"They talk at the urinals, they fart and laugh about it infront of each other, they tell each other stories about whatever girls they brought home from the bar, and ugh the worst thing I heard yesterday was my boss likes to go to the strip club and wear thin sweatpants so he can feel everything! (/vomit)"
And women don't do that? They don't talk about the size of men's dicks, or who has a nice ass, or their periods, or yeast infections? Please...
I was a school teacher surrounded by women, in very much the same position that you are now. Go ahead and TRY to tell me that doesn't happen, so you can lose what little credibility you have left.
You're calling men out for behavior that is ubiquitous, that being, when with a group of like minded people, you lower your guard and discuss more intimate subjects.
You're acting like normal human behavior is discrimination, because you WANT it to be. That's on you, not the (seemingly normal) people you work with.
"I frequently get this vibe from my male co-workers that they don't take what I say seriously."
So it's a "vibe" is it...
"And then when I do great work, they all try to get their hand in the pot and take credit for things I did, which frustrates me to no end."
I'm vacillating between sarcastically snide and serious. I'm going with serious. This behavior is extremely common and has no basis in sex or gender. That you think it's a form of discrimination calls your claims into question.
"A male co-worker actually got a promotion which seemed to me (from the little congratulations email went out describing all his wonderful accomplishments), mostly based on MY work."
SO, you were present when the bosses were discussing his promotion and it's genesis? No, but you assume you know the why.
Sorry, but I stopped reading. There's far too much real discrimination in the world to waste time with claims like yours.
It sounds a like more like a persecution complex than discrimination.
"Right, and x always equals "slavery" in every single fucking case."
Not in the one I listed right there.
Caught lying again because you know I'm right and you can't refute me.
Apparently you're too not bright enough to distinguish between the symptom (slavery) and the disease (states rights).
No surprise there though, your posts have consistently failed to add anything to any conversation we've had owing directly to a noticeable lack of intelligent thought on your part.
Get back to me when you are capable of saying something more insightful than "YES HUH MY FRIENDS SAID IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY ND IT GETS MENTIONED SO YES HUH!!!". Come to think of it, that sentence would be a step up for you.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read.
I looked up every definition listed and slavery wasn't mentioned. Care to point me to a definition of "Federalism" that lists "slavery" as its main component?
Right, you got caught lying and are desperately trying to find an out.
"It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1993 to January 3, 1995, during the first two years of the first administration of U.S. President William J. (Bill) Clinton."
"The apportionment of seats in this House of Representatives was based on the Twenty-first Census of the United States in 1990. Both chambers had a Democratic majority."
"Place blame where it should be you twit."
I wonder if you'll be man enough to eat your words.
No, you're STFU by my "the dictionary says you're full of shit and nothing you have disagrees" argument.
It's strong, and in cases like this, always shuts you idiots up quite nicely.
Perhaps you could go back to wherever you came from and learn to use a dictionary so that in the future, you'll avoid sayig something so obviously wrong and moronic.
Lastly, I posted links that agreed with me, and you posted long winded explanations that also agreed with me, but that you think were supporting you. If anyone can be accused of the "I said so" argument, it would be you and your stunning lack of supporting evidence.
Luckily, a quick perusal of the thread shows that I do not suffer from the same lack of supporting evidence.
OOPS! Looks like you shot your idiot mouth off and were wrong again.
Slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, and slavery."
No, actually, that's an easily disproven lie. In the very first sentence of YOUR LINK
"The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, competing understandings of federalism, party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, economics, and modernization in the Antebellum Period."
Why lie about something so easily disproven.
Competeing understandings of Federalism is not "slavery" like you claim.
Party Politics are not "slavery" like you claim.
Expansionism is not "slavery" like you claim.
Sectionalism is not "slavery" like you claim.
So, are you done lying because you're wrong and know it, or do you want to continue to be humbled and made a fool of?
"Right, and I'm saying that the "substantial powers" that the south was pissed about the federal government wielding were dealing with issues of slavery."
No.
It was about the powers themselves, slavery was just one of many expressions of those powers.
"You haven't shown me anything that would deny that."
Then you didn't read the bolded part that I quoted from your post.
"Please tell me what the larger parts were then. "
SELF DETERMINATION AND SELF GOVERNANCE
And now I'm repeating myself, because you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
The issue was not specifically slavery, it was about the rights of the states to govern themselves without interference from the federal government.
Replace slavery with "x". Federal government says "YOU CAN'T DO X" Confederate States say "FUCK OFF, YES WE CAN DO X".
The war was about who got to decide what the states can do, not about "X".
It's not hard, I have no idea why you're struggling so badly with it.
"Questions such as whether the Union was older than the states or the other way around fueled the debate over states' rights. Whether the federal government was supposed to have substantial powers or whether it was merely a voluntary federation of sovereign states added to the controversy."
That's what people mean when they say state's rights, and your link supports me perfectly.
"I was hoping you could point me to some reasons that weren't directly related to slavery."
I was hoping you'd be smart enough to see that slavery was one small part of self-determination and the right to self governance.
"Funny that the only "right" they seemed to care about was the right to own slaves."
The only funny part about this is that you believe it enough to post it even though it would take a 5 year old two minutes to find information that proves otherwise.
Ah well, we can't expect you to live up to a 5 year old.
You know, every once in a while, someone says something so colossally wrong and ignorant that you have to shake your head and wonder WTF they were thinking in advertising their lack of knowledge.
Today is that day for you.
Having never had a day like that myself, I'm wondering what it's like.
"and think about why stripping Florida of it's Democratic delegates to the convention and giving the DNC a ton of bad press might spell some difficulties for the Democrats next year."
Yeah, why would the Democrats do something so stupid?
And why would anyone be stupid enough to blame something the Democrats choose to do on Republicans?
Slashdot Mirror
"They talk at the urinals, they fart and laugh about it infront of each other, they tell each other stories about whatever girls they brought home from the bar, and ugh the worst thing I heard yesterday was my boss likes to go to the strip club and wear thin sweatpants so he can feel everything! (/vomit)"
And women don't do that? They don't talk about the size of men's dicks, or who has a nice ass, or their periods, or yeast infections? Please...
I was a school teacher surrounded by women, in very much the same position that you are now. Go ahead and TRY to tell me that doesn't happen, so you can lose what little credibility you have left.
You're calling men out for behavior that is ubiquitous, that being, when with a group of like minded people, you lower your guard and discuss more intimate subjects.
You're acting like normal human behavior is discrimination, because you WANT it to be. That's on you, not the (seemingly normal) people you work with.
"I really don't get it."
And yet you assume it's discrimination.
"I frequently get this vibe from my male co-workers that they don't take what I say seriously."
So it's a "vibe" is it...
"And then when I do great work, they all try to get their hand in the pot and take credit for things I did, which frustrates me to no end."
I'm vacillating between sarcastically snide and serious. I'm going with serious. This behavior is extremely common and has no basis in sex or gender. That you think it's a form of discrimination calls your claims into question.
"A male co-worker actually got a promotion which seemed to me (from the little congratulations email went out describing all his wonderful accomplishments), mostly based on MY work."
SO, you were present when the bosses were discussing his promotion and it's genesis? No, but you assume you know the why.
Sorry, but I stopped reading. There's far too much real discrimination in the world to waste time with claims like yours.
It sounds a like more like a persecution complex than discrimination.
"They targetted her, for failing to sustain the essential fundamental stereotype of women in our culture... "
Or maybe it was because she stank.
What am I saying, it must have been rampant unhindered sexism...
"Right, and x always equals "slavery" in every single fucking case."
Not in the one I listed right there.
Caught lying again because you know I'm right and you can't refute me.
Apparently you're too not bright enough to distinguish between the symptom (slavery) and the disease (states rights).
No surprise there though, your posts have consistently failed to add anything to any conversation we've had owing directly to a noticeable lack of intelligent thought on your part.
Get back to me when you are capable of saying something more insightful than "YES HUH MY FRIENDS SAID IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY ND IT GETS MENTIONED SO YES HUH!!!". Come to think of it, that sentence would be a step up for you.
And you're still a liar.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read.
I looked up every definition listed and slavery wasn't mentioned. Care to point me to a definition of "Federalism" that lists "slavery" as its main component?
Right, you got caught lying and are desperately trying to find an out.
But you're still wrong and still a lair.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
I'm beginning to wonder if you're really as retarded as you appear, or are great at faking it.
"But the republicans ran congress during the Clinton Administration."
_ Congress"
Not when this was initiated they didn't, the Dems still controlled Congress.
So a Democratically controlled congress passed it and Democrat signed it.
I really have no dog in this fight, but I'll be interested to see what your response is to facts that reorient your world view.
"CALEA was passed on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995."
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_States
"It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1993 to January 3, 1995, during the first two years of the first administration of U.S. President William J. (Bill) Clinton."
"The apportionment of seats in this House of Representatives was based on the Twenty-first Census of the United States in 1990. Both chambers had a Democratic majority."
"Place blame where it should be you twit."
I wonder if you'll be man enough to eat your words.
No, you're STFU by my "the dictionary says you're full of shit and nothing you have disagrees" argument.
It's strong, and in cases like this, always shuts you idiots up quite nicely.
Perhaps you could go back to wherever you came from and learn to use a dictionary so that in the future, you'll avoid sayig something so obviously wrong and moronic.
Lastly, I posted links that agreed with me, and you posted long winded explanations that also agreed with me, but that you think were supporting you. If anyone can be accused of the "I said so" argument, it would be you and your stunning lack of supporting evidence.
Luckily, a quick perusal of the thread shows that I do not suffer from the same lack of supporting evidence.
OOPS! Looks like you shot your idiot mouth off and were wrong again.
"To save you time, I'll summarize it:
Slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, and slavery."
No, actually, that's an easily disproven lie. In the very first sentence of YOUR LINK
"The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, competing understandings of federalism, party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, economics, and modernization in the Antebellum Period."
Why lie about something so easily disproven.
Competeing understandings of Federalism is not "slavery" like you claim.
Party Politics are not "slavery" like you claim.
Expansionism is not "slavery" like you claim.
Sectionalism is not "slavery" like you claim.
So, are you done lying because you're wrong and know it, or do you want to continue to be humbled and made a fool of?
"Right, and I'm saying that the "substantial powers" that the south was pissed about the federal government wielding were dealing with issues of slavery."
No.
It was about the powers themselves, slavery was just one of many expressions of those powers.
"You haven't shown me anything that would deny that."
Then you didn't read the bolded part that I quoted from your post.
"Please tell me what the larger parts were then. "
SELF DETERMINATION AND SELF GOVERNANCE
And now I'm repeating myself, because you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
The issue was not specifically slavery, it was about the rights of the states to govern themselves without interference from the federal government.
Replace slavery with "x". Federal government says "YOU CAN'T DO X" Confederate States say "FUCK OFF, YES WE CAN DO X".
The war was about who got to decide what the states can do, not about "X".
It's not hard, I have no idea why you're struggling so badly with it.
"It is the West that is addicted to the crack here, and is willing to sell out on every principal that it once fought so hard to preserve"
Well, the most important principal "the West" has defended is the right to self determination.
And yet, when someone (or some country) uses that self-determination to do something "the West" doesn't like, suddenly we see posts like yours.
From YOUR post
"Questions such as whether the Union was older than the states or the other way around fueled the debate over states' rights. Whether the federal government was supposed to have substantial powers or whether it was merely a voluntary federation of sovereign states added to the controversy."
That's what people mean when they say state's rights, and your link supports me perfectly.
"I was hoping you could point me to some reasons that weren't directly related to slavery."
I was hoping you'd be smart enough to see that slavery was one small part of self-determination and the right to self governance.
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
"Every source I checked out seemed to indicate that slavery was the #1 reason."
Of course they did, except that would mean you didn't check Wikipedia, or you're a liar.
By the way, you're using "state's rights" like it's a list of rights, like the Bill of Rights, whereas the Confederacy applied the term differently.
So, in this case your ignorance and inability to parse language correctly makes you look like a fucking idiot.
Again.
How about you look it up for yourself in the same place anyone would send you?
You know, because if you had you'd already have those answers and not look like a fucking idiot.
Again.
"Same with the libs when it's their party who is screwing stuff up; gotta ride that sinking ship right to the bottom. "
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever posted.
How much of a moron do you have to be to think it's the right play to stay on a sinking ship even after you realize it's going down.
You get off, and no one blames you. Unless your thick enough to think one is never allowed to change their minds after being lied to.
Which apparently you are.
"Funny that the only "right" they seemed to care about was the right to own slaves."
The only funny part about this is that you believe it enough to post it even though it would take a 5 year old two minutes to find information that proves otherwise.
Ah well, we can't expect you to live up to a 5 year old.
You know, every once in a while, someone says something so colossally wrong and ignorant that you have to shake your head and wonder WTF they were thinking in advertising their lack of knowledge.
Today is that day for you.
Having never had a day like that myself, I'm wondering what it's like.
The unspoken part of his comment, which was clear from the context (unless you have sub-3rd grade reading skills...) is "against Republicans".
Had you read the whole comment (or been able to understand it?) you'd have seen that.
"Very good, attack the messenger and not the message."
No, no, I did attack the message too, it was just as moronic as the person posting it.
And if your reading comprehension was better, you'd see I did have something to say, you're just too stupid to get it.
If you want to have a serious discussion, don't be an idiot and use words like "Shrub" and "Faux news".
It's nice when you're packed in the freshman dorm with other like minded toolbags, but it's ridiculous when discussing amongst adults.
Which you may understand one day if you become one.
"Why indeed would Shrub keep his word on that?"
"you'd see Faux News"
Ah, elementary school level discourse, masquerading as informed political commentary.
And you want to be taken seriously, that's the funniest part of all.
Just call him a doody-head and confirm what we already know about you.
"and think about why stripping Florida of it's Democratic delegates to the convention and giving the DNC a ton of bad press might spell some difficulties for the Democrats next year."
Yeah, why would the Democrats do something so stupid?
And why would anyone be stupid enough to blame something the Democrats choose to do on Republicans?
"Remind me, are the Bushes influential in Florida?"
No, actually they're not.
That may have been true at some time in the past, but now, the answer is an unequivocal no.
"You fucking nitwit."
Right, insult me because you can't refute me it is.
Nice S'ing you TFU.
"It's two completely different groups of people, and they're just splitting farther and farther apart."
I think this is the most cogent thing anyone on has said on this subject so far.