PK htiw klaw eriF

http://archive.is/Uh4sr Idpol in action.

Yeah, I was too but I ran out of time. Obviously taking care of kids is hard work, but "worker" usually means "wage worker" in most contexts. I'm saying that voting rights in the US can be correlated with material conditions of voting groups and that it should be no surprise that women got the right to vote around the time they joined the work force en masse. The relative material independence from family allowed them to campaign for suffrage, as well as do other things that were common of single women in the 20's. It's an observation, not an argument.

When "being a part of the workforce" is defined as "being paid for your work", anyways. Which it is today still, but... Well yeah, a slave was something quite different from a wage worker in material terms. Even if the work itself and standard of living didn't change much the relationship to production did and as such we saw a change in rights.

I would think most people would say it was surprising it took that long for women to receive the right. Land of the free, home of the brave and all that. Then I would think most people have a dubious grasp upon the history of the US or the connection between rights and material conditions. White men who didn't own property didn't have voting rights in every state until the 1850's and that was largely due to industrialization pushing more men into urban areas rather than farms. Non-whites, mostly blacks, received the right to vote after the end of slavery and they became paid workers rather than property. Women received the right to vote after they joined the work force in large numbers. What we can see from this pattern is that groups in the US historically only received voting rights when they were part of the workforce, as well as the US being not so great at universal suffrage historically.

OK so it was a comment on the length rather than the circumstances that led to women's suffrage. Isn't that rather KaineParker's point, though - that it's really not that hard to believe based on the current state of affairs? Although his post is actually pretty ambiguous, but that's how I understood it... I'm very ambiguous. But my point was it isn't that surprising that women received suffrage when they did given material conditions(the surge of women in the workforce around the US entry into WW1) of the time period.

Why?

That's because the "new-left" are primarily academic in background and are more comfortable rummaging through the writings of 19th century philosophers for phrases to give their mundane ideas a revolutionary appearance. The effects of this are a completely disorganized and impotent left far more interested in squabbles over ideological purity than revolution or even reform. The aversion to weapons is merely a symptom of this complacency.

"You just don't understand what's good for you" is a pretty universal cop-out when someone is **** at arguing for something. I've heard it from Libertarians/Liberals on property, (Racial/Ethnic) Nationalists on racial issues, Marxists on the necessity of the state(when arguing with Anarchists), Conservatives/Traditionalists on family values, and a bucketload of other uses I'm too lazy to type out. Bruce's use of it is due to him being bad at arguing rather than his Neo-Liberal ideology.

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies. You misunderstood what I was saying. I meant if he was the head of state, and there was a separate, right leaning head of government. But you also may have a point. My bad, it's late and I'm drunk. How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies. This is a good question. You see in order for Chavez to push through his various left wing social reform programs he automatically made himself an enemy of the West. He nationalized several Western owned companies and constantly made personal attacks against Western leaders Its not the personal attacks that was the issue, this was more of an annoyance but when he demonstrated he wasn't prepared to respect the rule of law and order this caused much Western investment to leave the country..Chavez didnt care because he was able to drive the economy purely from the oil and other resource exports A normal government would have diversified its economy and not been so reliant on only one sector to drive the economy..like Canada and its oil production Not really. Canada isn't/wasn't Venezuela and contrasting the two runs into various hurdles like education level of the work force and standard of living. Assuming that Venezuela was governed by someone with economic policy based around the ideas of say Milton Friedman instead of Chavez during his presidency, there's no guarantee that private industry would have performed much differently and diversified the economy. We are living in Global Capitalism after all, and with oil prices being what they were and the availability of imported goods it would have been feasible for Hypothetical Venezuela Companies to develop solely oil production infrastructure and neglect other industry the same way the Venezuelan state has.

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies.

How so?

not that I dont agree with you but dont you think that maybe if there would not be problem with immigrants and muslims in first place we would not see this behaviour from Odin guys? I would be first one to call them racist smucks. They dont 'pop up' from thin air without a reason Of course, but they've arrived and will continue on in some form even in the unlikely event everyone they don't like leaves. The issue is that the liberals/neocons claiming that there is no issue at all with the recent influx of Muslim refugees in Europe or Latin America immigrants in the US is that it prevents a "true encounter" with said refugees and immigrants just as much as the odin types are by saying they're all rapists and thieves who want to destroy the country.

At least the dog is eating tacos. taco bowls should be wiped from the face of the earth.

The sex cards were in the first twitcher. I understand outrage can be fun but get your facts straight.

Humans are the least privileged race in 2e, or at least the IE version of it. They've got Paladins, Monks, and Dual-Classing and that's it. No multi classes, no attribute modifiers, no shorty saves, and no thief skill bonuses. Check your privledge Dwarfist scum.

I'd never vote for a man who eats taco bowls over tacos. Absolutely disgusting.

So the larperspatrol groups are pretending to be vikings now?

Yes GD, you're correct. But I don't have a term on hand for a creature that rapidly changes colors to fit whatever circumstance that works better than "chameleon". It was only a matter of time. Surely the Republicans were going to try to screw over Trump at the convention if he didn't secure the outright bid before then, but Trump is just way too popular and the whole Cruz/Kasich alliance backfired spectacularly. Not to mention that Cruz is nearly as hated in Washington as Trump is. Are they really surprised? If they wanted to stop Trump the time to do it would have been early in the primaries to allow support to rally behind Cruz or Rubio or whoever, by waiting they've fractured any "anti-Trump" sentiment in the Republican party to ensure that Trump would only lose the nomination in a contested convention, which will make them look like ****. Tactically speaking, the Republican party is either stuck with Trump or driving off a large portion of their base.

All we need is a major gaffe for Hillary and he can do it. Would that be a bigger upset than Leicester winning the EPL? I don't know but it would make me laugh. It would be like David and Goliath, if David was a very old man and Goliath was a political chameleon who has been running for President for over a decade.

All we need is a major gaffe for Hillary and he can do it.

Bernie's gonna make college free and make Wall Street pay for it. Prepare your anuses billionaires, it's time to feel the bern.

PVP is pretty badly broken. Much as I like my guildbros and guildsiss, unless you're running a few classes ranked is gonna be bad. I really hope they rework certain specs and give classes new dcds, but I'm almost certain they won't anytime soon.

So we get Shadowrun with Hillary, Star Trek with Bernie, The Witcher with Cruz, and Fallout with Trump?

You're the bass drum.

Debate would require you to be able to coherently argue for something Bruce, and you've continually proven you're either unwilling or unable to do that.