Been invited out tonight to what will likely be a very alcoholic dinner so I will also not be listening.

I also hope Trump loses but it is rare for courts to decide against the Administration.

Not really, you have an elected person or group of people who are responsible for deciding what content is appropriate and what isn't.

If people think they are doing a poor job, then after a pre-defined period, they get replaced. Almost sounds like democracy.

I'll be 50 soon, it's been a long time since I had a reason to use any powder. At my age you forget what its for.

A decision for Trump will lead to many more demonstrations.So if that's what they want then so be it.

I would probably enjoy hearing your Mother wax on about the values she wanted to raise her daughter with, but in a (slight) defense of Milo, in at least ONE of his online videos, he argues against a fairly narrow definition of Feminism that a lot of women are also speaking out against.

Without putting words in your Mother's mouth, I wouldn't be surprised to hear her describe this newish flavor of Feminism "a load of bollocks!"

Judging by the sort of people who tend to be attracted by student politics, that doesn't sound like a very comfortable situation.

It was interesting to observe for example the Debating Societies of UK universities, where controversial people freuquently get invited to speak. This frequently leads to loud protests, but it is interesting to see some of the same people who attended or even lead the protests turning up to attend the debate afterwards and even asking their own questions.

If you don't believe somebody should be allowed to face the scrutiny of debate, if you believe certain topics are beyond the realm of deabte, then why participate in the debate?

Think you can omit "student" from there and we can all agree on something.

If in general politics, the ruling party gets to decide which political opinions may be spoken and which are banned (which if I understand you correctly, is what you suggested for universities), then that could quite easily be misused for dictatorial ends.

Same here but on second thought it becomes clear why. Imagine apprehending a single rioter after catching him:
He resists so has to be forced onto the ground with a few police wrestling him down and keepin him nailed. Risk of many rioters close by so you'd probably need a double-digit number of police to protect them, and even then those on the floor would be easy(immobile) targets that are unable to defend themselves lest they let the culprit go. Which doesn't even consider catching him in the first place - think about chasing a young (probably fit) man in light attire by police who are heavily armed.

So reasons against chasing is probably a combination of
- fast and mobile rioters vs slow police (heavy gear) hence little chance to apprehend even one culprit in the first place
- protect the police: if they're isolated, which would definitely happen in a chase on foot, some would be up against many fiendish rioters some of which would attack from behind
- priority to protect the public rather than immediately catch the rioters
- act as potential target if necessary to keep bystanders (relatively) safe, hence only present the protected front to the rioters
- canalize the riot, preferably keep it stationary to limit damage

41yrs ago punk happened. That was my frame of reference and one that he uses frequently in his persona. That's why he makes little inpact in his home country, because he's so retro.

Wife leaves husband of 22 years because he voted for Donald Trump

On one of them, The Local seems to have an exclusive!

The media is hitting back at Trump's list of "uderreported" terror attacks.. (marton's beat me to posting this)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090

...and one British mother is already hitting back at his list for including the murder of her daughter which was not a terror attack...
http://news.sky.com/story/british-mo...ttack-10759415

I think you're extrapolating too far. I'm just suggesting the uni has a committee who decides who to invite.

You mother sounds like mine. She always worked at very interesting jobs, was so elegant and always slim and stylish, and mostly wore very smart trousers and blouses, and looked so professional.

And yes, it is not so simple. There is a massive increase in the UK in childhood anorexia, even for VERY young children, self-harm, leading to serious health issues, short and long term, and for some, suicide seeming like the only way out. Hugely expensive too- in so many ways. Which makes pressure from bosses and worse, POTUS ... not only un-acceptable, but also dangerous, in so many ways.

And again, your CHOICE of dress and look is absolutely and totally irrelevant to this discussion and thread MC. No-one is opposing your freedom to choose, au contraire.

Unfortunately, she died in 1991. And she probably would agree, slightly with him, although she'd consider him a pipsqueak. I'm not saying all feminism is good. Never have, never will.

To my point - I compare George Carlin with Milo. And despite the fact that George Carlin has been dead since 2008, what he says is more relevant still than Milo has ever been. Milo just puts me off - like a smart ass brat, I think.

What do grown up people's moms and aunts have to do with their opinions on challenging cliches on gender and cop-outs? I have an opinion and therefore I must be automatically offending somebody's mom? Aunt? Grandma? What is that. I am not even from there, just offer what it seems to like to an outsider.

It seems to me that to keep the emotionality on par here in the thread, I gotta drag my own fab mom in, ha! She did not say "define yourself, before defining through a man". She said "define yourself". I think there lies the ultimate difference between progress and progress that defines itself through negative identification. It is an entirely different can of worms and exactly my point. Guys - those suckers have it pretty tough these days whatever they come up with. The circular reasoning why some people feel they have lesser chances in life due to men, bites the guys no matter what the guys try to say to defend themselves since, tbh, nobody is really stopping anybody in succeeding in life these days. Especially in the US. There are theories that are presented as truths and not simply as povs.

Stop the groan fests, too, and pull up big girls pants

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

It has to do with the experiences those women had- and how hard it was to break away from them. My mother was born in 1912 - and grew up in rural Switzerland - you probably are too young to have any idea what it was like.
She was the only mum here with a 'proper' and very interesting job, who had her own car and was a local politician, etc. She was the only one who had travelled, studied abroad in several countries, who spoke several languages fluently - and yes, was so elegant with great dress sense, so admired by all my friends.

This sketch always makes me laugh- it could have been me, in the early 70s in the UK, never mind Switzerland ...

https://youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w

As for dresses and heels- a choice- that many Stepford or Trump wife may well not have, still in 2017!

I groan very rarely, but what you wrote was truly offensive.Two groans does not a fest make, snowflake. But thanks for reining in my naughty behavior and letting me know how to behave.


Anyway, US has bigger problems than whether or not women wear skirts. DeVos was just confirmed secy of education. Public education in the US might well be down the toilet.

I feel I should feel guilty of: being a snowflake, abusing mod's power (simply asking people to not continually groan, something we just have to do) - since it is not obvious for some when a person is posting a personal pov and when modding and what else - trully not only offending member's sensitivities but also sensitivities of their moms, grandmoms and aunts. Wow. And I thought I was the ultimate femlib's hero, as a single mom, a sole earner and not dependent on my kid's not coming child support! Celebrate me, no? Why not? Because I am autonomous not despite the man. I am just autonomous. And not even by choice, I do not think it is the healthiest for kids to grow up with parents missing. I also dared to say I think women look good in dresses, another no no. I did not say I don't like women not wearing dresses. The over interpretation is, of course, contributed to me and I am being held accountable, instead of the person who is over-interpreting. Another symptom. Why all this? It is amusing. And relates directly to the discourse that is happening in the US. Let's cheer for real diversity. Diversity of opinion. Let's treat those who differ, with respect. If diversity is, of course, a priority for those who participate in the debate.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein