What is wrong with this picture?

[mrniceguy148]

Mrniceguy, this is hitting the point of stupidity because fallout2man, cuneaformsword, and mulan are all the same freggin pearson.

What makes you so sure that "fallout2man, cuneaformsword, and mulan are all the same freggin pearson"? I wouldn't be surprised though......

Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

I really dunno what's more "pathetic"... making multiple accounts when you can just use your own, or assuming anybody that agrees with me is the same person as me. Remember that most of the United States agrees with me about women's right to have (true) equal opportunity in the workforce and that women taking control of their lives is not detrimental to "family values," let alone the economy. Most of the United States also doesn't consider itself a Christian country, and takes pride in the diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs that its population has to offer. I'm just very surprised and apalled that (until recently) I'm the only one openly defending that position in this thread. At first I figured mrniceguy148 is just a loud minority, but now I really have to wonder. Makes me feel lucky that all the guys I know don't think this way. One less thing to take for granted, I suppose... O.o

[mrniceguy148]

So you'd rather throw capitalism out the window when it doesn't suit your needs? The fact is our economy's based off of competition. The more competing men and women there are the more likely they are to try harder for that job. I'd rather have the best and most highly skilled applicant doing the job, be they man or woman. That said, I'm not a fan of "quotas" I just would rather the entire thing be race/gender blind

I made a long post here earlier but for some reason it didn’t go through? Here’s the short version instead;

--My boss is a capitalist and I'll let him worry about that end of it. I'm just a worker and I'm only concerned with what's best for workers. In fact most people are workers and most of us do a pretty damned good job anyway. "The more competing men and women there are" the lower wages and worker moral fall. Too much competition isn't a good thing. Just ask any "capitalist business man" if you don't believe me! If my "capitalist boss" hates "too much competition" than why should I feel differently?

--Race blind? Yes. Gender blind? No!

--Understand, I never suggested that laws be passed denying women the right to work. However, in the passed (in the 1950’s for example), the free market capitalist butcher, baker and candlestick maker, of their own free will, just refused to hire women. This practice had Biblical roots and that’s why I mentioned the Bible here. This was a decision that a free society had made without interference from government and angry feminists. At the time it was common practice for independent companies to avoid hiring women for certain positions because this preserved the available jobs for the men and spread the available wealth evenly to as many different families as possible. This is an example of a free society making a decision on the basis of what’s best for the greatest amount of people. Understand, in a free society nobody has a Constitutional right to a job in the private sector. That’s why ex-cons have trouble finding work. Anyway, this free market selective hiring system worked great in the 1950’s and 1960’s and it would work even better now!

--If you’re such an expert on capitalism then open up your old economics 101 book and read up on something called “market saturation”. FYI, “market saturation” is something that puts companies out of business and drives down wages. The fact of the matter is that this country still has plenty of decent jobs in spite of corporate downsizing and foreign competition, etc.,.. The problem is we don’t have enough decent paying jobs for everybody that wants one and as technology advances industry will need even fewer workers. That’s why I say let’s get the married women back in the home and actually raising their kids again -- as it was always meant to be! If this creates a labor shortage then we’ll just bring in more immigrants. What’s so hard to understand about that?

--BTW, have you ever heard of a company called Account Temps? Funny, but back when I was going to college, in 1980-81, being an accountant actually meant something! You would never have heard of anything as lowly as "Account Temps" back then, but now accountants seem to be a dime a dozen ! This is a classic example of the invisible hand of “market saturation” at work. There’s just wwwwaaaayyyyy too many women working in that field right now!

How's that for capitalism? The best person for the job, and at peon wages! Just beautiful! Now, do you see what I’m talking about?


Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[mrniceguy148]

So you'd rather throw capitalism out the window when it doesn't suit your needs? The fact is our economy's based off of competition. The more competing men and women there are the more likely they are to try harder for that job. I'd rather have the best and most highly skilled applicant doing the job, be they man or woman. That said, I'm not a fan of "quotas" I just would rather the entire thing be race/gender blind

I made a long post here earlier but for some reason it didn’t go through? Here’s the short version instead;

--My boss is a capitalist and I'll let him worry about that end of it. I'm just a worker and I'm only concerned with what's best for workers. In fact most people are workers and most of us do a pretty damned good job anyway. "The more competing men and women there are" the lower wages and worker moral fall. Too much competition isn't a good thing. Just ask any "capitalist business man" if you don't believe me! If my "capitalist boss" hates "too much competition" than why should I feel differently?

--Race blind? Yes. Gender blind? No!

--Understand, I never suggested that laws be passed denying women the right to work. However, in the passed (in the 1950’s for example), the free market capitalist butcher, baker and candlestick maker, of their own free will, just refused to hire women. This practice had Biblical roots and that’s why I mentioned the Bible here. This was a decision that a free society had made without interference from government and angry feminists. At the time it was common practice for independent companies to avoid hiring women for certain positions because this preserved the available jobs for the men and spread the available wealth evenly to as many different families as possible. This is an example of a free society making a decision on the basis of what’s best for the greatest amount of people. Understand, in a free society nobody has a Constitutional right to a job in the private sector. That’s why ex-cons have trouble finding work. Anyway, this free market selective hiring system worked great in the 1950’s and 1960’s and it would work even better now!

--If you’re such an expert on capitalism then open up your old economics 101 book and read up on something called “market saturation”. FYI, “market saturation” is something that puts companies out of business and drives down wages. The fact of the matter is that this country still has plenty of decent jobs in spite of corporate downsizing and foreign competition, etc.,.. The problem is we don’t have enough decent paying jobs for everybody that wants one and as technology advances industry will need even fewer workers. That’s why I say let’s get the married women back in the home and actually raising their kids again -- as it was always meant to be! If this creates a labor shortage then we’ll just bring in more immigrants. What’s so hard to understand about that?

--BTW, have you ever heard of a company called Account Temps? Funny, but back when I was going to college, in 1980-81, being an accountant actually meant something! You would never have heard of anything as lowly as "Account Temps" back then, but now accountants seem to be a dime a dozen ! This is a classic example of the invisible hand of “market saturation” at work. There’s just wwwwaaaayyyyy too many women working in that field right now!

How's that for capitalism? The best person for the job, and at peon wages! Just beautiful! Now, do you see what I’m talking about?


Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[Mulan]

I made a long post here earlier but for some reason it didn’t go through? Here’s the short version instead;

--My boss is a capitalist and I'll let him worry about that end of it. I'm just a worker and I'm only concerned with what's best for workers. In fact most people are workers and most of us do a pretty damned good job anyway. "The more competing men and women there are" the lower wages and worker moral fall. Too much competition isn't a good thing. Just ask any "capitalist business man" if you don't believe me! If my "capitalist boss" hates "too much competition" than why should I feel differently?

--Race blind? Yes. Gender blind? No!

--Understand, I never suggested that laws be passed denying women the right to work. However, in the passed (in the 1950’s for example), the free market capitalist butcher, baker and candlestick maker, of their own free will, just refused to hire women. This practice had Biblical roots and that’s why I mentioned the Bible here. This was a decision that a free society had made without interference from government and angry feminists. At the time it was common practice for independent companies to avoid hiring women for certain positions because this preserved the available jobs for the men and spread the available wealth evenly to as many different families as possible. This is an example of a free society making a decision on the basis of what’s best for the greatest amount of people. Understand, in a free society nobody has a Constitutional right to a job in the private sector. That’s why ex-cons have trouble finding work. Anyway, this free market selective hiring system worked great in the 1950’s and 1960’s and it would work even better now!

--If you’re such an expert on capitalism then open up your old economics 101 book and read up on something called “market saturation”. FYI, “market saturation” is something that puts companies out of business and drives down wages. The fact of the matter is that this country still has plenty of decent jobs in spite of corporate downsizing and foreign competition, etc.,.. The problem is we don’t have enough decent paying jobs for everybody that wants one and as technology advances industry will need even fewer workers. That’s why I say let’s get the married women back in the home and actually raising their kids again -- as it was always meant to be! If this creates a labor shortage then we’ll just bring in more immigrants. What’s so hard to understand about that?

--BTW, have you ever heard of a company called Account Temps? Funny, but back when I was going to college, in 1980-81, being an accountant actually meant something! You would never have heard of anything as lowly as "Account Temps" back then, but now accountants seem to be a dime a dozen ! This is a classic example of the invisible hand of “market saturation” at work. There’s just wwwwaaaayyyyy too many women working in that field right now!

How's that for capitalism? The best person for the job, and at peon wages! Just beautiful! Now, do you see what I’m talking about?


Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

Words fail me. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry... XD

[mrniceguy148]

I really dunno what's more "pathetic"... making multiple accounts when you can just use your own, or assuming anybody that agrees with me is the same person as me. Remember that most of the United States agrees with me about women's right to have (true) equal opportunity in the workforce and that women taking control of their lives is not detrimental to "family values," let alone the economy. Most of the United States also doesn't consider itself a Christian country, and takes pride in the diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs that its population has to offer. I'm just very surprised and apalled that (until recently) I'm the only one openly defending that position in this thread. At first I figured mrniceguy148 is just a loud minority, but now I really have to wonder. Makes me feel lucky that all the guys I know don't think this way. One less thing to take for granted, I suppose... O.o

Hi Mulan,

I don’t really know what’s going on here right now, but I smell a rat. However, I’m assuming that you’re not one of the rats.

Hey, listen! You’re not the first person to ever call me a dinosaur or a relic. I’ve heard it all before and I just accept it! I have no hard feeling if you don’t! It’s all just conversation and your side is winning anyway, so what can I really do about it? However, understand that your views are as threatening to me as, I’m sure, my views are threatening to you. I grew up in the old America and then I’ve had to make my living in the new America and I just feel that, all things considered, the old America was a better place. I’ve done allot of reading and I feel that our society is in denial right now. After talking with many people and after reading some of the responses that I’ve gotten here I have to agree with the doomsayers who predict that our nation will self-destruct in the near future. When people call themselves “capitalists” but then cannot grasp a simple concept like “market saturation” or think that “free trade” is opening our markets to nations who produce exports with slave labor, than I have to really wonder where we’re headed.

Like I said, I see you as part of the problem, but then I also see most of my best friends as part of the problem. I can never fault a person for believing the popular view. In another country I’d have been tortured and jailed for thinking the way that I do. Somebody has to say these things though.

The thing that puzzles me though is this:

After being born into a war zone and after seeing the collapse of the USSR first hand, why then would you think that it couldn’t happen again here? Just curious?

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[Tom Yum]

do ask me Martial Arts type of questions and not like those of another stupid question......

that is the reason why you non-kungfu until now, doesnt really understand the true devastating moves of kungfu......

Note:
KungFu's devastating moves is not measure in how many wins you have in a tournament......

now ask me valid questions........

kungfu kungfu kunfu, Kunf FU kung fu kung fu???????

[Bjjexpertise@be]

KungFu's devastating moves is not measure in how many wins you have in a tournament......

Then how is it measured? So if i do a move like "Flying eagle smashes clam" and it results in the opponent busting out 5 of my teeth and knocking me unconcious, it's still considered a good move?

[Fallout2man]

I made a long post here earlier but for some reason it didn’t go through? Here’s the short version instead;

--My boss is a capitalist and I'll let him worry about that end of it. I'm just a worker and I'm only concerned with what's best for workers. In fact most people are workers and most of us do a pretty damned good job anyway. "The more competing men and women there are" the lower wages and worker moral fall. Too much competition isn't a good thing. Just ask any "capitalist business man" if you don't believe me! If my "capitalist boss" hates "too much competition" than why should I feel differently?

Because the alternative to competition is a monopoly, which while good for the boss, is bad for the consumer? People hate competition because it means that they actually have to do some work to make it. The fact is, and this is the harsh reality of life, if you can't compete, you fail. If you can't compete with a female or male applicant, you won't get the job, if your boss' business can't compete with other businesses it will fail too. If you keep trying to hard and failing, that means you need to rethink your aproach. The only thing a good capitalist society needs is a force to ensure monopolies and trusts (such as the RIAA) don't form and then try to institute mono/oligopolistic control over their industry.

--Race blind? Yes. Gender blind? No!

So while the presence of more or less melatonin(spelling?) in the skin, a physical and born-with characteristic is worth not discriminating against, somehow the lack of a Y chromosome, also a born-with characteristic of a person, is somehow different? They're both things a person has no control over, and quite honestly given the right upbringing a female can succeed just as well in any area as her male counterpart is.

--Understand, I never suggested that laws be passed denying women the right to work. However, in the passed (in the 1950’s for example), the free market capitalist butcher, baker and candlestick maker, of their own free will, just refused to hire women.

While I essentially agree it should be their choice, we already require them to hire people of all races (I really hate using the word that way, we're all humans as far as I'm concerned), so gender might as well fall under a similar category.

This practice had Biblical roots and that’s why I mentioned the Bible here.

Well as long as you're not using the bible as a basis to say "All people should be legally obligated to do X thing or follow X rule, because the bible said so!" then I'm fine.

This was a decision that a free society had made without interference from government and angry feminists.

Just a small note. Not all "feminists" are the bald, angry, lesbian, "death to all men!!!" stereotype. There are a lot that just want an equal chance to pursue their own dreams.

At the time it was common practice for independent companies to avoid hiring women for certain positions because this preserved the available jobs for the men and spread the available wealth evenly to as many different families as possible. This is an example of a free society making a decision on the basis of what’s best for the greatest amount of people. Understand, in a free society nobody has a Constitutional right to a job in the private sector. That’s why ex-cons have trouble finding work. Anyway, this free market selective hiring system worked great in the 1950’s and 1960’s and it would work even better now!

Ultimately I do believe the government should stop enforcing such things on a free society, yes. However, I'm also not about to support the sudden removal of one half (women) over just removing the entire thing and letting businesses make up ther own minds. So either all or nothing here.

--If you’re such an expert on capitalism then open up your old economics 101 book and read up on something called “market saturation”. FYI, “market saturation” is something that puts companies out of business and drives down wages.

And you can't blame just women for saturating the job market. The fact of the matter is blaming any one gender, race, etc. is totally ridiculous. That's like blaming all muslems for 9/11.

The fact of the matter is that this country still has plenty of decent jobs in spite of corporate downsizing and foreign competition, etc....

Nice blanket statement you have there, that sort of thing depends on the industry and location you're in, as well as your definition of a "decent job."

The problem is we don’t have enough decent paying jobs for everybody that wants one and as technology advances industry will need even fewer workers.

That's not necessarily true. What's more likely is we'll need fewer laborers and more scientists/intellectuals/programmers/etc. As we become more focused on technology we'll simply shift jobs towards that. There may be less jobs overal but I don't think it'll be a drastic reduction for anyone who's only working field isn't manual labor.

That’s why I say let’s get the married women back in the home and actually raising their kids again -- as it was always meant to be!

And this is ridiculous, why should we suddenly decide to punish half of the population, who had no choice in being born that gender, because you want higher wages? Another thing, there is no "meant to be." There's only "what I/we want it to be," and "What I/we think would be best."

If this creates a labor shortage then we’ll just bring in more immigrants. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Because why should we bring in immigrants when we can just use existing labor here? It's cheaper and allows people to, I don't know, follow their own dreams and become independent? I mean, hell, even immigrants have been greatly responsible for such market saturation back before women worked. Seems like you've just got some bias against women or are too stuck on your own ideas of what "should" be to accept the current way things are.

--BTW, have you ever heard of a company called Account Temps? Funny, but back when I was going to college, in 1980-81, being an accountant actually meant something! You would never have heard of anything as lowly as "Account Temps" back then, but now accountants seem to be a dime a dozen ! This is a classic example of the invisible hand of “market saturation” at work. There’s just wwwwaaaayyyyy too many women working in that field right now!

You know, I could just as easily blame non-english speaking mexicans who never graduated high-school for "saturating the market" in Fresno here, and resulting in my inability to find work. You know what though? I don't, I believe I need to develop more skills and become more appealing to an employer and then I'll get hired. You seem to blame women for either your own or someone else's inability to adiquately compete. The fact is if a job's profitable, unless there's a very high barrier to entry (such as with lawyers or doctors) it will most likely become saturated for a while, because everyone wants a piece of the pie. Eventually it'll die down and everyone will move to the next fad. Look at the .com boom/bust for a perfect example of this.

How's that for capitalism? The best person for the job, and at peon wages! Just beautiful! Now, do you see what I’m talking about?

Yes I do, you're looking for a scapegoat to blame, and have for some reason chosen women. If your profession's not a good one, change professions. You don't keep hitting away at a chunk of granite with a small hammer, you go and try something different, namely a jackhammer. So if you're not getting what you want then apparently you're just not doing it right.

Take care,

Mr. Niceguy

[sherwinc]

Then how is it measured? So if i do a move like "Flying eagle smashes clam" and it results in the opponent busting out 5 of my teeth and knocking me unconcious, it's still considered a good move?

You see? the main problem of you is ... you insist that LESS KNOWLEDGE IS BETTER THAN MORE KNOWLEDGE ...... that is the reason why you dont understand, and it is a supreme disadvantages to you when it comes to combat..... it will bring you in a great jeopardy

[sherwinc]

Well its rather difficult to say, i have created a modern Kung Fu move from observing behavior in the world of the Anna Nicole Show. Its; deranged dog humping teddy bear, now that'd be right up sherwinc's alley.

Good News:

I met my KungFu Instructor yesterday afternoon, i ask him about what he comments on UFC...... he said, UFC is another sample of a COMMERCIALIZE Martial Arts......

Have you ever wondered why there is no Chinese KungFu who joins in that UFC?????? not even 1 candidate who joins????? maybe there is some commercialize kungfu club who join in UFC before......

Question:
What is the difference between Commercialize KungFu and Non-Commercialize KungFu and Fake KungFu?????? What is the difference between those three?????

Deterioration of KungFu, right???????

Note:
for 15years of Practicing KungFu, our instructor limit us to only 15 students, since we are not a commercialize type ........

[Tom Yum]

I disagree with some of MNG's points of view, but he is not pretending to be someone that he isn't. He clearly believes that women shouldn't be in the work force. I disagree with his opinion, but he holds to his beliefs and doesn't contradict his message when its convenient and isn't copping out.

A dinosaur - maybe, but only because people like that are dying out.

[sherwinc]

That's great sherwinc, that's great. But why didnt kung fu practitioners used to have competitions thousands of years ago? Because while it isnt like a life and death fight it still tests out many aspects of the art, and gives practitioners the experience to go up against a resisting oppoent. Beating the crap out of the air is nothing more than that.

there are 3 classes of KungFu:
1. Non-Commercialized KungFu
2. Commercilized KungFu
3. Fake KungFu

---------------------
1. Non-Commercialized KungFu
Tournaments, KungFu Club Challenges, Fighting is very secretive..... since Non-Commercialized KungFu never joins the Commercialized tournament like UFC........ etc.... hey, do you remember the fights of Bruce Lee versus Wong Jack Man? it is held secretly???????

If the law permits to kill your opponent legally, i may too join the tournament for money.....

2. Commercialized KungFu
You know what i mean..... The kungfu instructor will only teach you very very few but he will get your money more then after several years of practice you comment that your kungfu art is stupid and cannot be used in a streetfight..... still the ratio of fight is 20:20. Stupid KungFu....

3. Fake KungFu
Oh my God, this Fake KungFu's is much more worst than a Commercialized type of KungFu Schools....... deterioration to KungFu........

Note:
We are a Non-Commercialized type of KokSut, we pay 200 pesos per month only in just 1 year, after that its free, ........ and the 200pesos that you pay is a payment in club in order for the club to live..... while we 15 students 3times a week free meals, free watching martial arts movies theatre in malls, free drink beer while do talking martial arts questions and answers, etc.... and the condition is "You have to practice your kungfu seriously - that is the only condition" cause we are not a commercialized type of kungfu..... we are a total of 15 students only for 10 years of practicing kungfu....... i am just very very lucky.....

that thing that i really like most is..... that our kungfu club now doesnt operate cause of busy life..... busy in working to earn money and we have no time to go to club to practice some more..... therefore, only 15 students who know ChiDianBun here in Iloilo, i dont know where my 14 classmates as of now, i am just very lucky

[Mulan]

Well its not just that those three users agree with you its just that both of them joined on the same day and posted only on the same thread, and had not the slightest differing view from you, and that or oknow what's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps it is simply because mrniceguy148's posts are some of the most sexist religio-policial drivel seen on this board... an insult to Christianity, USA, women, and most notably, men. At least that's what I'd hope the reason is. I read the Bible, and I don't recall Jesus himself being quoted as saying any such things. Hell, Jesus' closest apostle was a woman, and had some interesting things to say about the other disciples... where's the Gospel of Mary Magdalen in the "official" New Testament, I wonder.

I have no hard feeling if you don’t! It’s all just conversation and your side is winning anyway, so what can I really do about it? However, understand that your views are as threatening to me as, I’m sure, my views are threatening to you.

No hard feelings, and I don't see you as a threat since, as you say, my "side" is winning. I just wish you would've admitted it in the beginning when gregimotis accused you of being "Mrwomenaretoweaktodoanythinganyway,theyshouldjustmovebacktothekitchen148." Would've saved me a lot of puzzlement. Perhaps what I find most troubling is your constant referral to "we" and "people," but excluding women from that implication. It serioudly comes off as though you believe only men should determine who's in the workforce, who's in the military, what's best for our country, what policies to make, whether or not women should be in the home, etc. The old "father knows best" mentality that denies women control over their own lives and undermines their opinions. You can say that makes me an "angry feminist," I say it makes me a believer in equality.

I think it's amusing that the guys attracted to martial arts are typically conservative, whereas the girls attracted to martial arts are typically liberal. It's a barroom brawl waiting to happen! To help ease tension, here's some sexy martial arts girls for everybody!

I grew up in the old America and then I’ve had to make my living in the new America and I just feel that, all things considered, the old America was a better place. I’ve done allot of reading and I feel that our society is in denial right now.

Again, I wonder what things you are considering. In the "old America," only white males had decent jobs! Does that make it easier for the white males? Yah. Does that make it a better place? HELL NO. There is more competition now, I repeat, there is more competition now! To be willing to sacrifice another person's freedoms for your financial gain is very disturbing to me. I'm sure it's easy for you to say as a white male, but would you honestly want to be a woman (or even a non-white male) in that kind of society? And no "well if I was a woman I'd have a maternal instinct to make and take care of babies and obey my husband" crap, I mean answer as if you had your present mind but lived in a female body.

The pursuit of happiness is a right of every single human being in this country. To some that means motherhood or fatherhood, to others a meaningful career. If a person wants to devote their whole lives to being a (stay-at-home) mother, or being a (stay-at-home) father, then I respect and support their choice. But the key word here is choice... they should have the right to make that choice on their own... not be forced into it, and not restrict it to either sex. For the rest of us, there is the practical compromise of having either parent stay home to take care of the kid for the first few years of life, and when they reach kindergarden age, return to the workforce. Parents could even alternate who stays. I myself was raised by my grandparents.

--Race blind? Yes. Gender blind? No!

--Understand, I never suggested that laws be passed denying women the right to work. However, in the passed (in the 1950’s for example), the free market capitalist butcher, baker and candlestick maker, of their own free will, just refused to hire women. This practice had Biblical roots and that’s why I mentioned the Bible here. This was a decision that a free society had made without interference from government and angry feminists. At the time it was common practice for independent companies to avoid hiring women for certain positions because this preserved the available jobs for the men and spread the available wealth evenly to as many different families as possible.

There is a simple excercize you can do to check the bigotry contained in a statement. Simply read the quote again, and switch every word "female/woman" to "male/man" and vice versa, and see how it makes you feel. You say employment should be race-blind, but not gender-blind, yet go on to say employers should be left alone to make their own decisions about who to hire. It does not work that way.

You said earlier that "the best fit for any high paying career oriented position always has been, and always will be, a man," but I ask you now... do you have any idea how fucked up that statement is? Do you know which faction currently dominates "high paying career oriented position"s? Throughout the decades of supposed equal-opportunity employment for all races, those positions are still held mainly by white males. Are you then prepared to say that this proves the other races incapable, and therefore such positions always have and always will be held by white males?

The fact is there are still many bigots (racists and sexists) in the upper levels of decent jobs. Do you expect them to agree to race-blind employment if you give them free reign? This idea leaves all minorities at the mercy of employer biases. White males have held power in this society for several centuries, and they have issues letting anybody other than white males have true authority. That is the blatantly obvious reason why you don't see as many women or other "minorities" in those upper level jobs. If you put the selective hiring policy back into practice as it was in the 50's/60's, you certainly would have your glorious white male Utopia back, but everybody else would be screwed, LOL.

Simply put, I do not disagree with your economic observations. What I do disagree with is what caused them, how to solve them, and who (if anyone) to blame. Standards of living are rising around the world and so is population size. Allow me to spell out for you a very sobering fact: if every family in the world lived at the standards of resource wastefulness as a middle class US family from the 60's, or even today's, the Earth would not be able to support them by any stretch of the imagination. Does this mean we should oppress other countries, exploit their workers, ruin their economy, or deny people (yes, that includes women) equal rights (that includes equal opportunities)? Ehh... maybe that's the easiest solution, but Hitler tried doing that and worse to the Jews, who he used as a scapegoat for Germany's economic pitfalls, and that didn't end well. What we do need is better population control (studies show that you get the best results by educating the women of poorer countries) and better resource management.

This is an example of a free society making a decision on the basis of what’s best for the greatest amount of people. Understand, in a free society nobody has a Constitutional right to a job in the private sector. That’s why ex-cons have trouble finding work.

The greater good is a socialist motto. Pure capitalism is about free-for-all competition that weeds out the weak and rewards the ruthless, and then makes sure those select few don't slack off but keep trying to outdo each other. In a "free society," what you can do with your life is determined by your abilities, not by your race or sex. You are only limited by the consequences of your actions (such as ex-cons).

After being born into a war zone and after seeing the collapse of the USSR first hand, why then would you think that it couldn’t happen again here? Just curious?

I could see it happening in any country, but it wouldn't be women's fault by a longshot. USSR's collapse was due to badly practiced Communism (hey, it's a great idea and would work in a perfect world... but a perfect world this aint), and a lack of freedoms - social and economic. You had no control over your life. You went to school, and were steered into a career path not necessarily of your choosing or liking... but the only other option was to join the military, and nobody wanted that. Also, due to growing tension in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, a lot of the republics (ie: not Russia itself) started to rebel. They were sick of being part of the USSR and wanted to reclaim their national identities as sovereign nations. In my area the predominant conflict was the land dispute between Azerbaijani (Muslims) and Armenians (Christians). So anyways, yeah, it had nothing to do with women.

[mrniceguy148]

I disagree with some of MNG's points of view, but he is not pretending to be someone that he isn't. He clearly believes that women shouldn't be in the work force. I disagree with his opinion, but he holds to his beliefs and doesn't contradict his message when its convenient and isn't copping out.

A dinosaur - maybe, but only because people like that are dying out.

Hey! Thanks Tom! I'm glad that you see where I'm coming from anyway!

Mr. Niceguy