Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Blue Lion on June 30, 2009, 04:33:58 pm
-
Not that one.... or that one... or that one either.
Norm Coleman concedes defeat after MN Supreme Court rules for Al Franken
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_minnesota_senate
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Republican Norm Coleman conceded to Democrat Al Franken in Minnesota's contested Senate race on Tuesday, hours after a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled the former "Saturday Night Live" comedian should be certified the winner.
Coleman announced his decision at a news conference in St. Paul, bringing an end to a nearly eight-month recount and court fight over an election decided by only a few hundred votes.
"The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results," Coleman told reporters outside his St. Paul home.
Coleman, appearing relaxed and upbeat, said he had congratulated Franken, was at peace with the decision and had no regrets about the fight, which started almost immediately after the Nov. 4 election.
"Sure I wanted to win," said Coleman, who called the ruling a surprise. "I thought we had a better case. But the court has spoken."
He declined to talk about his future plans, brushing aside a question about whether he would run for governor in 2010.
Franken's victory will give Democrats control over 60 Senate seats, the number needed to overcome any Republican filibusters to health care, energy, or other legislation they or the Obama administration is seeking.
But to exercise that strength, they will need to remain as united in support of a bill as Republicans are in opposition, regardless of regional differences, ideology, or political self-interest.
The situation is further complicated by the illness of two senior Democrats who have been absent from the Capitol for weeks. West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd was recently released from a hospital after undergoing treatment for a staph infection, and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy is battling brain cancer. It is not known when, or whether, either will be able to return to the Capitol.
An early test could come next month, when health care legislation reaches the Senate floor. Democrats have been seeking agreement on a bipartisan plan with a handful of Republicans. But if those talks falter, they and the White House may end up in a situation where 60 votes would be needed to advance one of the administration's highest priorities.
The White House issued a statement saying President Barack Obama looks "forward to working with Senator-Elect Franken to build a new foundation for growth and prosperity by lowering health care costs and investing in the kind of clean energy jobs and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century."
According to Betty K. Koed, the assistant Senate historian, the 60-vote majority marks the first time either political party has reached that level since the late 1970s.
Coleman's appeal hinged largely on an argument that local election officials had inconsistently applied the state's requirements for absentee voters. He and his lawyers had hoped to bring thousands of disqualified absentee votes into the count, but the state's high court sided with a lower court and rejected that argument.
Because voting absentee is an option, voters who choose to do so have to comply with the law, the justices wrote. And they said there was no valid reason to apply a more lenient standard in judging absentees, as Coleman wanted, than the law required.
"Because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and always has been required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice."
Coleman could have carried his fight into the federal courts, but it was unlikely a federal court would have overturned the state Supreme Court decision. That possibility created months of intrigue over whether Gov. Tim Pawlenty would sign an election certificate if Coleman continued an appeal — a possibility that quickly became moot with Coleman's concession.
Pawlenty said he would sign the certificate later Tuesday.
Franken declared his candidacy more than two years ago, and he and Coleman have combined to spend $50 million in pursuit of the seat. That's more than double what it cost candidates in 2002, when Coleman won the seat that had been held by the late Paul Wellstone.
In the months since Election Day, both men have kept comparatively low profiles. After Coleman's term expired in January, he took a job as a consultant and strategic adviser to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a group that advocates in Washington on Jewish issues.
But Coleman also frequently appeared at the lower-court proceeding that handled his legal challenge, in contrast to Franken, who stayed away. Aside from some trips to Washington to meet with Reid and other Senate leaders, Franken has spent his time in private, saying he was studying issues to be prepared if seated.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Franken told her Tuesday he's "ready to get started immediately." The Democrat said Franken is expected to immediately dive into the health care reform debate.
"This victory was hard earned for Al Franken and his family," she said. "Franni Franken had a suitcase packed, ready to go to Washington at a moment's notice, like you do when you're waiting to have a baby. She had a toothbrush, clothes, all of that, ready to go."
-
Minnesota is still a state? I thought we ceded it to Canada when there were fewer than thirty teeth in the state.
-
Back off zack, A Prairie Home Companion comes from Minnesota. :)
-
As does Al Franken. He wrote a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot-- how bad could he be?
-
Title reminded me of this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
-
I hate that article. Too eerie.
-
Minnesota is still a state? I thought we ceded it to Canada when there were fewer than thirty teeth in the state.
We're fine with our 10 provinces and 3 territories. No need for any more :)
-
Minnesota is still a state? I thought we ceded it to Canada when there were fewer than thirty teeth in the state.
We're fine with our 10 provinces and 3 territories. No need for any more :)
What if we toss in North Dakota and Idaho?
-
Oh, and Alaska.
-
I would have thought he was talking about the fall of the republicrats, but that's ok. :p
-
Well, you Euro guys are gonna get your wish...the USA is well and truly ****ed now...
-
It wouldn't have mattered, both parties are just twins dressed in different suits.
-
60 member majority now. This could be quite the show now.
-
Depends if Obama still wants to play bi-partisan and tip-toe around the opposition. If he just gets up and goes, well, the US might finally start to grow up post cold-war and join the rest of the civilized world. Otherwise, well, more of the same.
-
Well, you Euro guys are gonna get your wish...the USA is well and truly ****ed now...
The USA was well and truly ****ed from the 2000 election onwards.
-
Well, you Euro guys are gonna get your wish...the USA is well and truly ****ed now...
The USA was well and truly ****ed from the 2000 election onwards.
Back it up to 1991 and I might agree with you...
-
Depends if Obama still wants to play bi-partisan and tip-toe around the opposition. If he just gets up and goes, well, the US might finally start to grow up post cold-war and join the rest of the civilized world. Otherwise, well, more of the same.
Obama has a reputation as a moderate and a post-partisan man. And politicians do need to maintain reputations, since they don't have any real principles to replace them in case they are gone. So don't expect Obama to go far-left anytime soon, as he needs to keep the American people thinking he cares about the opposition.
-
Maybe he actually does?
-
Maybe he actually does?
Ugh, I hope not. Until the Republicans come up with something other than "protecting" marriage and sucking corporate dick, they don't deserve to be listened to.
-
Maybe he actually does?
All things considered, he's probably far too forward-thinking to do so.
-
If I'm lucky, the USA will become enough like Europe that I won't have to move!
Then, Liberator can get some subsidized treatment for the horrible pain that it causes him.
-
I think Liberator using publicly subsidized medicinal marijuana would be pretty ****ing rad.
-
B-but, what if we turn into Europe and allow gay marriage and EVERYONE INEXPLICABLY TURNS GAY.
I hate Europe; I'd never live there. XP But sometimes, some of them get it right. Whatever.
-
Depends if Obama still wants to play bi-partisan and tip-toe around the opposition. If he just gets up and goes, well, the US might finally start to grow up post cold-war and join the rest of the civilized world. Otherwise, well, more of the same.
Obama has a reputation as a moderate and a post-partisan man. And politicians do need to maintain reputations, since they don't have any real principles to replace them in case they are gone. So don't expect Obama to go far-left anytime soon, as he needs to keep the American people thinking he cares about the opposition.
Obama has managed to lie about practically everything. The vast majority of his policies were either a continuation of or an expansion of what Bush was doing.
-
Depends if Obama still wants to play bi-partisan and tip-toe around the opposition. If he just gets up and goes, well, the US might finally start to grow up post cold-war and join the rest of the civilized world. Otherwise, well, more of the same.
Obama has a reputation as a moderate and a post-partisan man. And politicians do need to maintain reputations, since they don't have any real principles to replace them in case they are gone. So don't expect Obama to go far-left anytime soon, as he needs to keep the American people thinking he cares about the opposition.
Obama has managed to lie about practically everything. The vast majority of his policies were either a continuation of or an expansion of what Bush was doing.
I wouldn't go quite that far, as his (successful) appointments so far have been direct opposite. Women, gays, nonwhites, oh my! And I'm pleased about him killing the global gag rule. But I won't lie, I'm fairly disappointed on some other things he's done so far. :\
-
Yes let's not forget placing an appointment upon a blatant racist and feminazi.
-
I really hope she gets on. Which is odd because you'd think as a white guy, this would help me in no way whatsoever.
-
feminazi
Your misogyny is showing.
-
Hardly, I am a staunch supporter of Dr. King's original viewpoint.
Feminazi (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminazi) refers to militant feminists. I could also extend that to Econazi or whatever else you like.
-
Wow, your link does not help show you are not a mysogynist.
Definition: an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women
I guess I'm a feminazi, then. Oh, right:
Usage: derogatory
It's another one of the many female-specific insults based on the she not being a submissive, doe-eyed virgin with no ambitions outside of looking pretty, marriage and children.
Besides, stop Godwinning. It makes you look like a moron.
-
I just like how it's an "extreme feminist" who believes in the option of abortion like it's the worst thing you can possibly think of.
She's.... a feminist.... and not just any feminist, an extreme feminist! And that's not all.... she's also.... dun dun dun, PRO CHOICE!
I'm curious what an extreme feminist is who's not pro choice? Like they want to be paid 75% instead of 70% of a man's salary?
-
What part of
Hardly, I am a staunch supporter of Dr. King's original viewpoint.
was not clear?
Dr. King in several speeches, including and foremost the "I have a dream" speech, proclaimed a desire for a society that treats all people ,regardless of color or gender, equally. Not specially.
So I guess you want your cake(equality) and eat it too(being treated in a special way simply because you are a female).
So no more men holding open doors or pulling out chairs or giving up they're seats, ect, ect, ect.
In case you hadn't noticed some of the more "offensive" behaviors are left over from times long past where men would put women(the mothers and caretakers of the tribe) in the center of the society to protect them from the outside world. This stem from the simple, biological fact that men are typically in the extreme the larger and more physically able of the two genders to defend against an agressor. Men are in fact hardwired to put a woman's safety above they're own up to and including endangering whatever other activity they were engaged in together. Hence why women are not allowed in front line combat units during military service. It's not for her protection, it for the protection of the male soldiers who she would put at risk by being there.
-
You started out good then dove headfirst into crazy. First off, what special treatment? I hold doors open for men because I'm nice, just like I do for women.
Secondly.... what? We can't have women on the front lines because all the men would walk in front of bullets aimed for her and they'd all die? Seriously?
-
B-but, what if we turn into Europe and allow gay marriage and EVERYONE INEXPLICABLY TURNS GAY.
I hate Europe; I'd never live there. XP But sometimes, some of them get it right. Whatever.
Well the EU (with all its faults) has done a great job of keeping Europe at peace (and the Germans inside their own borders :D )
Yes, Separation issues do arise. But overall, the EU has managed to mix socialism, capitalism, democracy all together.
'Europe' has not allowed gay marriage. Every country has their own laws on social issues whether it be abortion, homosexuality, etc.
Like in Ireland, Abortion is Illegal, so is gay marriage but gay couple still have the same rights in terms of wills, taxes, basically the same rights as non gay couples. Just not calling it 'marriage'.
Think its Civil Partnership or something like that, not sure, doesn't affect me.
At least Europe, has tried to take the lead on Environmental issues which we can all agree is badly needed. And better regulation of financial services which was badly needed.
Just don't want Europe becoming another USA
-
Sorry about that BL, I'm kinda on the ragged edge of needing to sleep so I'm probably not making my usual amt of sense(or lack thereof).
-
You started out good then dove headfirst into crazy. First off, what special treatment? I hold doors open for men because I'm nice, just like I do for women.
Secondly.... what? We can't have women on the front lines because all the men would walk in front of bullets aimed for her and they'd all die? Seriously?
Dont women have better eye sight than men?
I may be wrong, but im pretty sure in World War 2 many women were Snipers for the Soviets.
-
Doesn't Israel have women soldiers?
-
Doesn't Israel have women soldiers?
Think your right there.
But then again, Israeli soldiers are Bastards :mad2: :mad: :ick:
-
I see....
-
may be a bit harsh of a comment, but just personal opinion :rolleyes:
but anyhow, back on topic......
-
But then again, Israeli soldiers are Bastards :mad2: :mad: :ick:
I think you should PM that to Sandwich. I'm sure he'd appreciate it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Back onto topic, Al Franken being in politics sure shows how serious politics are.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Back onto topic, Al Franken being in politics sure shows how serious politics are.
Well, give him a chance, see what happens
Interesting times we live in!
-
Oh I think he fits right in.
That's the joke.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Well then maybe men should learn to stop being such ****ing sexists, eh?
Obviously, it's men we should be keeping out of the military, seeing as they're so ****ing useless if they're too close to a vagina.
-
The "issue" of women in the military reminds me of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gays_too_precious_to_risk_in).
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Well then maybe men should learn to stop being such ****ing sexists, eh?
Obviously, it's men we should be keeping out of the military, seeing as they're so ****ing useless if they're too close to a vagina.
by God you may have just invented the best weapons to defeat any army! A giant......................
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Well then maybe men should learn to stop being such ****ing sexists, eh?
Obviously, it's men we should be keeping out of the military, seeing as they're so ****ing useless if they're too close to a vagina.
You know its not always that "men are being sexist" in a deliberate premeditated way. We all have instinctual responses to different kinds of situations where normal rational thought is totally overridden by instinct. In a frenzied combat situation I'm not at all surprised that the reaction toward a fellow female in the combat unit might differ from a fellow male no matter how well developed their modern sense of gender roles might be.
Interestingly enough that Wikipedia link above says that women are able to take on any role in the Canadian Forces except for submarines. I knew we had women in combat operations and on the front line but I didn't realize how unrestricted it was. One day it would be interesting to compare combat reports between the different nations on the ground in Afghanistan.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Well then maybe men should learn to stop being such ****ing sexists, eh?
Obviously, it's men we should be keeping out of the military, seeing as they're so ****ing useless if they're too close to a vagina.
You know its not always that "men are being sexist" in a deliberate premeditated way. We all have instinctual responses to different kinds of situations where normal rational thought is totally overridden by instinct. In a frenzied combat situation I'm not at all surprised that the reaction toward a fellow female in the combat unit might differ from a fellow male no matter how well developed their modern sense of gender roles might be.
So... men are driven by instinct to the point that it overrides military training and causes significant problems? I don't see how that's supposed to change my mind.
-
So... men are driven by instinct to the point that it overrides military training and causes significant problems? I don't see how that's supposed to change my mind.
In nearly every major species capable of infighting on the planet, males do the job. To overturn evolution is not an easy thing to be accomplished in a few years.
-
So... men are driven by instinct to the point that it overrides military training and causes significant problems? I don't see how that's supposed to change my mind.
Whose trying to change your mind?
Tell me, I'd give them a darwin award. :p
-
This stem from the simple, biological fact that men are typically in the extreme the larger and more physically able of the two genders to defend against an agressor.
The gun is the great equalizer, bullets from women can kill you just as good as bullets from men. In situations like that size can be a disadvantage, larger size == larger target.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Well then maybe men should learn to stop being such ****ing sexists, eh?
Obviously, it's men we should be keeping out of the military, seeing as they're so ****ing useless if they're too close to a vagina.
Shortsighted way to look at it, but that's basically how it is.
It's like putting a problem inside of a problem. You don't put one into the other until you've solved the first one. And we're never really going to solve the male-female equality relationship.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
Well then maybe men should learn to stop being such ****ing sexists, eh?
Obviously, it's men we should be keeping out of the military, seeing as they're so ****ing useless if they're too close to a vagina.
Shortsighted way to look at it, but that's basically how it is.
It's like putting a problem inside of a problem. You don't put one into the other until you've solved the first one. And we're never really going to solve the male-female equality relationship.
If only because of all the dumbasses going "onoes! evolution says ____!"
Screw evolution. Look at us, our teeth are tiny and flat, we have no real claws to speak of, we're gangly and naked and pathetic little creatures. And yet we are the number one predator of every animal on the planet, including ourselves.
Evolution gave us brains enough to create inequality and then think about killing it, so why don't we ****ing use them, huh?
It's like goddamn, people, we train dogs to overcome instinct. Are we dumber than dogs?
-
Screw evolution. Look at us, our teeth are tiny and flat, we have no real claws to speak of, we're gangly and naked and pathetic little creatures. And yet we are the number one predator of every animal on the planet, including ourselves.
Actually, there's a reason we're the number one predator besides brains. Endurance. Humans are one of the best endurance runners in the world. We can actually outrun freaking horses when taking endurance into account. There were (are ??) tribes that hunted using this method, tiring the prey to death.
The only animals with better endurance are dogs. And as a consequence, they were the first to be domesticated.
-
Uh huh. That's why we're the number one threat to Cheetahs and Lions and Bears and whathaveyou. We run them to death. :rolleyes:
-
Yes. Humans are more resilient than you give credit for.
I should mention that all of those are not optimal prey for man. The risks of hunting those don't compensate the reward. The same reasons why many of those animals actually avoid humans and other large predators.
While I'm at it, here (http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html)'s something to read about.
-
We train dogs to overcome certain instincts. Mainly by focusing on other instincts that are more difficult to overcome. Mostly of these are centered around the dog's owner being viewed as Pack Leader.
Instinct is difficult to overcome. If you were to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building, most people, probably something on close to 90% are going to panic and run for the door. Maybe less, but the point is that we have an instinct to run from large fires. It is an oversimplification to say that putting a woman in a front line combat unit isn't allowed by most militaries because they'd be a distraction, but, and you can't deny it, it would be. Even if the sexual interrelations didn't occur, she'd cause the unit to lose focus and possibly take more casualties than needed.
I'm not even saying that this hypothetical woman couldn't handle it physically, but in all seriousness, the average woman is between 5'2" and 5'7" and weighs in at 110 to 130lbs. Excellent physical conditioning or not, how is she going to drag a 6'3" 300+ lb marine from a burning tank or overturned hummvee? That's the main reason.
You wanna see what would happen to a woman in a front line combat unit? Go watch GI Jane. The part right up until she rings the bell is about right. Watch closely while she's being interrogated during training. Her squad is begging for the colonel to stop and he keeps pushing till one of them breaks. That's another reason women shouldn't be in a front line unit.
Now civilian life is a different story, pretty much any job that doesn't require an extreme of physical output should be equal pay for equal work. But there's just no place for a woman on an Oil Rig deck or a crab boat deck in the Bering Sea.
-
1. If men can't do their job because a woman is nearby, then they deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool. Or maybe men in the military should just all be castrated, if they can't ****ing deal with a woman nearby. How is having a vagina such a huge distraction for others, anyway? That's stupid. That's more of the same "boys will be boys" bull**** that lets men get away with rape by the thousands.
2. How is a man that size going to carry the 300+lb marine either?
3. I'm not going to watch some bull**** military movie because you think it's accurate. You're clearly an idiot, and I will not take your suggestions seriously.
4. Your "women don't belong on the front lines because on average they are weaker" makes as much logical sense as "men are too strongly affected by women, so they shouldn't work in any field where women work." That's why I said it: to show you how dumb your assertions are.
-
In fairness, for (1) Don't rule out the genetic and inbuilt factors, men do tend to lose a few IQ points around an attractive woman, and they get an increased urge to display or show-off. That's not something that can really be stopped, and the high-adrenaline situations of war actually exacerbate those feelings, rather than subdue them.
So, whilst I agree that a woman is every bit as capable of acting as a soldier as a man, mixed-sex groups would contain stresses and inter-relationships that could not be avoided, even in places like Israel, you have seperate barracks for genders iirc.
Personally however, I've always assumed that a high percentage of women were too smart to go for the infantry jobs...
-
Agreed flip, I'm not saying that women can't or shouldn't be in the military. Far from it, just that they're assignments are, rightly so, away from the front in whatever conflict they're engaged in. I'm not stating an opinion, AFAIK, the US Army will not assign a woman to a unit that will see front line combat.
As to the physical aspect thing. It's rare to find a woman who can lift her own bodyweight, much less twice, hell it's rare to find a man who can life his own bodyweight, much less twice. All I'm meant by that statement was that even a woman in incredible physical condition who can easily lift twice her bodyweight(250lbs on average) is going to find it impossible to lift a man who weighs more than three times her bodyweight 6 or 7 feet vertically, we're not talking about pulling him along the ground, we're talking about lifting him vertically, most men would have a hard time with that. It sounds anti-woman to read that I know, and the feminists have done a really good job at making you think otherwise, but there are basic biological differences between men and women that have nothing to do with plumbing.
-
Screw evolution. Look at us, our teeth are tiny and flat, we have no real claws to speak of, we're gangly and naked and pathetic little creatures. And yet we are the number one predator of every animal on the planet, including ourselves.
We also taste bad, we don't come in ones or twos but in tens, we have vastly superior group coordination and communication, we adapt our camoflague. Ghostavo's endurance point is also well-made. We run marathons, twenty-six miles, in a few hours. A horse can't even run that far; they get blown out after four or five miles and if forced to do more will suffer permanent injury. A cheetah will injure itself if it tries to run more than about a mile at a stretch. A bear can't even make a half-mile. Lions can do about two. We could run them to death.
So basically, you're full of ****. But then, we knew that.
-
Liberator as a microcosm of this community here is more or less physical proof as to why one can say "It will never change for the better".
-
Agreed flip, I'm not saying that women can't or shouldn't be in the military. Far from it, just that they're assignments are, rightly so, away from the front in whatever conflict they're engaged in. I'm not stating an opinion, AFAIK, the US Army will not assign a woman to a unit that will see front line combat.
As to the physical aspect thing. It's rare to find a woman who can lift her own bodyweight, much less twice, hell it's rare to find a man who can life his own bodyweight, much less twice. All I'm meant by that statement was that even a woman in incredible physical condition who can easily lift twice her bodyweight(250lbs on average) is going to find it impossible to lift a man who weighs more than three times her bodyweight 6 or 7 feet vertically, we're not talking about pulling him along the ground, we're talking about lifting him vertically, most men would have a hard time with that. It sounds anti-woman to read that I know, and the feminists have done a really good job at making you think otherwise, but there are basic biological differences between men and women that have nothing to do with plumbing.
I'm incredibly out of shape, short, young, and chronically ill. I can lift Turambar, and he's nearly twice my size. Besides, that, people tend to do amazing things with adrenaline.
Screw evolution. Look at us, our teeth are tiny and flat, we have no real claws to speak of, we're gangly and naked and pathetic little creatures. And yet we are the number one predator of every animal on the planet, including ourselves.
We also taste bad, we don't come in ones or twos but in tens, we have vastly superior group coordination and communication, we adapt our camoflague. Ghostavo's endurance point is also well-made. We run marathons, twenty-six miles, in a few hours. A horse can't even run that far; they get blown out after four or five miles and if forced to do more will suffer permanent injury. A cheetah will injure itself if it tries to run more than about a mile at a stretch. A bear can't even make a half-mile. Lions can do about two. We could run them to death.
So basically, you're full of ****. But then, we knew that.
So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win? So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.
Besides, you cut my quote. I did finish with "evolution gave us brains, how about we use them."
-
We are, battle is a "No Distractions" zone, even if you are the most masculine girl ever, you will be a distraction on the battlefield, unintended though it may be. Or do you want to get your squad/battalion-mates killed because they were showing out to try and impress you? Most feminists I've met(precious few) can't seem to get they're heads around the fact that females are inherently weaker physically(they're muscles are less dense pound for pound) and are not well suited to heavy laborious tasks. We like that art and the idea of Wonder Woman, but the practical side is that she's a mythological character who doesn't exist. She's a good role model, to be powerful and strong both physically and mentally, but at the same time, don't leave your femininity by the wayside.
On the topic of instincts, women ARE 9 times out of 10 better caregivers than men, it's just the way things are. If you have it in you to go be a corporate muckymuck great, but corporate muckymucks seldom have time for children or families, not like they need anyway.
-
Goddamn, just shut up. If a man can't not be dumbass who have to show off for anything with a vagina, he should NOT be on the front lines. Duhhhrrrr
"On average" does not mean ANYTHING to this discussion. If a man is weak, does he get to be in the military because he has a penis? NO. So why do you say a woman who IS strong enough be in the military shouldn't?
**** femininity. Having a vagina doesn't mean I'm obligated to act "feminine."
Women are better caregivers is bull****. Straight up.
I don't understand why idiots like you can't wrap their heads around "people" instead of "men vs women." We can't ban Asians from the military because they are smaller on average, why should we ban women? I'm sure a black in the military would be very distracting to racists in the military. In fact, keeping gays out of the military or in the closet is pretty much us catering to bigots. WHY are we catering to bigots? Oh, yeah, because they're shiny straight, white men, and that makes them somehow better than everybody else in the eyes of other straight white men.
-
Nobody's banning anyone from anything.
Besides, your gays comment has little bearing on the conversation at hand. You seem to be forgetting that a large portion of the enlisted man's time is spent in a communal living enviroment. Now we can have separate dwellings for the men and women fine, but what about the gays? It's a myth(I would assume) in American "macho" culture(a stereotype maybe?) that gay men might sneak around after lights out and do things to the other sleeping GIs. Now while this isn't true, you can be damned sure it's on the minds of those GIs when they are bunking down for the night.
Liberals...so willing to do whatever it takes to make sure every little minority doesn't have to shed a tear from discomfort that they trample all over the majority's rights, usually trampling them into the dirt.
What about MY right to not be offended?
MY right to not pay higher taxes cause some nutcase thinks it's a good idea?
What about MY right to succeed on my own and expect everyone else to?
I'm going to be very clear here, Iamzack, I don't give a fig if you or any other woman wants to be a creep about. But I draw the line at making FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICY to force it on me. So I'll tell you like I'll tell any other bugger who wants to rain on my parade. If you wanna be congenial and nice about whatever you have a bug up your ass about, fine, but if you wanna yell and scream and protest, then shut the hell up and get off my lawn! :D
There, I feel better now, bit of a catharsis that was... :nod:
-
Nobody's banning anyone from anything.
Besides, your gays comment has little bearing on the conversation at hand. You seem to be forgetting that a large portion of the enlisted man's time is spent in a communal living enviroment. Now we can have separate dwellings for the men and women fine, but what about the gays? It's a myth(I would assume) in American "macho" culture(a stereotype maybe?) that gay men might sneak around after lights out and do things to the other sleeping GIs. Now while this isn't true, you can be damned sure it's on the minds of those GIs when they are bunking down for the night.
Liberals...so willing to do whatever it takes to make sure every little minority doesn't have to shed a tear from discomfort that they trample all over the majority's rights, usually trampling them into the dirt.
What about MY right to not be offended?
MY right to not pay higher taxes cause some nutcase thinks it's a good idea?
What about MY right to succeed on my own and expect everyone else to?
I'm going to be very clear here, Iamzack, I don't give a fig if you or any other woman wants to be a creep about. But I draw the line at making FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICY to force it on me. So I'll tell you like I'll tell any other bugger who wants to rain on my parade. If you wanna be congenial and nice about whatever you have a bug up your ass about, fine, but if you wanna yell and scream and protest, then shut the hell up and get off my lawn! :D
There, I feel better now, bit of a catharsis that was... :nod:
1. Naw, really? Couldn't possibly why I worded everything as "why SHOULD we ban..."
2. Then maybe the GIs need some edumacation. They can't always be protected from TEH GAY by mommy government.
3. What is federal policy forcing on you, exactly? ONOES wimminz and gaez and blax with the same rights and opportunities granted to you?!
-
So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win?
You are right, it isn't.
I never said endurance was the only attribute humans had that made them a superior predator. But it is one of the (if not THE) most important one. It was what enabled us to start eating meat and probably modeled our entire physiology.
So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.
Ironically, that could be the death of the Cheetah. :P Because they've dedicated so much of their body for speed, endurance is one of their really low points. A hunt for a Cheetah is a matter of much greater risk than for all other predators. If it fails a hunt or gains very little reward from it (humans aren't exactly the filet mignon of the animal world) it could actually starve because it wastes so much energy on running.
Regarding women in the military, I actually agree with you. Ability should be the top focus in anything, not gender.
-
Ironically, that could be the death of the Cheetah. :P Because they've dedicated so much of their body for speed, endurance is one of their really low points. A hunt for a Cheetah is a matter of much greater risk than for all other predators. If it fails a hunt or gains very little reward from it (humans aren't exactly the filet mignon of the animal world) it could actually starve because it wastes so much energy on running.
I actually learned that a few weeks ago. I also learned that they're so inbred in some areas they might as well just ****ing die already, lol.
But, srsly, my meaning was more like in a human vs animal match, the human's not going to come out on top. Not humans in the past, I mean you vs cheetah, GO. At this point, I feel it's our intelligence that keeps us on top, for better or for worse, and that if we are so smart, we should be able to manually override instincts that no longer have any real benefit.
-
Agreed flip, I'm not saying that women can't or shouldn't be in the military. Far from it, just that they're assignments are, rightly so, away from the front in whatever conflict they're engaged in. I'm not stating an opinion, AFAIK, the US Army will not assign a woman to a unit that will see front line combat.
As to the physical aspect thing. It's rare to find a woman who can lift her own bodyweight, much less twice, hell it's rare to find a man who can life his own bodyweight, much less twice. All I'm meant by that statement was that even a woman in incredible physical condition who can easily lift twice her bodyweight(250lbs on average) is going to find it impossible to lift a man who weighs more than three times her bodyweight 6 or 7 feet vertically, we're not talking about pulling him along the ground, we're talking about lifting him vertically, most men would have a hard time with that. It sounds anti-woman to read that I know, and the feminists have done a really good job at making you think otherwise, but there are basic biological differences between men and women that have nothing to do with plumbing.
We are, battle is a "No Distractions" zone, even if you are the most masculine girl ever, you will be a distraction on the battlefield, unintended though it may be. Or do you want to get your squad/battalion-mates killed because they were showing out to try and impress you? Most feminists I've met(precious few) can't seem to get they're heads around the fact that females are inherently weaker physically(they're muscles are less dense pound for pound) and are not well suited to heavy laborious tasks. We like that art and the idea of Wonder Woman, but the practical side is that she's a mythological character who doesn't exist. She's a good role model, to be powerful and strong both physically and mentally, but at the same time, don't leave your femininity by the wayside.
You are such an idiot (in this argument). I mean, I've seen idiots, and then you just can't even think (in this argument.) I wrote that 'you have the reasoning skills of a particularly cretinous I-beam' but then I decided that was just going too far.
Your entire argument here is 'weak people are bad soldiers.' Now, many women are weaker than many men. BUT THIS IS ONLY AN ARGUMENT FOR BANNING WEAK PEOPLE FROM THE MILITARY. It says nothing about whether or not the people taking the fitness tests have in-junk our out-junk (if you catch my drift.)
If the problem is that 'most women are too weak to be in the military' then your response should be 'people who can pass this standard of physical fitness can be in the military.' It should not be 'ban all women.' You let the women who can pass the test in (and yes, that will be very few women) instead of establishing a double standard (which the military today does.) A second-grader could figure that out. You cannot.
As for your utterly asinine argument that women on the battlefield are a distraction (simply more proof that you are a sexist prick who must scramble for excuses to keep women out of patriarchal positions), please explain the following to me:
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_the_Great_Patriotic_War)
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoya_Kosmodemyanskaya)
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Alexeyevna_Lobkovskaya)
this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko)
the entire ****ing country of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel)
this goddamn Afghan warlord with a vagina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibi_Ayesha)
this woman who saved her wounded man-friends because she was a well-trained and effective soldier (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23547346/)
I could go on forever.
You are ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic and crass. On top of that you are unintelligent and uneducated. If you continue to spout material which cannot be rationally defended as an opinion then it will be categorized as hate speech and I will petition for measures to be taken.
All that said, there are always going to be far fewer women in the infantry than men if physical fitness tests are fair...but if all else was fair women would make up most of the Navy and a significant portion of the Air Force (not to mention the entire space program.) Not to mention that those women snipers mentioned there were clearly doing a better job than most of their male comrades.
On the topic of instincts, women ARE 9 times out of 10 better caregivers than men, it's just the way things are. If you have it in you to go be a corporate muckymuck great, but corporate muckymucks seldom have time for children or families, not like they need anyway.
As for this piece of sexist bull****, it apparently never occurred to you to consider that maybe women act this way because people like you teach them to? That maybe they live in a culture permeated with this stereotype?
Go **** around with the Israeli military for a bit, or with the all-women gangs in India, and then come back and assert that again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_soldiers#Contemporary_debate
Fun facts. Apparently in real live trials, men lose their **** and play White Knight with women in the military, making the entire unit tactically ****ing useless.
While that's actually a pretty valid concern, as iamzack pointed out it's more a problem with the men and the cultural values surrounding patriarchy and protection of women. And if there were more women in the military, such as in the Israeli military, I'm betting it'd be less of a novelty. The Soviets handled it fine.
So... men are driven by instinct to the point that it overrides military training and causes significant problems? I don't see how that's supposed to change my mind.
In nearly every major species capable of infighting on the planet, males do the job. To overturn evolution is not an easy thing to be accomplished in a few years.
Oh, c'mon, NGTM-1R, you know better than the rest of us that tool use trumps evolution. A good stance and a smooth trigger pull > genetic presets.
Plus, um, ants are a major species (possibly second only to humans in terms of land territory covered?), and the females do all the fighting there.
-
Hatespeech? If you honestly think I hate women, especially based on ANYTHING I've posted in this or any other comment...wow, I am speechless.
How dare you accuse me of hatespeech?!!?!? I'll take a lot. I mean it, you can insult and ridicule me all you want, but that impugns my character and I won't have it!
-
You really crossed a few lines there. You've tiptoed dangerously into pundit talk.
-
Hatespeech? If you honestly think I hate women, especially based on ANYTHING I've posted in this or any other comment...wow, I am speechless.
How dare you accuse me of hatespeech?!!?!? I'll take a lot. I mean it, you can insult and ridicule me all you want, but that impugns my character and I won't have it!
Well, I'm glad I at least got through to you. If the implication that you hate women is what it takes to make you realize that the things you're saying are hateful to women, then it has to be said.
I prefer to at least insult conditionally rather than dispositionally, so rest assured the fact that you're doing something now doesn't mean I think you are something. I've been pretty harsh on you but that doesn't mean I think you're a bad person.
I'm glad it made enough of an impact to make you think about what you're saying, but your conclusions are so disconnected from your premises that the only way to connect them is by the black box of sexist assumptions.
Seriously, Liberator. If you think you're hurt at being accused of hatespeech, imagine how the women who are reading this feel about what you're saying about women and their abilities in the world. 'Nine out of ten times they're better caretakers?' Great message to send to all the women who want to step into stereotypically male roles. It's exactly this kind of sexist, bull**** myths that keep women down because they're raised on this garbage. You should take a few implicit association tests; they're very revealing when it comes to prototypic associations and how powerful they are.
You really crossed a few lines there. You've tiptoed dangerously into pundit talk.
Not sure which of us you're referring to, but in my case, I'm giving Liberator fair warning, since other forum members have been monkeyed or banned just a few posts farther down the path he's treading.
-
I'll concede that some of the stuff I said was uncomfortable from a feminist perspective.
But that highlights another growing problem in Modern America. The thinness of skin when people start to get "offensive". People are getting WAY to eager to call stuff Hatespeech. I mean, I've seen and heard stuff that I wouldn't consider to be anything more offensive than mildly insulting and people go ape****.
I mean, lemme put it in context for you. I'm from Alabama, for those not familiar with the state, we have NASA's largest research complex at the Marshall Spaceflight Center, we were the state the first open heart surgery was performed in and a lot of other stuff I forget about. But, historically speaking, Alabama was also the birthplace of the Equal Rights movement during the 60's. It's also one of the states that you classically think of when you hear the word "redneck". Until Jeff Foxworthy popularized the term it was considered an insulting term. Now imagine how would you feel if a bunch of hayseeds from Jackson County, Alabama marched on Washington because they were being oppressed? We're talking about white, lower class clodhopping farmboys who couldn't find the country seat without a map. Now, what if the source of that oppression was an organization of black people or women? Who's side would you be on? I have a pretty fair clue.
That rather wordy analogy was supposed to illustrate that certain groups have a very thin skin for dealing with insults. Remember you are now and have for the last 5 or 10 years, arguing with a Redneck. Now White Trash is whole different magilla....
-
I'll concede that some of the stuff I said was uncomfortable from a feminist perspective.
But that highlights another growing problem in Modern America. The thinness of skin when people start to get "offensive". People are getting WAY to eager to call stuff Hatespeech. I mean, I've seen and heard stuff that I wouldn't consider to be anything more offensive than mildly insulting and people go ape****.
I mean, lemme put it in context for you. I'm from Alabama, for those not familiar with the state, we have NASA's largest research complex at the Marshall Spaceflight Center, we were the state the first open heart surgery was performed in and a lot of other stuff I forget about. But, historically speaking, Alabama was also the birthplace of the Equal Rights movement during the 60's. It's also one of the states that you classically think of when you hear the word "redneck". Until Jeff Foxworthy popularized the term it was considered an insulting term. Now imagine how would you feel if a bunch of hayseeds from Jackson County, Alabama marched on Washington because they were being oppressed? We're talking about white, lower class clodhopping farmboys who couldn't find the country seat without a map. Now, what if the source of that oppression was an organization of black people or women? Who's side would you be on? I have a pretty fair clue.
That rather wordy analogy was supposed to illustrate that certain groups have a very thin skin for dealing with insults. Remember you are now and have for the last 5 or 10 years, arguing with a Redneck. Now White Trash is whole different magilla....
If it was a case of oppression of the poor and uneducated? I'd absolutely take their side.
But you cannot make a case that white males have as much of a right to be thin-skinned as women or other minorities. White males are the prototypic power-holders. Most government members, military officers, and CEOs are white males. They earn more and have more freedom.
White males have privilege which other minority groups have not earned. They have a number of negative freedoms: they are comparatively free from racism, free from rape, free from gender or race-based violence on the street (comparatively, mind), free from targeting on the basis of sexual orientation (assuming they are straight) and free from exclusion from power groups. What is more, white males are not held back by negative stereotypic associations in the way women are. Speech like yours holds women back because it reinforces these prototypic assocations. When you say things like what you said you are directly contributing to the perpetuation of sexism in this country.
But, all that said, I understand why you said it and why you believed it was appropriate when you wrote it. I don't think you're a bad person. I just really want you to realize why it's genuinely bad and not just 'bad from the viewpoint of a liberal thin-skinned feminist.'
-
Liberator, several of your posts have been overtly sexist. 100% of the women (and at least one man) in this thread are offended. I would call that more than "uncomfortable."
Additionally, I believe the forum rules say that sexism is not permitted. So even if your words happened to fall short of the technical definition of hate speech, you've certainly crossed the line of what's acceptable here.
Also, about this:
On the topic of instincts, women ARE 9 times out of 10 better caregivers than men, it's just the way things are. If you have it in you to go be a corporate muckymuck great, but corporate muckymucks seldom have time for children or families, not like they need anyway.
Just going by the sample available to us right here: would you honestly trust iaz or me with your children?
-
Fair enough, I'll shut up.
In response to your question, if I had no other choice, probably, as I would expect both of you to be relatively clean, respectable people with an understanding of the resposibility I'd be handing you. But seeing as I'm missing 2 of the 3 components for that particular bit of chemistry, it's kinda moot :D
-
What? You're missing both your testicles?
I...honestly don't understand.
-
no no, the formula for children to spring from my loins is as follows:
Me + My Mate + safe home = healthy, respectful, well-raised children
I'm missing 2 of the 3, and I'm obviously not missing me.
-
Well, I hope that's everybody's formula, since I imagine it works well.
-
;-)
-
I think that stuff's implied, High Max.
-
So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win? So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.
Besides, you cut my quote. I did finish with "evolution gave us brains, how about we use them."
Endurance is a component of it but not the only part. That Cheetah isn't "going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet" because its one or two Cheetahs operating in a limited fashion as a team potentially versus a much larger group of humans who can exchange information in a complex manner. That makes us infinitely more dangerous. As hunters in pre-historic times humans could outlast their prey...in the short many animals could out run us but in the long we would run them down. We're very much built to be runners...
Individually we're not really that impressive but collectively (and were VERY gregarious) we are. Don't discount that for a second.
-
So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win? So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.
Besides, you cut my quote. I did finish with "evolution gave us brains, how about we use them."
Endurance is a component of it but not the only part. That Cheetah isn't "going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet" because its one or two Cheetahs operating in a limited fashion as a team potentially versus a much larger group of humans who can exchange information in a complex manner. That makes us infinitely more dangerous. As hunters in pre-historic times humans could outlast their prey...in the short many animals could out run us but in the long we would run them down. We're very much built to be runners...
Individually we're not really that impressive but collectively (and were VERY gregarious) we are. Don't discount that for a second.
Like she said: "evolution gave us brains, how about we use them."
Sounds like you're agreeing.
-
;-)
-
So, basically, endurance is 100% a predictor of win? So what if you can run 26 miles in a few hours. Cheetah is going to kill your ass before you can get 26 feet.
A lone cheetah is actually going to find it pretty tough to take down an adult human. They're about the size and weight of some larger running dogs, so you probably outmass it by fifty pounds; you have longer reach; cheetah claws are not terribly sharp and it lacks the brute "upper body" strength of most large cats. Unless you run from it, it won't be able to trip you; cheetahs are relatively fragile, being built for speed, and typically won't even bother with a full-body takedown manuver since it puts them at unnecessary risk.
Your only real risk is if you turn your back on it (while on the ground!), in which case it will do the usual cat thing and attempt to crush your spinal cord. (Which I assume it's capable of, but it may not be; cheetahs typically go after very lightly built prey and a human is out of its weight class, as mentioned before.)
I'm strictly here for the Fail Biology Forever bits.
I came up with something. Imagine if a creature could be both warm and cold blooded "could switch on and off its body heat production". If it gets too warm, the creature could turn its body heat down or off and back on again when it gets colder. It would be very adaptable and energy efficient. Just like if a creature could switch its visual modes from visible to infrared at will. Strange that no creature could ever accomplish that.
Congradulations, you've basically described the mechanism of warm-blooded creatures. The simple truth is we do such things all the time; our core body temperature is high as a measure of our ability to react and act quickly. We can, and do, self-regulate by turning off mechanisms that generate extra heat. That's why you aren't shivering all the time. Most of the rest is the natural function of the body and about as integral as breathing; not something controllable.
Also, there ARE things that see infrared. Most snakes are capable of sensing infrared. The common American white-tailed deer sees in black, white...and infrared. The human eye, for that matter, is slightly sensitive to infrared. You can get special sunglasses that block out visual light wavelengths to prove this, if you like.
-
;-)
-
Strange, I always heard we stay around 98.6 degrees. Is that wrong or something? Also, if we can shut off our body heat, why do mammals struggle so much compared to reptiles in hot environments and why can't we slow our metabolism to the point of going weeks without eating or longer like a reptile when exposed to hot climates? Sounds like a hole in that theory, or are we just not as good at it? But I guess it could explain why people from warm countries can tolerate the heat and wear jeans all the time.
Because our bodies are insulated and designed to maintain a 98.7 temp. In a hot environment, you collect heat faster than you can radiate it. (Sweating is designed to improve this process.) Similarly, we can't do that because we do two things: think an awful lot, and quick action. It's a "design tradeoff" if you will.
But there are no creatures that can switch their eyes from things like detailed color to infrared and the abilities like that all being in the same eyes.
Yes, because if you can do both at once then turning one off is stupid.
Also, if my eyes are at all sensitive to infrared, I would be able to see a little bit when it's pitch dark, but I can't. We humans are completely blind when it's pitch dark. Even in a hot room if it is dark with no visible light, I will see absolutely nothing. Is that another hole in a theory or are my eyes just not like normal human's eyes and only a select few can see in pitch dark? :wtf:
Because it's slight sensitivity. Your eyes are not capable of picking up the heat generated by a warm body. They still require reflected light to function. That's why the sunglasses work; it's bright out.
(Which is amusing; the majority of clothing that is infrared transparent is actually swimwear...most is infrared-absorbent.)
-
Also, there ARE things that see infrared. Most snakes are capable of sensing infrared. The common American white-tailed deer sees in black, white...and infrared.
Not to mention that there are species like the Mantis shrimp with a visual range that stretches all the way from ultraviolet to infra-red.
-
Not to mention, said shrimp has one of the most powerful weapons in nature. That damn claw almost qualifies as an energy weapon.