Wrath of Dagon

If we give up on the Middle East, what would happen to the Hobbits?

The common denominator here is the idiocy of the Obama administration. Still, he's not as much of an idiot as John McCain.

Check out these screens from CMBN : Market Garden - http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=325&Itemid=560

In Syria we have extremists on both sides. On Assad's side we have Iran and Hezbollah, on the rebel side we have MB and Al Qaeda (MB is indigenous btw, and if you think there's an iota of difference between them and AQ, you only have to consider that AQ leader Zawahiri's brother was just arrested fighting for the MB in Egypt). So there are no good options, it's kind of like The Witcher.

I wrote my rep once about insane people not being placed on the FBI gun check list, and all I got back was a bunch of platitudes and a pretty clear indication he wasn't going to do anything. Since then we had Virginia Tech and a bunch of other mass shootings. Politicians don't try to solve problems, they only try to give the impression they're solving problems. And yes, we're just a bunch of bleating sheep, at least people in other countries will go out and riot once in a while.

It's you who's confused, I already explained that to keep them out would be discrimination under this law, just like if you told black girls they could use the facilities but not while white girls were there. But I think at this point we're just talking past each other.

The question I have is why The Guardian, an anti-American Marxist rag, would pay the travel expenses of their reporter's boyfriend (who doesn't work for them) to travel to Germany.

I'm in favor of a universal gun check, but the argument against it is that it's ineffective. The criminals will just buy the guns illegally, and the mentally ill are not being reported. Still, it would help in a few cases.

What news sources, I'm reading the law you yourself posted, the comments from the schools really don't address anything specific, so no way to tell if they're lying or not. For example, are they allowing boys into girls locker rooms and showers or not? No way to tell from those statements.

They couldn't have been "implementing" the law because the law is only a few days old. Just because you believe the law should produce certain results, does not mean that is what's legally required. A law is not a suggestion, it takes away rights from some and gives them to others. In a few months you should be able to see what the actual "implementation" looks like. The do-gooder Western liberal, who will not rest until the world as we know it is wiped out. I blame lobbying. With enough money and resources you can convince the public of anything. A Gallup survey (I believe on a 20000 strong sample) found that Americans believe that over 30% of their countrymen are gay (actual numbers go from 1% to 3.6%). Its beyond incredible. Strong media presence managed to convince people of something that can be refuted by simple observation made by a person of less than average intelligence. A public so overwhelmingly easy to convince of anything, will, eventually, support anything. Yes, it was an all out push, politically, in the news media, and most importantly in the entertainment media.

I think you're wrong in the way you're interpreting the law. What you're describing was possible before the law, now if you try that they can claim discrimination, since they're being segregated from the gender they claim to be. Also if the law means the facility has to be empty, then it really wouldn't matter which facility they were using, so why have the law in the first place? The do-gooder Western liberal, who will not rest until the world as we know it is wiped out.

Fine, since you're such an expert, are you denying that the new law allows any boy who claims he feels like a girl to use the girl's locker room? Most of my knowledge comes from the education side, since that is my background. I am no expert on the medical side. But to answer your question directly: no, it allows a transgender student to use the locker room of the gender they identify with. It reads as follows: Now that sounds rather vague, and it is easy to understand why some people might think that means boys will be jumping in the showers with girls on a regular basis. But there are a couple of reasons that will not happen. 1. Becoming a legitimate transgender student is a difficult process. This isn't Bosom Buddies, these kids go through years of counselling and, as I said, my wife who has been teaching for a decade has only had 3 students who actually meet this definition. The law doesn't say anything about "legitimate transgender" whatever that means, it says "consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records", so whatever you say your identity is, that's what it is, there's no requirement to have a finding from an external arbiter. Yes it does, it allows them to use the same facilities, it says nothing about finding other accommodations or leave any discretion to the school, they now have the absolute right under the law to use either gender's facilities.

Iraq want US back : http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq-seeks-help-from-us-amid-growing-violence-1.235890

People who never age : http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/researcher-girl-ages-key-biological-immortality-article-1.1429255#ixzz2cAh2rtU4

Fine, since you're such an expert, are you denying that the new law allows any boy who claims he feels like a girl to use the girl's locker room?

Congress already knows about that, although it's not clear if they received all the info they were supposed to. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-16/nsa-says-it-takes-privacy-violations-seriously-on-spying.html

Most schools have already implemented what the law legally requires. In terms of bathrooms, that means legally you are required to provide a transgender student with a place to change. My wife has had two transgender boys over the years, and she provided them with a third bathroom where they would be more comfortable getting ready. As you can imagine, a boy who feels like a girl and is taking hormones to physically change their body is not going to do very well in a crowded boys locker room. The way it's been reported they're required to be allowed to use the same facilities, not separate facilities (which I don't think anyone would object to). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/california-gov-brown-signs-transgender-student-bill/ Also I didn't realize they do sex changes on children now.

Civil rights progress marches on. Calisodom just passed a law that boys who claim to be transsexual can use girls' locker rooms. My question is how can the girls' parents be such pussies?

Some more about MB : http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-egypt

I know the history of Al-Qaeda perfectly well. Of course their initial formation would still have happened, but after the resolution of the war in Afghanistan they would have played out their role. Do you even know why Osama attacked the US in the first place? Because the US supports the Israeli Zionists and also because they have military bases in Saudi Arabia (yes, apparently that was a reason). AQ has EVERYTHING to do with Israel/Palestine, just look at 9/11, which was largely a byproduct of the Israel/Palestine situation. (Nowadays I sincerely think they get more recruits from the PR they must have gained from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) They say it's because of Israel to gain more popular support amongst Arabs and other Muslims, but Jihad is a lot older than modern Israel, and their goal is to carry out global Jihad to establish a global caliphate, to overthrow current Arab regimes and replace them with revolutionary Islamist ones. US used to be an obstacle to those goals, so we got attacked on 9/11. Al Qaeda isn't fighting Assad because he's not anti-Israeli enough, they're fighting him because he's not Sunni and allied with Shiites in Iran.

MB has never believed in democracy, except as a way to get into power. Their goal is a global caliphate under Sharia.

If you insist on precision, I guess I could've added a few caveats to my statement, but it should be apparent that each of the situations you described is quite different from Hamas lobbing rockets at Israel. In the case of Syria for example, what was hit was a shipment of advanced missiles destined for Hezbollah, and they do retaliate by supporting terrorists, when they can't do it openly. In any case, none of these countries are held back by self-restraint, which is what you seem to be demanding from Israel, which was my original point.

hitler was also elected. Elections don't mean a hell of a lot unless you have rule of law.

Like Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan et alia, perchance? To the extent you mean US rockets, they're used with the agreement of the states you mentioned, and target their own enemies, and US doesn't fire them indiscriminately hoping to hit something. Not sure what you mean by Lebanon, Syria, and Sudan. @Rostere, Al Qaeda started partly due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and partly due to US presence in Saudi Arabia to defend it and Kuwait from Iraq, nothing to do with Israel. In fact AQ is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is much older than Israel.

They don't see it as wasting lives, they see it as going to their heavenly reward.