Just Things:

Yes I can prove that woman are not paid less for the same work as men. But for some reason that will change the mind of no one, who thinks that women are discriminated against in the work force.

Its a fact that boys do far worse in school these days than girls. But that does not stop those who are still trying to make schools a better place for girls.

Its a fact that boys who get the same test scores as girls, still get lower grades in school than girls. But that does not stop those who are trying to make schools a less male centric environment.

Its a fact that girls outnumber boys in extracurricular activities. But that fact will not slow down those who think it is unfair that a few extracurricular activities are male dominated.

Its a fact the girls overwhelmingly receive more scholarships than boys. But that fact will not stop those who believe that men’s athletics give men an unfair advantage in college.

Its a fact that some people just want to be seen as victims, even if they are really privileged.

Living in the USA if you are trying to say that woman are seriously discriminated against so far as eqaul pay for the same work. You are so full of bull shit.

Do men have a better case than woman when the topic is sex discrimination?

 If you guys are going to address pay inequality you should read this first.  http://www.aauw.org/research/graduating-to-a-pay-gap/

If you control for things like college majors and occupations, the pay gap, or the discrepancy between men’s and women’s earnings that can be attributed to bias and discrimination, shrinks down to about one-third of its size. This is what the American Association of University Women determined when it surveyed male and female college graduates one year after graduation and found that, absent all explanatory variables, even including a graduate’s GPA and how selective their school was and how long they were unemployed after graduation, the women made 93% of what the men were making. In other words, 93 cents to the man’s dollar. Not 77 cents. Not 81 cents. Ninety-three cents.

Bush did it! Well No He Didn’t

The Obama administration has secretly wiretapped the associated press for over two mounts  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe

Obama’s IRS Targeted conservative groups: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/irs-scrutiny-went-beyond-tea-party-criteria-broader-than-thought/

Not only did the IRS do that but then they gave confidential information about these conservative groups to liberal groups, in order to help them with opposition research http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

And lets not forget Obama’s direct lies about the Benghazi   White House Lies About the Benghazi Talking Points

Did you ever expect that the Obama administration, in comparison to the Bush administration, would make Bush Jr’s administration look like the most honest and respectful of rights administration of all time?

I knew Obama was going to suck, but this is more than I expected.

About Benghazi

What is known about the terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi. The one part of it that no one can intelligently deny. The entire Obama administration knowingly lied to us about the entire affair, in order to keep it from being an election issue. And the press let them get away with it.

You can argue about everything else if you want to, but what I just said is a fact. No one ever believed it was a riot over a You Tube video. And yes the people in that embassy did not need to die, they could have been saved. Someone messed up and that someone was worried about losing an election (Obama)

Were you ever stupid enough to believe that the terrorist attacks and murders in Benghazi had anything to do with a protest against a YouTube video?

Now let the silly efforts at diverting from these facts begin. (they already have begun on one of Xanga’s bigger fools blogs) Hint I am so uninterested in any efforts to change the subject.

Abercrombie & Fitch Says No to Overeating Gluttons

But Yes to pretty materialistic whores.

I  have been been watching Abercrombie & Fitch treat American’s youth as if they are materialistic dogs in heat.

And now because they do not want the business of the fat, or old, or ugly, or a long list of others … we get unset with them. Of all the things that company does, not wanting fat customers is the least of their sins. They only want the young, pretty, and rich sluts in their stores.

So do you really think that Abercrombie & Fitch would be just fine if they included fat, materialistic sluts to the mix?

I will be back

I have been working harder than normal out of town. So instead of being bored when I get back to my hotel room, I have been going right to sleep.

Don’t worry I still think Xanga is fun, and you guys are cool.

I hope you guys missed me?

A very Ugly Question

An ugly question is a question that some will hate you over. Just because you asked it, no matter the truth of  the question. This is a question whose answer is also ugly.
______________________________________________________________

Racism.

The ultimate evidence of racism, would be searching out members of another race for assault, murder, and especially rape, a crime of dominance and humiliation.

When white people commit violent crimes, rape, murder and assault. How often do they choose black victims? We are bigots are we not? Crimes of violence against a hated race should be a common thing. It certainly was once before.  80 years ago, in days of lynchings, those crimes were obviously racist. But it seems today when white people are violent, they to it to blacks only 2.4 percent of the time. Blacks on the other hand, they choose white victims more than half the time.

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. Black woman were far safer with a white men than with black men.  And that was not an unusual year.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Can you put a good spin on these statistic?

Is racism really mostly a white problem?

@TheTheologiansCafe , You asked for me to re do this one here it is. 

The State

Long ago it was a common belief that the king (the state), as God’s chosen authority on earth. Was personally responsible for the welfare of his people. If life was good, it was because the King was good. All good things in life were directly related to him. If your crop was a bad one, it was not so much because you planted at the wrong time, or did not put in the effort necessary to bring in the harvest before the rains came. No it was all about the providence of God, by way of the King . All good and all bad was the doing of the King. He was given the credit. Needless to say the system tended to keep the average person in poverty. A citizen really had little reason to work harder than he needed to in order to just maintain his life. The king would likely just take more of what he harvested anyway. And the land was all the King’s in the end.

Two Scottish brothers decided they did not agree with a life of serving a king, and the many wars that Clan loyalty demanded of them. So they left Scotland. The fact that their clan had just lost such a war, had much to do with this sudden hatred of the system. They sold themselves as indentured servants to make passage to a new land. That land was America. Those two men basically lived as slaves in order to someday be free of the system of kings and clans. They wanted to be truly free. Their sons were later to fight in the revolutionary war. They had inherited their fathers hate of being owned by the King.

That is my heritage and those are my ancestors. And I do understand the hate of being owned by the state. That hate has been passed down to me. Rather remarkable considering the ages that have passed. That heritage is the reason that the following quote is a favorite of mine.

 ”A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have”

Think about it, the state, the government, the king, its all the same thing. The only thing that is different are the people. When you depend on the government, it becomes your master.

My most Controversial Opinion

The opinion I have that causes the most arguments is.

I do not believe in staying quiet in order to keep the peace.

I speak up when someone in “polite” company makes an ignorant statement about others. No I don’t stay quiet when you insult my faith, or maybe even someone else’s. Call someones faith a fairly tale, and you better be ready to explain why you are the fount of such wisdom. Prove it in other words. If you can’t prove it, and no one can, then you are just spouting your own little fairytale.

Call someone an idiot, and be prepared to prove that you have done more than them, that you are even slightly more intelligent than they are. “What successful business did you ever run”? “. What was your GPA? And that was an ivy league collage you went to right?”.

Why is it considered impolite, to confront the ignorant bores who insist on spouting such tripe?

And despite my conservative politics, and hate for the murder of the unborn, I am very much a feminist. Do not denigrate woman around me. Or even let me hear about it latter. I will not be nice about it. And why should I be nice, when you insult me?

Is is impolite to confront that big mouthed bore, the one we all know, who likes to spout their ignorant opinions?

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

“Bush did it too and you did not say anything then”

Strangely people think that if they can show that a person making an argument has ever been wrong on another subject, that their argument has successfully been countered. It is called (in English) the You Too personal attack.

Its a fallacy because at most you might prove the person making a claim is a bit hypocritical. But their argument likely is still true. If a murderer is a witness to another murderers crime, does that mean the second murder did not happen?

The “You Too Fallacy”(Ad Hominem Tu Quoque) is very popular on Xanga and in politics in general, look for it and ignore it. When in reply to a argument all someone does is attack the person making the argument, and not addressing the argument itself. They are trying to divert the argument away from the facts. Likely because they have lost the argument if they stick to the facts. One would think that if you could prove the statement wrong. Then you would do that, before you would make a personal attack, that was unrelated to the argument.

Obama has been 5 years in office, his party had total legislative control for the two years before that. They had almost dictatorial control for two of Obama’s five years, and have controlled two out of three of the law making branches of our nation for rest of Obama’s presidency. In the five years under our current administration, an administration that had greater political power than I have ever seen in my lifetime. Our nation is being bankrupted by record setting spending. As a solution to this Obama and his party keep proposing budgets that will never balance the budget. Well on the rare occasions they even propose a budget that is.

This is where I’m supposed to ask a question, so here it is.

Can you justify making an argument that diverts from the point that was made. Making the argument about the person making the argument, instead of what they were talking about?

Can you defend the mess the Obama admiration is making of this nation without diverting from the subject?