Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Did you have a point? I noted they had very few civil wars.  

I quoted what you said, and responded to that, because it was retarded.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And sure - they had to have troops to KEEP them in line, but ONLY 3 legions kept the entire region under control. The celts didn't drive rome out of england did they :) the romans just couldn't afford to be there anymore.

3 legions was 1/10th of the entire Roman Army's total strength (at its peak), and that was to control and maintain one tiny province that barely even registered on the map.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Not really kiddo :P  rome never lost a conflict with the germanic tribes

He says, after I just pointed at one of the worst military disasters Rome ever suffered (Teutoburg forest) - one that changed history forever and is still taught and studied in military colleges to this day.  ?

A similarly large disaster as suffered at Carnuntum, with the Germans invading northern Italy and sacking Roman cities there ~150 years later, before Rome's decline had even started. ?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Swing and a miss. About the best you could say is that poor management at home lead to shortages of money which made it harder to keep up the armies that stopped raids and the like.

That you would bluster like this after saying something so clearly and demonstrably false is a perfect example of how aggressively foolish you are.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I quoted what you said, and responded to that, because it was retarded.  

Agreed - your response was retarded.

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

3 legions was 1/10th of the entire Roman Army's total strength (at its peak), and that was to control and maintain one tiny province that barely even registered on the map.  

Rome didn't have standing armies by and large, they formed legions when they needed them for war. It's not like today where the size of your army is the size of your army. And ENGLAND is barely a blip on the map ?!?  HOooo kaaaaay big guy :)

 

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He says, after I just pointed at one of the worst military disasters Rome ever suffered (Teutoburg forest) - one that changed history forever and is still taught and studied in military colleges to this day.  ?

LOL - it changed nothing other than rome stopped expanding in that direction.  And that was 500 years before the downfall of rome. Pretty delayed reaction if you're claiming that's a reason ':)  And the only reason it stands out in history is BECAUSE it was so unheard of for the germanic tribes to cause much trouble. They raided etc but they never got organized like that again :)

They certainly didn't threaten rome.

Swing and a miss kiddo.

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

A similarly large disaster as suffered at Carnuntum, with the Germans invading northern Italy and sacking Roman cities there ~150 years later, before Rome's decline had even started. ?

The germanic tribes took an outpost. Sure - good sized one but again zero threat to rome. And that's 170 ish years later - so these tribes were SUCH a threat that they could only muster up a successful raid once every 170 years or so? :) LOL! Yeahhhh terrrifying.  And it wasn't even the same groups as at tetoburger.

You're trying to pass off a wide group that isn't even really 'german' as being this constant threat that destroyed the empire when they can only muster something significant every couple of centuries. This just proves how desperately dumb you are.

LIke i said originally - the germanic tribes (and others) would raid now and then, but didn't play a role in the downfall directly, Sorry. They didn't sack rome, they didnt' defeat the roman armies and drive them away. They'd win the occasional fight every 150 ish years :) LOL

What brought the empire down was worse and worse leadership and ever increasing beurocracy that severely weakened their economy and raised the cost of maintaining the empire. Everything else stems from that. The germans never came close to taknig ove rome.

Hell - hannibal did more than the germans ever did and the empire STILL went on to grow stronger and thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

My 2 cents...

Back when a man who knew what day it is, was POTUS, my Czech mother-in-law was here visiting. One afternoon, she and I were watching CNN while Hilary-Billary was complaining about Trump having stolen the 2016 election. Now...ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of that, my mother-in-law, who speaks no English at all, pointed at the TV and said to me...

"That. That is why women should not be involved in politics."

Women use crying and screaming, like men use their fists. The problem here is that women resort to emotional outbreaks way too often, as they know the act does not provoke violence. Men will refrain from resorting to violent outbreaks because they know they will get hurt too. Hence...the logic of the parliamentary system.

There's a problem with the typical emotional outbursts of women. It's that eventually men get tired of it...and stop listening to them. This is now happening. The pushback on Cancel Culture and Climate Alarmism...the decline of BLM and ANTIFA are perfect examples.

 

Sexist claptrap.    Women shouldn’t be allowed in politics because they’re not just like men.   The 1800s called…. they want their bigotry back.  
 

Now tell us about what you think of the different skin colours being allowed in politics these days…

Edited by TreeBeard
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Sexist claptrap.    Women shouldn’t be allowed in politics because they’re not just like men.   The 1800s called…. they want their bigotry back.  
 

Now tell us about what you think of the different skin colours being allowed in politics these days…

Claptrap eh? Yet you don't bother to refute anything. You just call it claptrap.

I have no issues with skin colour whatsoever.

Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Claptrap eh? Yet you don't bother to refute anything. You just call it claptrap.

I have no issues with skin colour whatsoever.

Do you?

I’m supposed to refute your opinion that women are inferior to men?  LOL  

There’s nothing there to refute; it’s pure drivel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Don't they? Explain what purpose having drag queens read books about sexuality and genders to children serves.

First of all, the books they read are suitable for children. They're only about sexuality in that they explain that some kids have a mother and a father, while other kids may have two fathers or two mothers.

Secondly, the point of have drag queens there is to show kids that they don't need to follow gender roles. Boys can wear dresses if they want, the same way girls can get jobs in fields that were traditionally for men. It's like have women come to talk about their work in NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh my god - you're just dumb enough to dig yourself deeper :)  I told you were public funds came from.  They don't come from "taxes" :)   "Strategic" taxes is taxing other countries.  :)

Holy shit kid - why don't you just drool on the keyboard if you're going to be that stupid

Here ya go - it's just painful to watch you making such a joke of yourself :)

 

That's your "Public Funds" and Strategic taxes  :) Raiding other countries and "Taxing" them by stealing their stuff :)

Even later when there was "tax reform" they taxed the provincial prefects - not the people. If you had a territory under your control that had 100 people and 100 acres of land then you paid x dollars per acre and y dollars per person - but the PEOPLE didn't pay that. That was basically rent or tribute and the provincial leader was supposed to earn enough money from working the land to pay it, the people didn't get taxed and nor did the income.

So - ya done being a loser yet? :) I hope not - it's fun to watch :)

Oh - final bonus slap in your face:

Taxes in the Roman Empire, in comparison with modern times, were certainly no more excessive. In many cases they were far less per capita than anything we can compare to today.

However, the strain of tax revenues was heavily placed on those who could most influence the economy, and it would ultimately have dire consequences.

The economic struggles that plagued the late Imperial system, coupled with the tax laws, certainly played a part in the demise of the world's greatest empire.

So they "overtaxed" the wealthy landowners and politically influential and not the people in general - and it was a disaster :)

I guess your idea of 'eat the rich' really doesn't work, does it! This has been utterly hilarious  to watch, You're learning so much!

This is what I think of when I see you overcompensate with smiley faces.

49fe93.jpg?a466704

 

Anyway, I already proved that Rome used taxes to build infrastructure, whereas you didn't even know that the empire extended into the British Isles. So I think you've been sufficiently schooled on this topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

First of all, the books they read are suitable for children. They're only about sexuality in that they explain that some kids have a mother and a father, while other kids may have two fathers or two mothers.

Nope - total lie. Sorry. Remember - if you have to lie to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point.

6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Secondly, the point of have drag queens there is to show kids that they don't need to follow gender roles. Boys can wear dresses if they want, the same way girls can get jobs in fields that were traditionally for men. It's like have women come to talk about their work in NASA.

It's still entirely sexual and nothing at all like having women come from nasa.

Many feel, with good reason, that introducing sexual issues to children too early causes a lot of problems. And there's a reasonable body of work to support that. And i'm not just talking about lgb stuff - i'm taking about hetero or any kind of sexual sensitive discussions. 

Thats why traditionally adults tell kids babies come from 'mommy's tummy'.

Now - perhaps YOU feel that you should expose YOUR children to sexually explicit issues early. And if that's your decision as a parent then you can certainly make arrangements for that.  BUt a lot of people feel it's child abuse, and using public resources to promote that is very concerning for them.  So - it's a vaild issue to address.  Why do we need to be teaching kids that young about sexual issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

This is what I think of when I see you overcompensate with smiley faces.

49fe93.jpg?a466704

 

Anyway, I already proved that Rome used taxes to build infrastructure, whereas you didn't even know that the empire extended into the British Isles. So I think you've been sufficiently schooled on this topic.

This is what i think of when you've realized you've lost a discussion point and compensate with pictures

  Image-23-13.jpg

 

And in fact I proved that it was not taxes that made up pubilc money - and you didn't even reazlie hadrian's wall was in england ;)

 

Sorry kid - but everyone knows when you resort to stoopid pictures and you start lying about what was said that you're running home with your tail between your legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Republicans are the party of equal opportunity for all without regard to race, etc. 

True equality of opportunity means reducing classism as much as possible.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

As for your assessment of parents as generally being abusive towards their own children,

Nope, you're lying about what I said again. I said most child abuse takes place in the home, not that parents are generally being abusive. Of course there are plenty of parents who aren't abusive. The point of conservatives wanting to defund public schools and encouraging everyone to homeschool is so they can molest their kids and get away with it. It's about protected the parents who are abusive, which are probably the minority of parents.

Quote

If a parent abuses a child, that of course requires outside interference, but these situations are dealt with and reported on individually.

Yes, but if a child is homeschooled, it's much less likely that it ever gets reported. 

 

Quote

Of course the left won’t see how bringing kids to drag queen reading hour might be inappropriate or how affirming sex change surgery for children might be abusive.  Clearly biological reality doesn’t matter to some of these people.

Serious question. When you say that leftists affirm sex change surgery for kids, are you lying or do you really believe this?

If you do really believe this, where do you get your news from? Do you ever fact-check anything?

 

Quote

As for economic opportunity?  People figured out pretty fast that the opportunity is in Republican states and are leaving the blue states in the thousands.

Source?

From what I've seen, people are leaving New York and California, but people are also leaving most of the southern states. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I’m supposed to refute your opinion that women are inferior to men?  LOL  

There’s nothing there to refute; it’s pure drivel. 

I don't remember saying women are "inferior". They are certainly different...complimentary even.

But nice try...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Your post oozes with the insinuation, even if you’re afraid to say it.  

Only to a dick looking for a way to feign outrage. You know...looking for a reason to virtue signal.

Why is it such an afront to your senses, to have the obvious differences between men and women pointed out?

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Only to a dick looking for a way to feign outrage. You know...looking for a reason to virtue signal.

Why is it such an afront to your senses, to have the obvious differences between men and women pointed out?

It’s not an obvious difference.  It’s a trope used to diminish women’s worth as human beings.  Like talking about the Jews supposed love of money.  No different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is what i think of when you've realized you've lost a discussion point and compensate with pictures

  Image-23-13.jpg

 

And in fact I proved that it was not taxes that made up pubilc money - and you didn't even reazlie hadrian's wall was in england ;)

The Roman Empire included an area in England. Reminding us that you didn't know this isn't exactly a win.

 

Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I’m supposed to refute your opinion that women are inferior to men?  LOL  

There’s nothing there to refute; it’s pure drivel. 

In some ways they are, in others they are superior.

Like cooking, and cleaning...

;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

It’s not an obvious difference.  It’s a trope used to diminish women’s worth as human beings.  Like talking about the Jews supposed love of money.  No different. 

Not an obvious difference? Gee...do you use the lady's bathroom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - total lie. Sorry. Remember - if you have to lie to make your point then you probably don't have a very good point.

Do you think this book is inappropriate for children? This is a popular one for Drag Queen Story Hour.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Many feel, with good reason, that introducing sexual issues to children too early causes a lot of problems. And there's a reasonable body of work to support that. And i'm not just talking about lgb stuff - i'm taking about hetero or any kind of sexual sensitive discussions. 

But they're not introducing sexual issues outside of depicting gay couples the same way media already depicts straight couples.

One of the things that triggered the Right was showing a lesbian couple in a Disney movie where one woman gave another woman a peck on the cheek. Meanwhile, they have no issue with the prince making out with the princess at the end of like every Disney film. You see why it's hard for me to take this seriously, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,741
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    timwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • User earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...