunately you are pretty much forced to make your child to go school, or you're put in prison and your child is taken away from you. So the bully state has you either way.

I'd most definitely get rid of government funded battered women's shelters. They're a breeding ground for lying feminists and their ideology being funded by the tax payer. In their place I'd have privately funded shelters for battered people who genuinely need them.

I'd most definitely rid of alimony and other horse shit like child custody. Marriage is none of anyone's business apart from the 2 people who entered the union. The state should not be able to come in and steal your money away and give it to some bitch who can easily run off, with your child, your money and your house. Most men want to do the decent thing and support their children, the state shouldn't be having any sort of a say in what capacity.

I'd let people who have their own business be able to discriminate against anyone they like. If a business owner doesn't want to hire gays, women, black people or some other designated victim status group, then it should be their right to do so. It's their business, no one elses, and after they pay their tax, they should be able to run their business anyway they want (within reason). Fortunately, discriminating isn't good for business, and businesses that would do it would lose money.

Prostitution should be legal for sure. Anything that happens between two consenting people which nature has deemed ready to make babies is none of anyone elses business. The state needs to keep its nose out of people's sex lives.

killthenet

14-03-2008, 09:45 AM

I agree with Mikey on every point, well almost every point. On the subject of the NHS I think it would be better if the Government took the stance that anyone who falls ill is liable to be beaten senseless by the local community. It allows people to see where their taxes are going and also forms a strong community bond.

If you incorporated that into your premiership i'd happily tag along.

BlueStar

14-03-2008, 09:46 AM

There certainly seems to be a surge of rebellious sixth formers who've decided to try their hand at anarcho-capitalism and declare themselves liberatarians on message boards. I preferred it when libertarians simply bought enough weapons and canned food for a small country, made a complex with their followers out of reach of government mind-control rays (this bit is easier if you let them believe you're some kind of messiah figure) then waited for the FBI and ATF to come along and ask why you've made up your own currency, you've not paid taxes for 5 years and you're mixing up semtex in your bath, so everyone can have a good old fashioned barney.

"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" - Chompsky

killthenet

14-03-2008, 09:50 AM

Yeah, but then you'd just get WACO shit over and over and over again.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 10:02 AM

BlueStar

14-03-2008, 10:03 AM

Horse shit. Libertarians generally believe that a people's rights end where another person's starts. The state are the tyrants. Protect my body, and my possessions, after that, the state needs to go and get fucked.

Like I say, off you go - grab some guns and some of those dollars with Ron Paul's face on and fight the power, comrade.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 10:05 AM

Whatever, little man. If you want the state to decide everything for you, go ahead, I don't though, and I refuse to support a state which restricts my natural freedoms.

BlueStar

14-03-2008, 10:18 AM

You're welcome to think that. Get a tattoo about it if you like, that will show the Man. Libertarianism is up there with other flavours of anarchism and utopian communism in "Wooly headed rebellious idealism which never has a cat in hells chance of working anywhere in the world land". Which is a good thing, because like some opposition parties the wack-job conspiracy nut anarchists who pretend it's some kind of legitimate political position (Libertarian politicians are hilarious, you might as well declare yourself a vegetarian butcher) can bang on and on about how great it will be without any danger of actually having to put it to the test and exposing the fatal flaws which a five year old could have pointed out in its very basis.

You also find that people who are very vocal about people being able to do whatever they want without impacting on others tend to think of all the great things they'll be able to do and the freedoms they'll be able to have when they're going their own way without need for support or 'oppression' from the Man. Delve deeper and you tend to find they're not too happy about some people they don't like having similar freedoms (something they've not thought about as much in their freedom fighting euphoria) and start making tenuous connections to how this impacts on them - For instance 'Libertarians' who are against gay marriage because they claim it 'devalues' their own marriage and thereby infringes on their personal rights.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 10:38 AM

You're so full of shit. I've already said the state is a needed evil, it should just be limited in its influence. Much better having something like the state limited, and giving people choices, than having a big government like we have now ruling over the country giving people no choice at all.

Liberals are so full of shit.

Who in the fuck are the state to tell me when I can and can't see my own children? Who in the hell are the state to tell me how I can and can't support my family? Who in the hell do the state think they are making paying for sex illegal? These are all personal affairs which they have no business in. Need to mind their own fucking business.

I wouldn't bring communism in to this. Liberalism and communism are both totalitarian. At least with the libertarian way, ideology wouldn't be forced on people.

BlueStar

14-03-2008, 11:01 AM

Pete

14-03-2008, 12:50 PM

Lefties love using the state to bully people to go along with their ideology. This is why I can't stand them.

Lefties love using the state to bully people to go along with their ideology. This is why I can't stand them.

Also its seems to me that before it was the same crap but from a far more right wing adgenda from the conservatives. Now you have lefties that push binked OTT attiutdes regards racism (rather than laws/atttiudes to protect all now all you hear time and again is about laws that seem to be completely biased in atttitude and balance against white people (I am NOT racist (it is WRONG) but I feel this the case with the LAW -see positive discrimination) the environment (now im in two minds on this one but hey I know if your a motorist your going to be paying even more to drive, like to smoke and drink as well (like me)? bet you loved the budget! ;) ) and imirgration, now this is not a people issue for me either, its an issue of being far too liberal in our imigaration policies in a country with finate resourses. You should sort out the economy of your own country (and im sorry but YES look after your own first) before letting in new imigrants (we are not fully complete back on feet after 18 yrs of tory rule -were getting there IMO but were not there yet).

There areas of great poverty and unenployment still the UK where high amounts of imigrants have been re populated (or so is my understanding) I dont know how anyone can think this to be a good thing. Its not about the people, its about the circumstance.

I voted labour in 1997 and thought left wing thinking was the only way to think, now I see why its not.

fex

14-03-2008, 02:07 PM

Hi Guys and Girls!

I really need your help. My Dad has started a petition against MPs from employing their family members. And I said I would help spread the word and get people interested.

Basically, whats happening is that members of parliament are employing their own family / relations and paying their family members out of the tax payers money. So we are getting fiddled by our own government. It's for a good cause and I'm just trying to get the message out there for my Dad. So please give the petition a quick sign, it takes less time than reading this does, and its for a good cause!

To sign the petition please Click Here! (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/employingfamily/)
________
Big Brother Dicussion (http://www.tv-gossip.com/big-brother/)

Mikey

14-03-2008, 02:17 PM

Of course libertarian ideology will be forced on people, the changes will have to be enforced against the will of people who are against them and there will have to be powers in force to prevent people forming what the paranoid nutters in ultimate control would consider a 'state', either on a national or regional level.

In spite of the political differences, the fanciful idea everyone will muck in and make a lovely land where no-one needs welfare because of all the sunny happy people will help out the poor and homeless with their new charities is certainly a bedfellow of communism, it's just the means of achieving it which is different. The ultimate (and unachievable) aim of communism is that once the utopian society is reached there will be no need for the state any more so it will dismantle. The totalitarian revolutionary government is supposedly only there on a tempory basis until this is reached.

The reality of true libertarianism would be small gated communities of the incredibly rich with private services (especially security), and 90% of the county a chaotic ghetto with no power, water, law or order in permanent state civil war between a threadbare, underfunded police force, corrupt vigilantes and drug gangs. But like I say, there's no point arguing about it because the entire idea of a libertarian Britain is a fantasy.

EDIT: Just to add I've found an alarming number of 'libertarians' who are pro-death penalty. I find it quite strange that these people who supposedly want a minimalist, powerless, skeleton state also want the current (Evill, corrupt, oppressing, all-powerful etc) state to have to power over life and death, placing it in a bucket alongside such freedom loving, hands-off states as China, Iran and Saudia Arabia...

No, libertarian ideology wouldn't be forced on anyone, it is freedom from forced ideology. It's minimal government, giving people as much freedom as reasonably possible. That's the entire point. Liberalism and other ideologies are forced on people by the state, regardless of whther we agree or not. Liberarians don't want to stop people from being liberal or conservative if they want, they just leave it up to personal choice.

As for pure libertarianism, well I'm not for that anyway. Most liberarians just want the state to mind their own business when it comes to choices we make at home. Like I've said before, the state is a needed evil.

As for the charities, well it would be up to people if they fund them or not. That's the point, it's choice. If you look at charities today which aren't government funded, they do well without being funded by the state. So there's no reason why welfare and such can't be privatized.

As for the death penalty, I am against it in ALL cases, even for the likes of Hitler.

Also its seems to me that before it was the same crap but from a far more right wing adgenda from the conservatives. Now you have lefties that push binked OTT attiutde regards racism (rather than laws/atttiudes to protect all now hear time and again about when those laws seem to be completely biased in atttitude and balance against white people (I am NOT racist (it is is WRONG) but I feel this the case with the LAW -see positive discrimination) the enviroment (now im in two minds on this one but hey I know motorist your going to be paying even more to drive, like to smoke and drink as well (like me)? bet you loved the budget! ;) ) and imigration, now this is not a people issue for me either its an issue of being toofar to liberal in our imigaration policies in a country with finate resourses. You should sort out the economy of your own country (and im sorry but YES look after your own) before letting in new imigrants (we are not fully complete back on feet after 18 yrs of tory rule -were getting there IMO but were not there yet).

There areas of great poverty and unenployment still the UK were high amounts of imigrants have been re populated (or so is my underatanding) you this cant be a good thing. Its not about the people, its about the circumstance.

I voterd labour in 1997 and thought left wing thinking was the noly way to think, now I see why its not.

Hmm lots of type o's there gotta go back my job now though so ill edit em later. Its still readably folks. dashs off...

Yes, I'm not a massive fan of the right either. Neither the left or right wing should have the right to force their ideology on people with the bully state.

Found these funny pics of Hitlery Clinton.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Unmasked-X.gif

http://www.irregulartimes.com/hillarycommunist.jpg

The fish

14-03-2008, 05:32 PM

Liberals are so full of shit.

Who in the fuck are the state to tell me when I can and can't see my own children? Who in the hell are the state to tell me how I can and can't support my family? Who in the hell do the state think they are making paying for sex illegal? These are all personal affairs which they have no business in. Need to mind their own fucking business.

In order - how am I full of shit, do they really, you can support your family by any legal method and prostitution puts women in massive amounts of danger.

Oh, and the kids thing, their safety is the state's business.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 06:10 PM

Most people would die for their children as it is. Children are now state property, and take them away as they see fit just on the advice of scum bag social workers. It should be up to the mother and father to decide what's right for their own kids, no one else. These days the unfairly state rips fathers away from their kids, and to a much lesser extent their mothers. The only time the state should even get involved, is if someone is seriously abusing their children. When it comes to things liek who should get custody, the state shouldn't even get any sort of a say unless one parent is blatantly abusive.

Prostitution is no one else's business other than the seller and buyer. The state has no business telling women they can't sell their bodies, and the state has no business telling men they can't pay for it. Tyrants. They can't stop it anyway, all they can do is intimidate people to go along with what ever they decide.

I watched a TV show the other night, and some guy and a paid whore were on the show. Some thug police officer came poking his nose in where it wasn't welcome. They said if he wanted to keep his liberty, he shouldn't visit any more sluts. I almost choked with laughter.

McPhee

14-03-2008, 06:10 PM

In order - how am I full of shit, do they really, you can support your family by any legal method and prostitution puts women in massive amounts of danger.

Oh, and the kids thing, their safety is the state's business.

It's all down to freedom of choice though isn't it? And they way things are going that will become very limited. Everything that could cause harm to someone is slowly being made illegal, we're being wrapped up in cotton wool just in case we get hurt.

The question is: why? Life is about risks, not sitting in front of some TV screen rotting you're mind to mush.

I'd like to see the government pull back on Social and Civil affairs and concentrate on Crime. We should be free to make our own choices as long as it doesn't impose upon the human rights of others.

DomJcg

14-03-2008, 06:34 PM

MY thoughts on the matter

Mikey should live in America

Libertarianism is what Thatcher was,

yay clinton

Mikey

14-03-2008, 07:58 PM

Communist, man hating Hitlery? Yeah, nice one.

The fish

14-03-2008, 08:11 PM

Mikey should live in America

Libertarianism is what Thatcher was,

yay clinton

Seconded, that makes it even worse, and you shall be beaten with a stick, respectively.

Most people would die for their children as it is. Children are now state property, and take them away as they see fit just on the advice of scum bag social workers. It should be up to the mother and father to decide what's right for their own kids, no one else. These days the unfairly state rips fathers away from their kids, and to a much lesser extent their mothers. The only time the state should even get involved, is if someone is seriously abusing their children. When it comes to things liek who should get custody, the state shouldn't even get any sort of a say unless one parent is blatantly abusive.

Ok, home school your kids, and if a parent thinks that a child should be allowed to hurt others, that doesn't make it right.

As for the second bold bit, they don't, really, they just mediate. Parents in a broken family are unlikely to see eye to eye, so it's actually a good think.

Prostitution is no one else's business other than the seller and buyer. The state has no business telling women they can't sell their bodies, and the state has no business telling men they can't pay for it. Tyrants. They can't stop it anyway, all they can do is intimidate people to go along with what ever they decide.

Why don't they have any business in it? If they legalise it, it makes it easier for some nutjob to pick up a woman, and kill/rape her.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 08:53 PM

You're twisting things.

Not every one can home school well enough, or has the time to. The only alternative is public schooling, maybe private schooling if you have the money. Either way, they have no right to be teaching kids about ideology in tax funded schools.

The government coming in and deciding who can have the kids is a joke. They almost always go for the woman regardless, and then the father has to beg for the right to see his own kids on the state's terms. If things were left to both parents, then whoever is the caring, driven, smartest and most dominant would take control of the children more often than not. The state has no idea what goes on behind a family's front door, and can't possibly give a well informed decision on the matter. Also, again, it's none of their business.

Yes, prostitution should be legalized. It's sex between 2 consenting adults for god sake. There's a risk in everything you do, and who the hell are the state to tell women whether or not they can or not take the risk? Also, the men fucking the sluts are also taking the risk of getting STDs. As long as they know the risk involved before going in to it, they should be left to it.

I find it ridiculous saying it'd make it easier to kill or rape them. The thug police couldn't possibly stop it happening either way. All the thug police can do is try to catch the criminal after the crime has been committed. Everytime a woman walks down the street she risks something happening to her. As do men. Any man at any time could be accused of rape by a woman, yet are we going to tell men to stop interacting with women? Of course not.

The fish

14-03-2008, 09:08 PM

Everytime a woman walks down the street she risks something happening to her. As do men.

If you can't tell the difference in levels of vulnerability between walking down the street and standing at night on your own being willing to be taken elsewhere by someone, then I'd say there was something wrong with you. :indeed:

On a more serious note, it's treating bodies as commodities, which hasn't been done legally here since 1833 which is the issue here, not to mention that, if legalised, it would create a boom in sex trafficking.

The government coming in and deciding who can have the kids is a joke. They almost always go for the woman regardless, and then the father has to beg for the right to see his own kids on the state's terms. If things were left to both parents, then whoever is the caring, driven, smartest and most dominant would take control of the children more often than not. The state has no idea what goes on behind a family's front door, and can't possibly give a well informed decision on the matter. Also, again, it's none of their business.

Two of my (unrelated) friends have separated parents. In one case, the mother has the kids, as the father is a psycho who would hit both her and the children, and in the other, the state suggested the chosen solution, in which the mother keeps the children, and they visit their father every other weekend.

The first example reminds me - you're being too general with these "The state has no idea what goes on behind a family's front door, and can't possibly give a well informed decision on the matter" statements. If a father is proved to be hitting his kids, then, well, it's proved, so they then "know", and it's fairly easy to make an informed decision on those grounds...

Mikey

14-03-2008, 09:18 PM

The point is, there's a risk in everything people do.

As for the sex trafficking boom, well that sounds like a load of feminist horse shit. (The same dirty feminists who claimed women would be trafficked in their thousands during the 2006 world cup, although only 2 recorded cases appeared) Prostitution is legal in parts of the USA, and nothing of the sort has happened.

The fish

14-03-2008, 09:21 PM

As for the sex trafficking boom, well that sounds like a load of feminist horse shit. (The same dirty feminists who claimed women would be trafficked in their thousands during the 2006 world cup, although only 2 recorded cases appeared) Prostitution is legal in parts of the USA, and nothing of the sort has happened.

You seem to misunderstand what a feminist is. It's a person who thinks women should get equal pay to men.

Where it is legal stateside, it's done in brothels.

Mikey

14-03-2008, 09:39 PM

I know what feminism is, and it isn't what it claims to be. Bunch of lying filth bags. The KKK claim not to hate black people, yet you wouldn't buy that in a second.

Prostitution is prostitution regardless. Porn actors are basically prostitutes. The reason why prostituion is illegal in this country, is because the state wouldn't be able to tax it effectively.

McPhee

14-03-2008, 11:37 PM

You seem to misunderstand what a feminist is. It's a person who thinks women should get equal pay to men.

Where it is legal stateside, it's done in brothels.

The only reason prostitution is on the streets over here is because Brothels are illegal and easy to shut down. Prostitutes aren't stupid, they know the risks. Legalise prostitution and you legalise Brothels, at which point these women fill form them in order to give themselves protection.

And a Feminist isn't someone who seeks equal pay to men. They seek equal rights, the more extreme among them even believe they are above men.

Out of curiosity Fish, do you plan on making some points of you're own in here? Or are you just here to spin what Mikey says so it works against him?

The fish

15-03-2008, 01:04 AM

I know what feminism is, and it isn't what it claims to be. Bunch of lying filth bags.

Awesome, you just insulted my sister, and all my female friends. A feminist is, as McPhee said, someone who wishes for women to have equal rights to men, and the prime difference at the moment in the UK is that of pay. There are also female-superiority types, but they're just hypocrites.

Out of curiosity Fish, do you plan on making some points of you're own in here?

I do, actually - I'm a liberal humanist who can't seem to understand why people want a conservative government - the current one might not be exemplar, but it's certainly not bad, and look what happened the last time the conservatives where in power - they fucked the country up, big time.

I'm very, very anti-discrimination, and, while anti-authoritarian, I am pro-rule of law (most recent example: cannabis - it's illegal for a reason!). I accept no extreme political philosophy - libertarianism vs utilitarianism is not and either/or battle, it's a sliding scale, in which the best result can be found somewhere in the middle. Anarchism doesn't work (think Montreal police strike), neither does totalitarianism (take your pick, there are many examples).

As for topical issues, as I said, I'm against the legalisation of cannabis, I'm pro-choice, and I think homophobes and racists are in need of a damn good slapping.

Mikey

15-03-2008, 07:02 AM

Awesome, you just insulted my sister, and all my female friends. A feminist is, as McPhee said, someone who wishes for women to have equal rights to men, and the prime difference at the moment in the UK is that of pay. There are also female-superiority types, but they're just hypocrites.

I don't care who I insulted. Feminists are lying filth.

fex

15-03-2008, 10:23 AM

I don't care who I insulted. Feminists are lying filth.

And you have a shit accent.
________
Yamaha Ox99-11 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_OX99-11)

uəʌəsʎɐɾ

15-03-2008, 10:38 AM

Had a brief look at this thread, and I just wanted to agree with McPhee;

Legalising brothels will reduce the dangers prostitutes face. I don't want to be one, and I don't want to pay for the services, but I don't think it's fair that they have less legal rights. Not like they have a trade union or anything! If yo pimp lays the smack down on yo ass, who you gonna call? Etc.

Also, 'booms' in any freshly legalised area are to some extent due to the numbers rising above board and becoming 'visable'. How can you know to what extent something increases if you never had an exact beancount before?

Now for politics; specifically, what's the debate? Politics is such a broad subject, arguments never get near a conclusion of opposing sides and instead just follow little paths and tunnels into new areas.

Mikey

15-03-2008, 10:42 AM

And you have a shit accent.

Do I? Funny, because I have almost no accent.

Feminists are still filth.

uəʌəsʎɐɾ

15-03-2008, 11:19 AM

Mikey; if you talk, you have an accent :)

fex

15-03-2008, 11:24 AM

Do I? Funny, because I have almost no accent.

Feminists are still filth.

Of course you have an accent, saying that you almost have no accent is just retarded. Anyway... why is it so bad to want women to be equal? Not just in the workplace, but what's your argument against equality?
________
Sativa strains (http://strainindex.com)

MoogleViper

15-03-2008, 02:48 PM

I think we should be governed. As long as the government is there only to protect and govern people who do wrong. I hear people moaning about CCTV and things like that. I think that every street should have a camera. "But it violates our human rights." So fucking what? Having CCTV will not hinder you in anyway at all. The only people for which it is a problem are the ones who are comitting crimes. CCTV won't stop you going to the shops, it won't stop you going to work, it won't stop you watching telly, it will stop you commiting a crime. If you ask me we should all be tagged at birth.

McMad

15-03-2008, 02:56 PM

Can't wait for Identity cards to come a save us from all that terrorism Labour keeps warning us about.

Wait a minute... Weren't the 7/7 bombers born and raised in Britain? OH SHI-

Mikey

15-03-2008, 03:03 PM

Of course you have an accent, saying that you almost have no accent is just retarded. Anyway... why is it so bad to want women to be equal? Not just in the workplace, but what's your argument against equality?

It was clear you meant a Scouse accent. I barely have one.

Feminists are not for equality, they're a bunch of liars.

MoogleViper

15-03-2008, 03:13 PM

Can't wait for Identity cards to come a save us from all that terrorism Labour keeps warning us about.

Wait a minute... Weren't the 7/7 bombers born and raised in Britain? OH SHI-

Identity cards are bullshit. People can fake passports and they are easy enough to get hold of. If it can be made then it can be couterfeited.

Wesley

15-03-2008, 03:15 PM

I wish Tony Blair was still Prime Minister... :(

Fierce_LiNk

15-03-2008, 03:17 PM

Feminists are not for equality, they're a bunch of liars.

And all Muslims are terrorists, and all Liverpudlians steal car stereos.

The fish

15-03-2008, 03:22 PM

Do I? Funny, because I have almost no accent.

Feminists are still filth.

From that post alone, I can determine that you are a sexist, misogynistic, ignorant fool. Not good qualities if you want people to seriously consider your views...

And all Muslims are terrorists, and all Liverpudlians steal car stereos.

The father of a friend of mine can often be heard to say "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims". *points at IRA*. :indeed:

Mikey

15-03-2008, 06:08 PM

From that post alone, I can determine that you are a sexist, misogynistic, ignorant fool. Not good qualities if you want people to seriously consider your views...

I probably know more about those filth bag feminists than you do. So I can determine from your post, you are an idiot. You obviously don't even know the meaning of those words you spew either, so your accusations are meaningless to me.

Don't come running to the likes of me if you ever get falsely accused of rape, and the slut who accused you gets full anonymity, while your name is all over the media and you're tarred for life. Because that's the sort of horse shit those feminists have fought for.

And all Muslims are terrorists, and all Liverpudlians steal car stereos.

Fine then. Not all KKK members are bad people. Not all Nazis are like that. We can both play that whole, "they're not all like that" game.

Yes, it's fine to generalize when it comes to members of hate groups. Feminism is a hate group against men. You've gotta be fucking blind not to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tRwFaHkdGU

By the way, not only men hate feminists like I do. Plenty of women hate the fuckers too. Do I sound pissed off about them? Damn right I do. Men defending a hate group against them. Like black people defending the KKK as far as I'm concerned.

The fish

15-03-2008, 11:55 PM

I probably know more about those filth bag feminists than you do. So I can determine from your post, you are an idiot. You obviously don't even know the meaning of those words you spew either, so your accusations are meaningless to me.

How dare you call me an idiot, when I do nothing but defend a group of people to which most females I know belong? As for knowing what words mean, I think you'll find that you are a massive hypocrite, as you obviously either do not know what a feminist (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=feminism&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search) is or you are indeed a sexist (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=sexism&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search) misogynist (http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=misogynist&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search).

Yes, it's fine to generalize when it comes to members of hate groups. Feminism is a hate group against men. You've gotta be fucking blind not to see it.

So, by your logic, the Civil Rights movements in the 60's where all black-supremest?
Let me but it this way: feminists want equality between men and women. 60's Civil Rights activists wanted equality between whites and blacks.
You call feminism a hate group, ergo, you must therefore call Civil Rights a hate movement. If not, you're a hypocrite, and either way, you're a moron.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 12:05 AM

I don't care who you know. Feminists are scum, and I don't care if any one you know is one.

Are you going to bring out the dictionary so you can quote what a feminist is from there.

I don't give a shit though.

Actions speak louder than any dictionary definition, and the feminists I've come across are vile scum.

You're like a black man defending the KKK, seriously.

No real feminist would ever defend you if you were screwed over by a woman. Well, maybe an ifeminist, but they're a tiny minority, and main stream feminists hate them.

You're really out of your depth here. I've read in to their filthy hate movement indepth, and I know what they're all about. Lies, myths, lesbians and man hating.

40% of NOW is lesbian if I'm not mistaken. I'm not bothered by lesbians, I'm just bothered by man hating butch lesbian feminists who hate men because all of the best pussy in the world isn't available to them. "Come here, Martha, I'll take you away from that evil, patriarchal male rapist".

Think you're late for your womyn's studies class aren't you?

ipaul

16-03-2008, 12:09 AM

I don't care who you know. Feminists are scum, and I don't care if any one you know is one.

Are you going to bring out the dictionary so you can quote what a feminist is from there.

I don't give a shit though.

Actions speak louder than any dictionary definition, and the feminists I've come across are vile scum.

You're like a black man defending the KKK, seriously.

No real feminist would ever defend you if you were screwed over by a woman. Well, maybe an ifeminist, but main stream feminists hate them.

You're really out of your depth here. I've read in to their filthy hate movement indepth, and I know what they're all about. Lies, myths, lesbians and man hating.

I think you seem to be missing the point that fish is trying to say, by definition, feminists are a group of people who actively involved in equal rights for women. By your logic of seeing them as scum, you are indeed rather facist in a way. It's like you are directly saying 'I oppose equal rights for women'. Feminism is equal rights . Not this thing you seem to take it to mean, that all feminists are men hating and scum.

The fish

16-03-2008, 12:17 AM

No real feminist would ever defend you if you were screwed over by a woman. Well, maybe an ifeminist, but they're a tiny minority, and main stream feminists hate them.

You seem to have gotten it the wrong way round - most feminists, regardless of gender or orientation, want women and men to be treated equally. A tiny, tiny minority of women, who are female superioritists.

By the way, I am direct proof that feminists are not evil lesbian bitches. I am a feminist, yet I am civil, straight, and male.

fex

16-03-2008, 12:18 AM

I don't care who you know. Feminists are scum, and I don't care if any one you know is one.

Are you going to bring out the dictionary so you can quote what a feminist is from there.

I don't give a shit though.

I've met alot of nice feminists who are passionate about creating a fair society for us all to live within. And I'm afraid it's narrow minded people like yourself who prevent this from happening. Yes you get 'extreme' feminists of which their views are that the world would be a better place with out. And I don't agree with that. But it's rational and unfair to say that feminists are scum. I would consider myself a feminist, and I'm sure there's plenty of males out there who would consider there selfs as a feminist, or at least believe the cause is worth fighting for.

Your arrogance just shows what a sad world we live in.
________
Vision insurance dicussion (http://www.insurance-forums.org/vision-insurance/)

Mikey

16-03-2008, 12:19 AM

I think you seem to be missing the point that fish is trying to say, by definition, feminists are a group of people who actively involved in equal rights for women. By your logic of seeing them as scum, you are indeed rather facist in a way. It's like you are directly saying 'I oppose equal rights for women'. Feminism is equal rights . Not this thing you seem to take it to mean, that all feminists are men hating and scum.

You think a woman being able to accuse any man of rape and for her identity not to be revealed, while his name is, is equal rights? I don't think so.

Feminists actively work against groups which help men. Erin Pizzey is a hero of mine, and she opened up the first woman's battered shelter in the UK. She dared to say that woman assault men too, and domestic violence isn't gender based. What happened? Feminists sent her death threats and killed her dog. She had to be escorted around the country by police for fear of her life. Eventually, feminists worked their way in to domestic violence shelters, and threw Pizzey out. Ever since, DV shelters have been breeding ground for man hating bitch feminists, who won't let boys 13 or over, in to their shelters.

Vermin.

Groups for men have tried to get funding for male victims of violence, and feminists almost always turn up with their lies and myths to stop it from happening. It's sickening.

ipaul

16-03-2008, 12:26 AM

You think a woman being able to accuse any man of rape and for her identity not to be revealed, while his name is, is equal rights? I don't think so.

If she was actually raped then fair enough I say. If not, then she is clearly not a feminist. Not in the true, proper sense of the word.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 12:26 AM

I've met alot of nice feminists who are passionate about creating a fair society for us all to live within. And I'm afraid it's narrow minded people like yourself who prevent this from happening. Yes you get 'extreme' feminists of which their views are that the world would be a better place with out. And I don't agree with that. But it's rational and unfair to say that feminists are scum. I would consider myself a feminist, and I'm sure there's plenty of males out there who would consider there selfs as a feminist, or at least believe their cause is worth fighting for.

Your arrogance just shows what a sad world we live in.

Then why do feminists oppose for both the name of both the man and woman's name to be either both named or for it to be kept anon in a rape case?

Don't even get me started on the pay gap myth which has been debunked over and over, yet continue to use on their assault on men.

Yeah, equality.

Google duke lacrosse rape case. You'll see what main stream feminists are all about. Bunch of white, straight, male hating ass holes.

The fish

16-03-2008, 12:29 AM

Don't even get me started on the pay gap myth which has been debunked over and over, yet continue to use on their assault on men.

How odd, everyone, even some (male) employers, I know have said it definitly exists. It seems that the single, bitter, irrational bigot is much more likely to make up stuff, so I'm going to have to say I don't believe you.

As for the rape thing, male rape victims have their identity kept secret too, so there is equality there.

fex

16-03-2008, 12:30 AM

Then why do feminists oppose for both the name of both the man and woman's name to be either both named or for it to be kept anon in a rape case?

Don't even get me started on the pay gap myth which has been debunked over and over, yet continue to use on their assault on men.

Yeah, equality.

Google duke lacrosse rape case. You'll see what main stream feminists are all about. Bunch of white, straight, male hating ass holes.

Of course theres a pay gap, FUCKING JESUS! An average woman, who leaves her career to go have a kid, then wants to return will struggle to. Because of child care issues therefore may only want to work part time / flexible hours. The work they get after having a child will most likely be alot lower payed and a job that requires alot lower skill than they are able to perform at.

Just look at the board in most big businesses or corporations and men will clearly dominate women in this sector, because fewer women are able to stay in the career they choose because of the reasons above.

Ok, put rape aside seen as you seem so fixated on the bloody subject, and look at the bigger picture.

You think a woman being able to accuse any man of rape and for her identity not to be revealed, while his name is, is equal rights? I don't think so.

I don't think its a case of the female having her identity covered, its about protecting the victim, male or female.
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

Mikey

16-03-2008, 12:36 AM

If she was actually raped then fair enough I say. If not, then she is clearly not a feminist. Not in the true, proper sense of the word.

Until the verdict is read out, then surely both the accuser and the accused deserve the same treatment? I'm sure you agree with that. Well feminists won't have that though, they oppose it.

Don't go by the definition of the word, actions speak louder than words.

Lets just say the people in charge of the dictionary changed the definiton of Nazi to "egalitarianism". Would you then call your self a Nazi? I wouldn't.

The Fish can go out and say it's only a minority of feminists who act like I've described, but it blatantly isn't. You go on to a mainstream feminist blog like Pandagon, and read about the duke lacrosse rape case, and all you'll see is guilty until proven innocent, and a load of comments which slam the accused because they were middle class, white, straight, and male, and the accuser was a black woman.

If feminists who were they claimed they were, I'd let them get on with it, and probably even support them, but they're not.

The KKK claim not to hate black people, and they are just pro white. They claim not to advocate violence, yet they assault black people. I don't buy any of it, just like I don't buy any of that feminist horse shit.

How odd, everyone, even some (male) employers, I know have said it definitly exists. It seems that the single, bitter, irrational bigot is much more likely to make up stuff, so I'm going to have to say I don't believe you.

As for the rape thing, male rape victims have their identity kept secret too, so there is equality there.

Women are always going to accuse men vastly more than the other way around. They know this. It's clearly biased.

The PAY GAP IS A LIE, ITS BEEN PROVEN A LIE. Yes, men get paid more by women, but for good reasons. I've been through this with you before, and you refuse to accept it. Head in sand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjaBQMog0Q

By the way, the guy in that video, Warren Farrel, is a former president of NOW. (Former feminist, he seen the error of his ways)

The fish

16-03-2008, 12:45 AM

read about the duke lacrosse rape case, and all you'll see is guilty until proven innocent, and a load of comments which slam the accused because they were middle class, white, straight, and male, and the accuser was a black woman.

I've just read about it. It seems that two were proven innocent, and a third was acquitted. As for the "guilty until proven innocent", well, that is how the US legal system works.

Get your facts straight if you wish to make a convincing case...

ipaul

16-03-2008, 12:46 AM

Until the verdict is read out, then surely both the accuser and the accused deserve the same treatment? I'm sure you agree with that. Well feminists won't have that though, they oppose it.

Don't go by the definition of the word, actions speak louder than words.

Lets just say the people in charge of the dictionary changed the definiton of Nazi to "egalitarianism". Would you then call your self a Nazi? I wouldn't.

The Fish can go out and say it's only a minority of feminists who act like I've described, but it blatantly isn't. You go on to a mainstream feminist blog like Pandagon, and read about the duke lacrosse rape case, and all you'll see is guilty until proven innocent, and a load of comments which slam the accused because they were middle class, white, straight, and male, and the accuser was a black woman.

If feminists who were they claimed they were, I'd let them get on with it, and probably even support them, but they're not.

The KKK claim not to hate black people, and they are just pro white. They claim not to advocate violence, yet they assault black people. I don't buy any of it, just like I don't buy any of that feminist horse shit.

Women are always going to accuse men vastly more than the other way around. They know this. It's clearly biased.

The PAY GAP IS A LIE, ITS BEEN PROVEN A LIE. Yes, men get paid more by women, but for good reasons. I've been through this with you before, and you refuse to accept it. Head in sand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjaBQMog0Q

By the way, the guy in that video, Warren Farrel, is a former president of NOW. (Former feminist, he seen the error of his ways)

The thing is though you seem to refuse definitions outright. Your view of feminism has clearly been changed in an overwhelmingly negative way. Don't make shit points like if nazis were called egalitarian, that's just so irrelevant and pointless. I can see your point of actions speak louder than words but it is only the female superiorists who go out of their way to do these kind of actions. A feminist is someone who is for equal rights for women. Nothing else. If a self proclaimed feminist does all the man hating stuff you talk about, then she is NOT a feminist. Much as she might like to think she is.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 12:49 AM

Of course theres a pay gap, FUCKING JESUS! An average woman, who leaves her career to go have a kid, then wants to return will struggle to. Because of child care issues therefore may only want to work part time / flexible hours. The work they get after having a child will most likely be alot lower payed and a job that requires alot lower skill than they are able to perform at.

Just look at the board in most big businesses or corporations and men will clearly dominate women in this sector, because fewer women are able to stay in the career they choose because of the reasons above.

Ok, put rape aside seen as you seem so fixated on the bloody subject, and look at the bigger picture.

I don't think its a case of the female having her identity covered, its about protecting the victim, male or female.

You said it yourself.

Of course theres a pay gap, FUCKING JESUS! An average woman, who leaves her career to go have a kid, then wants to return will struggle to. Because of child care issues therefore may only want to work part time / flexible hours. The work they get after having a child will most likely be alot lower payed and a job that requires alot lower skill than they are able to perform at.

They have the choice to be as dedicated to work as men, and they CHOOSE not to. There's nothing for them to be complaining about, yet they bitch, moan and screech. Not only that, they claim it's discrimination!!!!

Like I said, half truths and lies. You've bought in to it hook, line and sinker.

Men do better than women at work because men are more dedicated. It's that simple.

It would make no sense to hire men for more, when they could hire women for less, if they both did an equally good jobs.

It's common freaking sense.

Yet you, and those damn feminists, just love to play the victim card.

Btw, women out number men are colleges. You don't see those feminist rats complain about that. You won't hear me complaining about it either, because it's most likely down to choice on behalf of the man.

The fish

16-03-2008, 12:53 AM

The PAY GAP IS A LIE, ITS BEEN PROVEN A LIE. Yes, men get paid more by women, but for good reasons. I've been through this with you before, and you refuse to accept it. Head in sand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjaBQMog0Q

That video is bordering on the moronic. He's saying the men earn more because they work more hours, which is, well, obvious. He's saying men earn more in different jobs to women, which is explainable - it's a different fucking job! In the same job for the same hours, women get less. It's been demonstrated time and time again.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 12:54 AM

I've just read about it. It seems that two were proven innocent, and a third was acquitted. As for the "guilty until proven innocent", well, that is how the US legal system works.

Get your facts straight if you wish to make a convincing case...

That's not the point. SIIIIGH

It was the way those filth bag feminists conducted theirselves before it all ended. Feminists, lead by that sex, and racer pandering prick Mike Nifong, all went on to a witch hunt to convict these guys even though nothing was proven, and they were eventually found innocent.

After all of this happened, those lovely egalitarian feminists, on sites like pandagon and feministing, all went very quiet.

That video is bordering on the moronic. He's saying the men earn more because they work more hours, which is, well, obvious. He's saying men earn more in different jobs to women, which is explainable - it's a different fucking job! In the same job for the same hours, women get less. It's been demonstrated time and time again.

No it hasn't been demonstrated time and time again, it's a total lie. You also need to take in to account work experience, and years at the same job.

IF WHAT YOU SAID IS THE CASE, IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO HIRE MEN.

You're so full of shit. Keep defending the man haters, I'm sure they really appreciate a white, straight male defending them.

The fish

16-03-2008, 12:57 AM

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:03 AM

You're missing the point entirely. If a women does an easier job than a man and gets paid less, fair enough. If a women works for less time than a man in the same job, but their salary is proportionally equal, fair enough. However, the problem is, hour for hour, in the same job, women get paid less.

Are you taking in to account work experience, and amount of time at the same job? Where do you get your statistics from anyway? Probably a feminist source. Watch that video again.

Pay discrimination is self punishing.

No company in their right mind would pay men more money than women if all the factors were equal. If they did, they would lose money.

It really is common sense.

Yet most people refuse to accept it.

There's no debate to be had here as far as I'm concerned.

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:04 AM

IF WHAT YOU SAID IS THE CASE, IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO HIRE MEN.

You're so full of shit. Keep defending the man haters, I'm sure they really appreciate a white, straight male defending them.

Men prefer hiring men? People like having both working for them so they can't get accused of sexism? Maybe they can only get women at the time of hiring? Maybe the employers are just fair, and both pay and hire fairly?

fex

16-03-2008, 01:06 AM

They have the choice to be as dedicated to work as men, and they CHOOSE not to. There's nothing for them to be complaining about, yet they bitch, moan and screech. Not only that, they claim it's discrimination!!!!

So a couple want to have a child, the woman has to have time off to have the child and look after it. The current law allows women to have alot more time off in maternity leave than it does for the male to have off in paternity leave. Therefore in order for the child to get looked after, there is more chance the woman will be able to get the time off (paid) than the man. Again this is isn't fair and certainly isn't equal.

So thats where the problem starts, already there is an increase in 'house husbands' and if the law was changed so it were more 'equal' so men or women could take up to a year off to look after the baby, then perhaps we would see a decrease in the mount of women dropping out of their careers.

SO BEFORE RANTING AND RAVING SAYING DO SOME FUCKIN' HOMEWORK AND USE WHATEVER PART OF YOUR BRAIN WORKS TO LOOK INTO THE REASONS WHY.

Additional Info

Statutory maternity leave is for 52 weeks

How much paternity leave can you take?
You can take either one or two weeks.
________
History of bmw motorcycles history (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/History_of_BMW_motorcycles)

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:08 AM

You're missing the point entirely. If a women does an easier job than a man and gets paid less, fair enough. If a women works for less time than a man in the same job, but their salary is proportionally equal, fair enough. However, the problem is, hour for hour, in the same job, women get paid less.

I think you'll find you're talking about the very vocal but also very few female supremests. They are not feminists.

Really? Pandagon and feministing are 2 of the most well known feminist blogs on the internet. They are accepted as totally main stream. I am not talking about Andrea Dworkin here, who is a whole different case of ass hole, I'm talking about Amanda Marcotte who runs pandagon, and was part of the John Edwards presidential campaign. She is accepted by almost every feminist I've seen as moderate. It's sickening.

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:08 AM

Are you taking in to account work experience, and amount of time at the same job? Where do you get your statistics from anyway? Probably a feminist source. Watch that video again.

Um, Census' and Wikipedia? People I know? This can apply to equally qualified people in the same job for the same time. Besides, why would there be such a fuss if there wasn't? What would feminists (especially male ones, like myself) gain from making such a big fuss about it?

fex

16-03-2008, 01:09 AM

You're missing the point entirely. If a women does an easier job than a man and gets paid less, fair enough. If a women works for less time than a man in the same job, but their salary is proportionally equal, fair enough. However, the problem is, hour for hour, in the same job, women get paid less.

I think you'll find you're talking about the very vocal but also very few female supremests. They are not feminists.

I wasn't comparing how much males / females get paid for doing the same job. I was looking at overall men are on high wages.
________
Suzuki Tl1000S (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_TL1000S)

McPhee

16-03-2008, 01:13 AM

Mikey, i think the problem here is that you taint all "feminists" with the same view. A feminist, buy definition, is someone who wants women to have equal rights to men. Anyone who wants women to have equal rights to men is therefore a feminist.

The problem you have is with feminist extremist groups, who do exist and actually have quite a lot of members. On this point, fair enough. They are evil witches who should be burned at the stake ;)

You're missing the point entirely. If a women does an easier job than a man and gets paid less, fair enough. If a women works for less time than a man in the same job, but their salary is proportionally equal, fair enough. However, the problem is, hour for hour, in the same job, women get paid less.

Sauce? I've never had any experience of this, if someone is being paid more than someone else there is usually a reason. It could be that one party is more qualified, has more experience or has simply been at the company longer. Bare in mind that you're salary can fall if you take a career gap, which does include leaving to have a child.

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:13 AM

Really? Pandagon and feministing are 2 of the most well known feminist blogs on the internet.

Let me put it really, really simply:

A person who thinks men and women should be treated equally is a feminist.. People who think all men are evil, etc. are not feminists. They are female superioritists.

The people you call scum are either not feminists or you are a sexist misogynist. It's very simple.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:14 AM

So a couple want to have a child, the woman has to have time off to have the child and look after it. The current law allows women to have alot more time off in maternity leave than it does for the male to have off in paternity leave. Therefore in order for the child to get looked after, there is more chance the woman will be able to get the time off (paid) than the man. Again this is isn't fair and certainly isn't equal.

So thats where the problem starts, already there is an increase in 'house husbands' and if the law was changed so it were more 'equal' so men or women could take up to a year off to look after the baby, then perhaps we would see a decrease in the mount of women dropping out of their careers.

SO BEFORE RANTING AND RAVING SAYING DO SOME FUCKIN' HOMEWORK AND USE WHATEVER PART OF YOUR BRAIN WORKS TO LOOK INTO THE REASONS WHY.

Additional Info

Statutory maternity leave is for 52 weeks

How much paternity leave can you take?
You can take either one or two weeks. You can't take odd days off, and if you take two weeks they must be taken together.

So basically, women shoot theirselves in the foot by getting pregnant, and businesses are doing what's best in their own best interest? The woman has the choice not to get pregnant, she shouldn't even getting paid while she isn't working anyway. Thanks for proving my point.

Let me put it really, really simply:

A person who thinks men and women should be treated equally is a feminist.. People who think all men are evil, etc. are not feminists. They are female superioritists.

The people you call scum are either not feminists or you are a sexist misogynist. It's very simple.

You try telling the feminists who declare themselves feminists, they are not.

The type of feminists you talk about, are basically ifeminists, and are part of groups like the IWF. Members of the IWF even admit theirselves the pay gap is a load of horse shit. I'll try and find links if you don't believe me.

By the way, like I've said before, there are plenty of women who hate feminists too. I guess they're just sexist and misogynistic too.

fex

16-03-2008, 01:22 AM

So basically, women shoot theirselves in the foot by getting pregnant, and businesses are doing what's best in their own best interest? The woman has the choice not to get pregnant, she shouldn't even getting paid while she isn't working anyway. Thanks for proving my point.

Fuck me, you are simple.

Of course the fucking woman has a choice not to get pregnant. Perhaps the couple want to have a child but have the man stay at home and have the woman's equivalent off in paternity leave, but can't because of the law.

Ok next time you ring in sick, or happen to be injured from work for 3/4 months with a broken leg or whatever. Your saying you shouldn't get SSP? So, you could effectively not have enough money to pay your bills / mortgage and have the stress of being kicked out your own home because you cannot work.

Do me and everyone else a favor and FUCK OFF with your idiocy.
________
MOLLE SHOTGUN SCABBARD UNIVERSAL SLING TAN (http://airsoft-shop.info/p/molle-shotgun-scabbard-universal-sling-tan/)

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:25 AM

You try telling the feminists who declare themselves feminists, they are not.

The type of feminists you talk about, are basically ifeminists, and are part of groups like the IWF. Members of the IWF even admit theirselves the pay gap is a load of horse shit. I'll try and find links if you don't believe me.

By the way, like I've said before, there are plenty of women who hate feminists too. I guess they're just sexist and misogynistic too.

Again, you're missing the point. I've never encountered a women who was not a feminist, regardless if they think the pay gap exists or not. People who say they are feminists, and yet are very anti-male are not feminists, and they're (obviously) giving feminism a bad name.

We seem to not be seeing eye to eye. You are talking about people who call themselves feminists, yet are very anti-men. I, however am talking about people who want men and women to be treated equally.

Call man-haters whatever you hell you want, if you wish, I'd just rather you didn't give feminists a bad name in the process. :heh:

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:26 AM

Fuck me, you are simple.

Of course the fucking woman has a choice not to get pregnant. Perhaps the couple want to have a child but have the man stay at home and have the woman's equivalent off in paternity leave, but can't because of the law.

Ok next time you ring in sick, or happen to be injured from work for 3/4 months with a broken leg or whatever. Your saying you shouldn't get SSP? So, you could effectively not have enough money to pay your bills / mortgage and have the stress of being kicked out your own home because you cannot work.

Do me and everyone else a favor and FUCK OFF with your idiocy.

Sickness isn't a choice, pregnancy is. She shouldn't be get paid at all.

Sit down.

Taking care of children is naturally a woman's job anyway. And before you screech sexist at that, only an idiot would demean such an important job, which nature gave to women.

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:27 AM

Taking care of children is naturally a woman's job anyway. And before you screech sexist at that, only an idiot would demean such an important job, which nature gave to women.

Before anyone else does, I'm going to have to say "seahorses". :smile:

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:30 AM

Again, you're missing the point. I've never encountered a women who was not a feminist, regardless if they think the pay gap exists or not. People who say they are feminists, and yet are very anti-male are not feminists, and they're (obviously) giving feminism a bad name.

We seem to not be seeing eye to eye. You are talking about people who call themselves feminists, yet are very anti-men. I, however am talking about people who want men and women to be treated equally.

Call man-haters whatever you hell you want, if you wish, I'd just rather you didn't give feminists a bad name in the process. :heh:

Fine, I'll just leave it at that. If you want to go by the dictionary's definition, fair enough. I'll go by the whole "actions speak louder than words" people who call theirselves feminists.

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:32 AM

I'll go by the whole "actions speak louder than words" people who call theirselves feminists.

I'm with McPhee on this one. People who call themselves feminists but promote hate against men are indeed in need of a good burning.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:32 AM

Before anyone else does, I'm going to have to say "seahorses". :smile:

Yes, but we're talking about human's. The female has been designed to take care of young, through breast feeding and nuturing. It's a very important job.

I'm with McPhee on this one. People who call themselves feminists but promote hate against men are indeed in need of a good burning.

I don't really consider you a feminist, more of an egalitarian, which I don't have a problem with. I don't really consider ifeminists feminists either.

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:33 AM

Yes, but we're talking about human's. The female has been designed to take care of young, through breast feeding and nuturing. It's a very important job.

True, but if the father want to do it and the women wants to work, it should be allowed in the same way. Also, father figures!

fex

16-03-2008, 01:35 AM

Sickness isn't a choice, pregnancy is. She shouldn't be get paid at all.

Sit down.

Taking care of children is naturally a woman's job anyway. And before you screech sexist at that, only an idiot would demean such an important job, which nature gave to women.

Oh shit don't preach to me about nature or instinct because as humans we have the ability to think past our natural thoughts.

So what if 'naturally' a woman's job is to take care of child, parts of society only think that because she is the one that gives birth to it and produces milk, which isn't required any more (although is the best way). We live in a society where either sex is perfectly capable of looking after a child, therefore the couple should have the choice of who to look after it.

Lol you beat me to seahorses. So I'll say penguins. The fathers have a very important role.

Oh and why would you not want to allow somebody to live, whilst looking after a baby? Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to live off one wage. So should people just not have children because they cannot afford to have a few months off work?
________
Expert insurance (http://xpertinsurance.com/)

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:35 AM

I don't really consider you a feminist, more of an egalitarian, which I don't have a problem with. I don't really consider ifeminists feminists either.

Feminism, by the very definition of the word, a type of egalitarianism. However, this is now turning into a definition war, and, well, I've already shown that dictionaries agree with me, so it's futile. :wink:

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:37 AM

The fish

16-03-2008, 01:41 AM

If anything, the whole women being able to have more time off is discrimination against the man.

It is, and is one of several policies in need of fixing. Another of these is the fact the only people that you can still legally assault in the country, apart from in self-defence or defence of others, are your own children. :blank:

fex

16-03-2008, 01:42 AM

I don't think either men or women should be paid on maternity leave. They both make the choice to have a child. If anything, the whole women being able to have more time off is discrimination against the man. Also, the woman has the choice not to have the time off surely? Either way, even ifeminists have declared the pay gap as bullshit, which is what this is all about anyway..

Yes the woman has the choice not to have the time off, but the man doesn't have the choice thats the problem.
________
Medical marijuana patients (http://mmjp.org)

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:44 AM

Well, as long as it isn't brutal assault with intent to injure, I think parents should be left alone to raise their kids as they see fit. I'm really not a fan of the state poking their nose in to people's personal lives for many many reasons. (For the record, I don't think any parent should smack their child, but whatever)

Again, I've really gotta go to bed.

fex

16-03-2008, 09:29 AM

Sickness isn't a choice, pregnancy is.

And for the people that accidentally get pegnant? For kids that aren't planned? They should get no help, it wasn't the couples choice she fell pregnant. And don't say yes it is because she opened her legs. Not all pregnancy is a choice.

And why shouldn't people get money for being off pregnant? There only getting money back they've paid in tax anyway*.

*Chavs have not been considered, everybody knows they have failed in life and the only way to feel important is to have a kid, or 4. Just so they can get a council house and free monies.
________
The cigar boss (http://thecigarboss.com/)

Mikey

16-03-2008, 10:52 AM

But she DID make the choice. She opened their legs, and unless she didn't know sex results in pregnancy, then she is at fault. If the pregnany was a result of rape, and the woman wanted to keep the baby anyway, then I'd say fine.

Either way, none of this matters like I've already said. Even ifeminists admit the pay gap myth is horse shit.

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/tenmyths.php

2. Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Fact: The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

(Essential reading: Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, published by the Independent Women's Forum and the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.)

MoogleViper

16-03-2008, 12:49 PM

I'd like to offer my views on feminism and be prepared to be raped by all of you. (metaphorically and maybe literally)

Personally I wouldn't consider myself a feminist. Now I do believe that men and women should have equal rights but they aren't equal. I don't believe the pay gap exists (if it does it is certainly nto to the degree that "feminists" shout about.) Another reason I wouldn't call myself a feminist is the word itself is sexist. Would women join the movement if it was called masculinist? I think not. Changing the word to "womyn" is a complete joke. I know that the definition of feminist is about equality but as Mikey has stated many people that call themselves feminists do not want equality and are female supremists. And they are the ones that shout the loudest. If you are a true feminist then don't call yourself a feminist.

Also regarding the pay gap there are many things in work that are sexist towards men that feminists don't complain about. Correct me if I'm wrong but to be a firefighter or in the army the weight (as in lifting) requirement is less for women than in men.

I'm all for equal rights. But I won't call myself a feminist. And I urge you lot to do the same. Yes it's unfair that you all get tarred with the same brush, but that's what happens. So don't let them tar you at all. Don't call yourselves feminists and then the female supremists will be isolated.

Mikey

16-03-2008, 01:30 PM

People like fish and his sister need to call theirselves egalitarians, because that's what they are, I don't consider them feminists at all. Why tar yourself with such a dirty label as feminist?

Also, I don't think men and women are equal either, but they should have equal rights. Since I hate the state so much, I think "rights" and "laws" should be as limited as possible to give people more freedom. With the lack of state interfering, hierarchy will naturally come in to play more in personal relationships, and it'd promote order and stability in the family unit. Expecting everything to be equal is unreasonable.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0&k=49786&p=1

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0&k=49786&p=2

http://www.bennett.com/ptv/index.shtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430702&in_page_id=1770

Be careful, brothers, this is what we face.