TheAuger

I just recently started reading "Free Women, Free Men". Here's her FIRST paragraph of the introduction: "History moves in cycles The plague of political correctness and assaults on free speech that erupted in the 1980s and were beaten back in the 1990s have returned with a vengeance. In the United States, the universities as well as the mainstream media are currently patrolled by well-meaning but ruthless thought police, as dogmatic in their views as agents of the Spanish Inquisition." She has essays titled, "The Nursery School Campus: The Corrupting of the Humanities in the U.S.", "No Sex Please, We're Middle Class", and "Coddling Won't Elect Women, Toughening Will". PLEASE, get her on!

Camille Paglia has a new book out called "Free Women, Free Men", which I've not read, but apparently is a tome of scathing essays pushing back against third wave feminists (nothing new for Paglia, herself a feminist), eviscerating PC culture's ruining of university scholasticism and turning higher learning into SJW indoctrination factories, and actually defends masculinity and traditional roles for the sexes as (*gasp*) biologically-based rather than entirely socially constructed. http://www.uarts.edu/users/cpaglia https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/booking-request.php?SpName=Camille-Paglia

@richardY Well done! I've followed this event quite closely in the news since the last Parliamentary elections, and I'm elated for the result! Though my elation is tempered by facts and ruthless political machinations. Parliament may just decide that the referendum isn't legally binding, and they'll just ignore the result. FT Headline: Can the United Kingdom government legally disregard a vote for Brexit? https://next.ft.com/content/5b82031e-1056-31e1-8e0e-4e91774e27f1 I have nothing but loathing for the majority of English speaking politicians. Mr. Farage has been a notable exception. He is, by far, his generation's most outstanding political orator utilizing the English language. I think Farage will be much studied for generations to come. I mean you talk about perseverance! This is a guy who got mad at the conniving of the political class signing the British people into the EU through Maastricht without a referendum, left a lucrative City trading career, co-founded his own political party, got elected the EP, made mincemeat of the pompous Eurocrats, and finally, decades later, forced "Dave" to put the referendum up as a ballot issue, and now here we are! Farage has had more success as a libertarian than has Ron Paul!

The problem with "climate science" is that they are comparing observed temperatures with these climate models (the IPCC has funded over 400 of them). This is not empiricism, and therefore, it isn't science.

Juncker...Juncker...oh, you mean this drunk cunt...? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625257/EU-chief-Jean-Claude-Juncker-appears-drunk-bizarre-video-hopping-foot-foot-slapping-leaders.html

@Marlon, It seems what you might be asking is how can you detect someone lying or covering up for patterns of abuse. The answer is by asking them questions. If they'd rather not be open and honest with you, come back to the issue in a later conversation, perhaps scheduled. If they're still reticent and it's clear they're not being honest with you, or their story changes, then this would be a definite red flag for me.

Hi regevdl; interesting post. I get frustrated with the usage of the term "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" -- but for the opposite reason. I've noticed that when people use the term "conspiracy", they use it as a way to dismiss concepts and fact based arguments out of hand; it's something NOT to be believed, on it's face, without having to provide counter arguments. To me, this is extremely intellectually dishonest and lazy. (I'm not saying this is what you're doing, by the way). But simultaneously, "conspiracy" is a recognized legal concept in most systems all over the globe for a long time. So, for example, just look at the term you used -- 9/11 "Truther" -- which the MSM media uses as if the truth were something to be ridiculed, dismissed, ignored, etc (again, not saying that's the way you were using it). In fact, the term "conspiracy theory" was a creation of the CIA -- on record. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge https://books.google.com/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=cia+%22Conspiracy+on+the+large+scale+often+suggested+would+be+impossible+to+conceal+in+the+United+States.%22&source=bl&ots=R3UDlJbyo3&sig=FGKbeXrsfpMMDxWQSozPvh0ic20&hl=en&sa=X&ei=95fqVIb_ONXnoAT-pIDQDg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cia%20%22Conspiracy%20on%20the%20large%20scale%20often%20suggested%20would%20be%20impossible%20to%20conceal%20in%20the%20United%20States.%22&f=false

It's a good question, for sure. I've had some experience and success in this area. If you're wanting to approach women in public, then it's good to have a goal -- have a 5 minute plan to chat them up and get their contact info. There are all sorts of cheesy pickup lines -- don't use them -- women will thank you for sparing them the bullshit. It's best just to be completely honest and straightforward. This is the part that's disconcerting and uncomfortable for some men, I've noticed. So, for practice, just try approaching random people in public and striking up an upbeat conversation about something in your immediate environment. It's important to keep the conversation moving, and for some people this takes practice. Keep sustained eye contact. See if you can crack a joke, or compliment them in some way, and then know how to close and go about your business. Then, when you spot a woman that catches your fancy, just approach them in the same friendly, upbeat way. Non verbals are key. So, if you've made eye contact with them, that's a good sign. The best opener, I've found, is a direct approach. Something like, "Hey, I noticed ___x___ about you, and I think you're absolutely gorgeous. What's your name?" This will flatter them and demonstrate a certain confidence level on your part. But what you're really trying to do is gauge their interest level. So if they give their name and then ask yours -- that's a really good sign -- their interest level is high because they asked for your name. If they don't ask your name, it's still OK -- they maybe shy, in which case you'll have to work a little harder. Remember the goal here. Get them to a point where they're comfortable giving you their contact info. It's good to practice asking questions that don't have one word/yesno answers. At a key moment in the convo, you'll just have to say something like, "Well I wish we could chat more -- I'm meeting some friends and I have to run -- can you give me your phone number and we can go ___(something funny/semi absurd)___ sometime?" It's really that easy. Women know what you're after. If they're interested, they're going to notice the gesture and be flattered by it and help you through nervousness/awkwardness. A key hangup is if she's already dating someone else or has a boyfriend (or is already married...!)...The best thing to do in this circumstance is to say interestedly, without missing a beat or showing let down, "Oh, what's it like being in the perfect relationship?". Just listen to their mealy mouthing for a few seconds and say, "well I'm pleased to have met you, have a good day!" Then walk away confidently. Keep in mind what most women are looking for -- someone who is happy, upbeat, confident. If you're not that way naturally -- work on it -- it's a skill. Use that nervousness as energy. If you strike out -- there are always more fish in the sea. I've had literally hundreds of failures! You're a good looking guy -- if you ask a thousand women, a few hundred are bound to say yes! The key is to have a goal, practice, control the flow and duration of the conversation. Just KNOW that YOU have something GREAT to offer THEM!

Meanwhile, the Fed has commissioned white papers that support instituting NIRP. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-06/mechanics-nirp-how-fed-will-bring-negative-rates-us

Y'know, I already addressed all of these points in my second post on this thread.

Arguments of peace...? Attack people who want to control you...who advocate violence...enslaving people...blahblahblah? What does any of this have to do with Trump's stance on immigration?

Evidently, you didn't read Aaron's post that I cited...I literally just quoted his post...

So the third choice is "turn the tide"(whatever that means) and start killing people?

We need to be able to discreetly separate the policies of government, and then be able to look at overall the effects of those policies on the aggregate power of the State. So, yes, if Trump is elected and builds his wall, the amount of State power and resources in the area of border security will increase. However, that doesn't mean that the overall power of the State will also increase. Why? Well, fewer illegals getting free stuff from the Welfare State means less violence and theft against We, The Tax Chattel. In the aggregate, State power is lessened with a stronger border. Though the State itself, I believe, is illegitimate, the legal function of the State to secure the borders of a country is been, historically, the prime (and I believe a legitimate) concern of the State. In other words, if a society is going to have a state, then it's first priority (and really only priority) ought to be defense of borders. Even a free society will have borders, at least initially, because neighboring countries with governments will have defined borders. I'm still curious about the straw men you detected in one of yagami's post. Example? It seems to me, rather, that the straw man shoe is on the other foot. I don't ever recall reading yagami just claiming he believes the wall will work just because of "faith and hope" -- he's given you actual reasons. This is a demonstrable straw man fallacy you've made.

Ben Garrison was interviewed on the Alex Jones show today. He explains the ways in which he has been death threatened and persecuted -- even forced to quit his job -- because of his exercise of free expression. https://youtu.be/ti9F6UVXniA?t=2977