1 - 8
In response to:

Why No Swimsuit Issue of Men?

kenle2 Wrote: Feb 17, 2015 11:36 AM
"Takes on that pretense"? Wow. What a blow for sexual equality, she wants to prove that millions of men are more likely to subscribe to a magazine or buy an issue if women with appealing physical proportions are shown in tiny swimsuits. And that shouldn't happen because it reinforces the societal prejudice that women should only be valued for their bodies. Instead of just accepting reality and recognizing that all these women pictured volunteered to pose that way and got a pretty substantial pile of money for doing it and that no one is forcing her to buy the issue or look at it. And if she's upset about men and women internalizing the "message" the swimsuit issue sends, I might suggest a true "gender studies" professional could have better things to do with her time. Like trying to stop state and culturally endorsed enslavement of females in the middle east. Just as an example.
Every president has "kissed up" to certain Arab leaders, mostly out of economic necessity or the state department doctrine that if the dictators fell, we'd get regimes that were both openly Islamist and blatantly hostile to the U.S. and the West. With Iran's revolution in '79, those arguments got a huge, real-world endorsement. When 9/11 happened, it became obvious that the status quo wasn't necessarily going to keep the openly bad Islamists from killing us, just because we supported the closet Islamists or the hypocrites buying "protection" from the bad Islamists in places like Saudi Arabia. It's called having a choice between bad and worse options.
Stewart is a reliable conduit for leftist "factoids" that fit in with the pseudo-hip sensibilities of his narcissistic, trained seal audience. He does an imitation of discussing serious issues, while pushing his - and his far left writers' - perspective on everything. The fact that he shows some glib talent at delivering the propaganda just reminds me of the successful used-car-salesman-in-chief we've got currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Obama is no more a Muslim than Madonna was a Catholic before she took up Kabbalah. Obama went to a supposedly Christian church for decades (how often we don't know, the press isn't interested in that). All religion is pretty much protective coloration for his political beliefs, which don't leave room for any supreme being outside of his progressive self. Obama just likes the idea of anyone bashing Colonialist European societies. Insofar as modern Islamic thought embraces that idea, he'll support it to the point it might hurt him politically, then back off and let the media explain how we "misunderstood" him.
You have to make a decision and probably spend a little more money. Unless you live alone and have no one else in the house and never have visitors, you need to make some decisions about whether or not to secure the weapon. There are biometric gun safes that literally drop the weapon into your hand if you have the correct fingerprints and/or press a simple combination into a "hand-print" set of grooves on the safe, which a child's fingers can't manipulate. If you don't have one of those options, then good luck on convincing a civil jury that someone your significant other or child invited over was at fault instead of you when there's a plaintiff's lawyer throwing a dead kid's body in front of them. It doesn't do any good to wave the second amendment "flag" in front of people while the ignorant and outright stupid do ignorant and outright stupid things and blood flows. They are going to maintain that a tree is an inanimate object too, and if you don't trim it and it falls on your neighbor, you ARE civilly liable. I support gun rights, including shall issue and concealed carry for handguns, but we "shoot ourselves in the foot" by telling a kid's parents that essentially: "Your kid was stupid and now he's dead. Suck it up."
Who's excluding anyone from "human compassion"? Government coercion is not the same thing as charity. Give all want and encourage (not legislate) compassion to any individual you like.
No, the myth is that a lifetime of government assistance doesn't discourage the young, healthy and members of all demographic groups (except the already-employed) from seeking jobs that pay slightly more than the assistance benefits provide; and that that mindset doesn't carry over to when they become elderly and disabled. Or that it isn't historically demonstrable that people better contribute to a vibrant and growing economy when they have to look for work outside their "comfort zones" when such assistance isn't readily available.
In response to:

Choices We Don't Want Women To Make

kenle2 Wrote: Nov 07, 2014 10:19 AM
I'm sorry, but you ignored Mona's questions about how government is supposed to fix the problem of "horrible" day care and what that means in terms of people's tax burdens and wages. If you assert (correctly) the right to make your own decisions about bringing children into the world, then you have the responsibility of providing for them. Plenty of people voluntarily offer assistance when children are deprived of basic necessities of life through accident or life's hardships, and very few conservatives want to eliminate all government services to such children, but demanding that everyone else pay for the financial consequences of all your choices means an ever-expanding government and an inevitable regimented, state-centric approach to childcare. I'm happy things worked out for you to go to college, but simply stating "no woman should have to make the choice" is, just as Mona said, a "magic wand" statement. I encourage you to organize your family, friends and neighbors to provide whatever level of daycare you can afford to provide, or to build your own private daycare center. If you don't have the time, energy or resources to do so, then please do not insist that I and every other citizen provide them for you under penalty of the tax law. Threatening to send your neighbors to jail if they don't pay for your choices is not likely to make them feel "fulfilled" when working to pay those taxes. This is not "selfish" or "un-Christian", it's a simple realization that trying to provide cradle-to-grave assistance to 300+ million people is a recipe for disaster, since more "necessities" will always be discovered by representatives of those demanding the services.
1 - 8