Random Politics & Religion #00

Searching around a bit, I found this quote:

Interesting. That seems to make that metric not particularly helpful.
In general, those statistics don't really approach the qualitative aspect for education, only quantitative.

Pretty much. That tends to happen when you try to quantify a complex topic. It's sort of like BMI in that respect. It has enough correlation to not be completely useless, but there are enough exceptions that you can't draw conclusions from the number alone.

Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog Declare Themselves Feminists

*deep breaths* okay, brace yourselves cause it's a global warming article incoming...
Alright, let's do this!


ze paper

I've had a warming hiatus too but not because of global warming...

I use the phrase "biased data" almost daily !

I think you also have to understand as a nation that would like for Americans to receive American jobs, we teach everything at a highly disproportionate and varying rate from each other that this would not be possible. Largely, our problem with education is our people and the introduction of religious literalism and public opinion into education and allowing said faction to co-educate their children at home where science doesnt exist and jesus knows how to math one way and only one way (OR jesus doesnt know how to math at all, which is another problem with home educators). Yea, its a bit cultural, but then again its more moronic in nature and shouldnt be a factor ever.

More standardized education should be the "Ideal" outcome so that everyone knows the same concepts at base and can function with those concepts around the same level around the same time around the same levels of education.

And we've got the Hulk.

Take that, Loki.

Feminists being compared to puppets seems apt to me !

From the comments on said article about miss piggy:

"When you get down to it actually, Miss Piggy is the most accurate modern feminist icon representative to date:

1. Doesn't take accountability for her actions.
2. Is physically and verbally abusive.
3. A Diva
4. Self centered & self righteous
5. Is a pig
/> 6. Finds the need to make it all about her
7. Accuses everyone else of wrongdoing while holding desperately onto the victim card.

I could probably go on, but if this cult is so desperate to find validation with fictional children's characters how could it not be deemed as propaganda?

Then again, most ideologues are indeed non-thinking puppets mouthing off a list of talking points approved by the narrative."

Feminism, MRAs, Redpillers

So many clubs, so little time. I think it's time I go my own way.

I'll stick to the "No Homer's club" It is the only club for me !

you'll go blind if you keep doing that!

If that were true I would have gone blind by age 17...

A fap a day keeps the feminazis away.
A fap an hour gives me all the power.

Not to mention youll get hairy palms!

It's good exercise and keeps the blues away !

In Chris Matthews news:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/advice-to-chris-matthews-political-spouse-118671.html?ml=po#.VXMBYEaLVQI


TLDR Something something Chris Matthews Wife is running for Congress !


Kathleen Matthews announced this week that she is running for Congress in Maryland’s 8th District. If her first name sounds unfamiliar, it’s probably because you’ve seen all those headlines identifying her only as “Chris Matthews’ Wife.” Or “Wife of Chris Matthews,” to mix it up.

Ms. Matthews was a local news anchor before becoming a top executive with Marriott International. Hardly a slacker, and certainly more than the spouse of one of the loudest men on television, but that’s an essay for another time.

Today, I’m here as a columnist married to a U.S. senator to offer a few words of advice to my brand-new fellow political spouse, Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s “Hardball.” I’ve lived through two of my husband Sherrod Brown’s Senate races and I still work as a journalist, despite dire predictions by a few other journalists. Virtually all of these doomsayers were male. A coincidence, I’m sure.

Enough about me. Let’s talk about you, Chris.

You said that, while your wife runs for Congress, you intend to continue hosting your national television show about politics. You vowed on the air to be fair and transparent. Go, you.

Unfortunately, now that you’re a political spouse, you may be in for a bit of surprise from some of our fellow journalists. You and I are both members of the media married to politicians, so I’m sure your experience will mirror mine, exactly. So listen to me when I tell you it’s amazing how quickly you can become that person that so many journalists like to cast as either a prop or a problem.

How on earth can the same people who’ve worked side-by-side with you for years suddenly question your ability to do your job just because your spouse is running for office? As if she’s doing your thinking for you, right? Say it just like that to them, by the way. Look those reporters and pundits in the eye and say, “Are you suggesting my opinions aren’t my own?” If possible, do it on camera so I can finally have video of their blabbering about how much they respect women. That will happen, definitely.

About your wardrobe: You like patterned shirts, I’ve noticed. That’s great if you’re trying to draw attention to yourself. You’re not supposed to do that anymore. You might even start hearing the word “beige” a lot when campaign staffers with opinions you didn’t solicit start brainstorming how to make you look invisible, or at least harmless. Narrow your eyes and offer to call their mothers. For some reason, that always scares them.

Speaking of clothes, get ready for all those questions about your wife’s appearance. Overnight, people are going to think you’re in charge of getting her ready in the morning. I used to go and on about how hard it was to keep Sherrod looking tidy and fresh, and then I learned that, in this situation, silence is the best response. A couple of weeks ago, for example, I was standing in line when a stranger approached me and said, “Connie, you need to do something about Sherrod’s shirts.” I tilted my head and said, “What is it you think I should do?” We stared at each other for about 14 seconds, until he surrendered. “You know what?” he said. “Never mind. He always looks clean.”

See how that works? This brings me to something I’ve been avoiding bringing up until now. How do I say this? Chris, I’ve been in the same room with you a few times—I was the big-haired woman standing next to the senator—and I couldn’t help but notice something else we have in common. We, my friend, are members of the wide-faced Irish who never learned how to whisper. Even when we think we’re whispering, we’re not. Ask your friends. Take in that slow, collective nod.

This is a problem easily solved with the aforementioned Stare of Silence. If your wife is the one giving the speech, stop talking. Just stop. That goes double whenever you’re tempted to interrupt her. She is not a guest on your show.

Also, whenever you attend one of her speeches, look at her, always, and with the face of the class nerd who can’t believe his luck. Whatever you do, don’t look bored. Reporters and trackers will be all over that with their smart phones and the next thing you know you’re a caption contest on Twitter.
READ MORE

The Friday Cover
Is Iowa Over?

By DAVE PRICE

Optics
Weird Washington History

By KRISTEN EAST

Washington And The World
Saudi Arabia's Widening War

By GARY SICK

Finally, let’s talk about the bait-and-switch that is all too typical of some in the media. There is chance that a talk show host might lure you onto his program with the promise of a topic that has nothing to do with your marriage and then—boom—he switches on you and wants to talk about your spouse, the candidate—or, in my case, the non-candidate. And he does this on live television. I know. It sounds crazy. But I’m telling you, it happens.

About two months ago—March 2, to be exact—I was invited to join two other columnists on MSNBC to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to Congress. The host made a big deal about how all three of us had won the same journalism award, how smart we must be, on and on before plowing into a vigorous discussion about Israel.

And then, out of nowhere, the host asks me, “Would Sherrod Brown make a good vice presidential running mate with Hillary Clinton?”

Whaaat? I suspected red blotches were crawling up my neck, which was later confirmed by a vicious round of social media. I insisted that I don’t speak for my husband and then I made it crystal clear he was not interested in running. Lovely. After more back and forth, I finally blurted, “Thanks for reducing me to a spouse.” Don’t do that. Definitely not a graceful exit.

So, final word of advice: Watch out for that guy. Blonde. Jolly. Patterned shirts. Likes to say, “Let’s play hardball.”

Oh. Wait.

You know what? Never mind.

PARKER Edit:

Kermit fits the narrative too. It's actually a perfect representation.

Now that I have a chance to respond, let's go over this with everyone.

I got banned for replying to a specific poster (I can't even say his name without him claiming "harassment"). Plain and simple. Hell, even the quoted post above signified that.

Edit: Apparently it's against the forum rules to post PMs between Aelius and myself regarding this matter. Either way, I was warned to not attack that poster, not that I can never reply to his posts again.

Because, according to Aelius, replying to somebody in hopes they respond is a bannable offence. There was no harassment in that post, it was a post that required a response, either positive or negative (depending on the poster in question, but that's their choice, not mine), and that's what everyone here does!

Also, Aelius already broke the rules of this thread:


Until these rules change, what I did is not a bannable offence. I did not call the poster in question out on anything, I responded to his idea and countered it with my own, and hoped to get a reasonable response from him, which obviously I did not, because he couldn't take the heat from a simple observation.

It does not matter what our "history" was. You cannot point to any sentence in that post and claim "harassment" on it. So, banning for banning's sake was the only option. Problem is, Terra upheld the ban, and Rooks did nothing to state the obvious. I guess Nepotism is working as intended on this forum.

So, until we get some actual moderators instead of a child and his two puppets like we currently have, this forum will continue deteriorating down to kindergarten-type discussions.

Also, this post does not deserve a Node 254 either. If you put one on this post, it strengthens my argument that much further.

And if these moderators really wish to have more transparency on this forum, they need to outright tell the truth instead of trying to find a way to twist an action into something that it wasn't. If harassment was done in that post, I challenge them to prove it.

Go whine around a different forum.

Yeah the old gods are dead. Rooks is our new god now.

That the best response you can come up with?

I would suggest you stick to your thread, this one is a little too advanced for you.

Oh crap, did I just break another phantom rule where I replied to another poster?

Someone didn't get enough spankings as a kid.

Ah! A personal attack!

Now to watch a mod ignore it!

It's an observation, not an attack.

Depends on how someone chooses to look at it.