That's to be expected. Liberalism was born from the same tree as religion.

You might be surprised, AC, but I agree with this. Modern Liberalism / Progressivism (also known as fascism) is indeed a religion. The State is worshiped as supreme, the environment replaces the saints, and their unholy sacraments are abortion and gay marriage.

In other words, the Devil himself is who they really worship, the Devil just abstracts that out as the State so the leftists don't realize what master they truly serve.

And if there's anyone who wants to dismiss that... get a history book and learn how many Catholic Clergy got the Guillotine in the French Revolution for not dropping their faith in favor of Robespierre's "Reason".

Let's not forget the incorrect retraction of the Bible that removed 6 books. The full Bible has 73 books.

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees are all scripture.

What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?

Most of what you see as inaccurate was intended to be metaphorical, and as far as "harmful"... typical liberal drivel. Anything you don't agree with is "harmful" or "hate speech" or "intolerant".

Play a new card, that one is as worn out as the race card is.

Android 4.x devices like the Nexus 7 don't have a dedicated menu button. And in this copy of Google Maps, there's no "tricolon" button where the overflow menu is supposed to be.

https://support.google.com/gmm/answer/6054498?p=maps_android_tips_tricks&hl=en&rd=2

The first thing that came up on my phone for this? "Popular tip: View maps offline." I got to it from within Maps by opening the menu off to the left side and hitting "Tips and Tricks" down at the bottom.

(This was on a Moto X running Android 4.4. YMMV.)

Totally agree -- (Members of) The Catholic Church created the first schools, hospitals, etc.

UFC was more interesting before the weight classes and rounds. The old Gracie way, it was over when it was over.
The modern implementation before you today was scientifically formulated to maximize PPV revenue from people who want to see flying elbows instead of crafty omoplatas.

When someone attacks you, you are reacting to something that is already happening. So of course, without any experience one might revert to panicked pointing and shooting. But with experience and training, you can become fast, accurate, and mindful of the elements like [ firepower, terrain, time, strengths, weaknesses, and leverage ] which MAY help you overcome a time and/or luck deficit. Panic doesn't have to be a forgone conclusion.

USPSA, and even more so, IDPA competition can help you prepare for some of these aspects. Quick and panicked is that guy I was talking about, no formal experience, at best just shooting garbage out in the desert, at worst just bought a gun and tried it once at an indoor range. Practical shooting isn't about pinpoint accuracy, it is about balancing speed, accuracy, and power to achieve the most damage in the least amount of time. And going to local matches on a regular basis provides the repetition necessary for a conditioned-response-style drilled training (read On Killing, Col. Grossman).

Watch some videos of people like Jerry Miculek.

I never said girls couldn't. I said that on paper they should be able to just fine, but that out in the real world it just doesn't happen.

As far as wasting their lives, I disagree. A USPSA C-classified female shooter is likely to come out on top in a gun fight against the average guy who is has only informal experience shooting junk in the desert.

Maybe they won't be a champion, but 94.9% of all USPSA shooters won't achieve what Jessie Duff has achieved in GM status.

A couple months ago a 12-ish year old girl beat me in all 6 stages of a local match.... but... uhh... i had magazine problems!

hence my original post.... that females on paper should be able to compete just fine with males and there's no reason to hand out separate awards.

females do compete on equal terms, but their scores are compared only to other females for awards. you are blaming the symptom for causing the disease.

ahh, the "certain amazonian society" argument whereby someone seeks to argue against the prevalent facts by citing some small exceptions.

of course there will be a few exceptionally talented black swans that show up from time to time. these are exceptions to the rule.

for the year-after-year slog of shooters making their way to various competitions up to the top... WPW's, Camp Perry, USPSA nationals, IPSC championships, and all the hundreds of others, including the olympics, the males statistically dominate the top.

as far as I know, none of the scores are scaled differently for male vs female. the courses-of-fire are generally the same. the scores can be compared apples-to-apples, but we just hand out more trophies. females don't do worse BECAUSE of the separation, that is ridiculous.

i see this debate in shooting sports going the other way.

there really aren't any good reasons why a female should be a worse marksman or shooting competitor than a male. in fact, small efficient muscles and better color eyesight make females more ideal than males.

so a lot of people think that there should be no gender seperation in shooting sport competitions, and I tend to agree. but for some reason, the top females can never quite break into the top levels with the top males. just last year, Jessie Duff became the first female USPSA grand master-level shooter. on paper, there's no reason why they can't be as competitive as the guys, but in reality it just hasn't happened. so we end up with segregated competitions (in most cases. there ARE plenty of gender-immeterial competitions out there) to keep it "fair".

disclaimer: i will never be able to compete against the competitive girls.

Well, as Lefties say, "we're all in this together" now, and we gotta cut costs for the collective, because it's the system that's important, and not individuals' lives. So, breathing is optional. (I.e. you may have to take one for the team here.)

It occurs to me, Lefties decry capitalism in part because of the unfairness of the "survival of the fittest" aspect of it. Yet that aspect is only absent in socialism in pie-in-the-sky theory. The Left is just offering a trade for a different kind of "some do well and some get screwed".

In capitalism, your wealth determines the quality of your care. In Leftism, Leftists determine the quality of your care. I'll take the impartiality of it being a factor of my earning potential.

IIRC they were paying their full-timers a minimum of double the minimum wage, and even part-timers were getting 30% more than the state's arbitrary minimum. Probably not even due to market forces, per se; that surely enables it, but I assume it's the Christian outlook of its closely-held close-holders*.

An organization that values its workers and voluntarily pays them good wages; something the Left ought to approve of. Except for the fact they're a corporation (evil!), in the private sector (more evil!), non-union (super evil!), and pay for the 16 out of 20 birth control methods that aren't abortifacients (like conservation, taxes, and regulation, it's never enough**).

*Sorry for the dribblage, but Lefties are making a federal case out of the phrase "closely-held" lately.

**Progressives are like Wall Street analysts/company growth obsessed. It's never enough to progress to a good place, and then maintain that. There always has to be more, more, more.

But what if I don't sell to foreign nations, to other states, or to Native American tribes? Then according to that, the feds at least, have no grounds to get involved in my commerce.

I suppose then your idea of communities is that they be what I'll call right now "trade immunity" zones, where as long as it's intra-community, it's sans regulations (besides things like fraud laws)? And only trade outside the community would be where, in a sense, "foreign policy" considerations would come into play/get factored into trade regulations?

Too much acknowledgement lately of Leftie assertions that they don't even believe so are not worth (semi-validating by) acknowledging...