Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You people do understand why this is *really* happening, right? Haha, no. You're monkeys who take everything at face value and don't understand how cynically manipulative people in that business relly

Yes I can, but that misses the point of my previous post, which was that Colonel FeatherFace phrased his criticism of Obama in a pretty racist sounding way, while he was suggesting that he was, in rea

Are you high?   During the presidency of George W. Bush we experienced:   - The worst terrorist attack in our history. - The start of a major war in Afghanistan. - The start of another, simultan

Ahh the wonderful propaganda of the left during the last election cycle.

 

Follow the party line or you hate women, are in a War Against Women, are a misogynist!

 

Meanwhile President Obama pays women less and Bill Clinton treats them as sexual objects.

 

Viva La Revolution...now clean up missy because you have to service our men after your done!

 

 

 

I'll stick with the other side of the revolution, the one that judges a woman on her merits, not her sexual organs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, to a degree.

 

Men and women are different, they compliment each other in different ways.

Men protect women,

Women civilize men.

 

The need to be equal is foolish, play to our strengths and accept our weaknesses. To do otherwise is just trying to force nature to fit into a non-existent mold, causing problems in the long run.

 

I'll stick with the other side of the revolution, the one that judges a woman on her merits, not her sexual organs.

 

You do realize that these posts say the exact opposite things, no? You can't group all people of a certain gender into roles, then argue that you're judging them based on their merits. Well, I guess you can argue that, but you're either saying something exactly opposite, or totally irrelevant (if the argument is centered on the difference between 'role' and 'judge').

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that these posts say the exact opposite things, no? You can't group all people of a certain gender into roles, then argue that you're judging them based on their merits. Well, I guess you can argue that, but you're either saying something exactly opposite, or totally irrelevant (if the argument is centered on the difference between 'role' and 'judge').

 

Who grouped all women into roles?

 

How is a women civilizing a man placing her in a role?

 

The PC neediness to fit everyone into the prescribed roles is the only thing going on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who grouped all women into roles?

 

How is a women civilizing a man placing her in a role?

 

The PC neediness to fit everyone into the prescribed roles is the only thing going on here.

 

ok, i'm done here. You described the roles that (all) women "fit." Not PC, you. Your position is that women serve men, by "civilizing" them, and not having, you know, an independent opinion or place. The only "role" the PC's require of a women is that she not be required by her gender to follow any specific roles. So, exactly the opposite.

 

You're non-PC, you're mysoginist, you're selfish. Own it. It's sad when you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh the wonderful propaganda of the left during the last election cycle.

 

Follow the party line or you hate women, are in a War Against Women, are a misogynist!

 

Meanwhile President Obama pays women less and Bill Clinton treats them as sexual objects.

 

 

 

I'll stick with the other side of the revolution, the one that judges a woman on her merits, not her sexual organs.

 

What are you talking about? What does Bill Clinton have to do with any of this? Or Obama? Did I miss something? I called you a misogynist, not "the left" or "liberals," and certainly not some specific liberal. Calling Obama a hypocrite (a position I basically agree with; he's been embarrassingly bad on women's issues) is so absurdly irrelevant to the conversation, so mind-blowingly dumb-fuckingly unrelated, that I can't help but think you obviously know that, and are just using "Clinton! Lewinsky! OBAMA!!" as a diversion... or something.

 

And I can't even respond to the last sentence of your post, because there's only like a 1/10 chance it's sincere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want women to be judged on merit? That sounds misogynistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, to a degree.

 

Men and women are different, they compliment each other in different ways.

Men protect women,

Women civilize men.

 

The need to be equal is foolish, play to our strengths and accept our weaknesses. To do otherwise is just trying to force nature to fit into a non-existent mold, causing problems in the long run.

 

You confuse equality with justice. But let's just face facts, you simply tow the party line and join in the misogyny of the Republican party.

 

You don't want women to be judged on merit? That sounds misogynistic.

 

Too simplistic. He wants to judge them by his own view of "merit", or the "good ol' boy" view of what women merit which isn't much. He certainly doesn't view them having equal pay, responisiblity or aptitude. I would say that's a problem. I would also say that's a problem for the Republican party long term practically being their party's mantra.

 

Let's just review some of these things that led people to refer to it as the "war on women".

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

 

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

 

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

 

 

Nice try.

 

Not going to go point by point with you, but this one just isn't true at all and, for me, erodes the credibility of your entire post. You're basing this statement on one person's extreme interpretation of the proposed law. The law in question would expand the State's definition of "Justifiable Homicide" to a killing committed in defense of an unborn child.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/south-dakota-defending-justifiable-homicide-bill-include-abortion/t/story?id=12923085

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, i'm done here. You described the roles that (all) women "fit." Not PC, you. Your position is that women serve men, by "civilizing" them, and not having, you know, an independent opinion or place. The only "role" the PC's require of a women is that she not be required by her gender to follow any specific roles. So, exactly the opposite.

 

You're non-PC, you're mysoginist, you're selfish. Own it. It's sad when you don't.

 

The need to redefine words to fit me into your pre-conceived label that you 'know' is true is the reason you don't understand that a woman 'civilizing a man' is a compliment that shows the vital role women play in all societies.

 

And how you determine I'm selfish from an opinion shared by most real men on the planet is interesting enough for me to ask how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try.

 

Not going to go point by point with you, but this one just isn't true at all and, for me, erodes the credibility of your entire post. You're basing this statement on one person's extreme interpretation of the proposed law. The law in question would expand the State's definition of "Justifiable Homicide" to a killing committed in defense of an unborn child.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=12923085

 

Silly Pot Odds, facts don't matter to leftist. Propaganda will tell them all they need to know.

 

Republicans hate women, now let's look for anything we can twist into that truth.

 

It's how they approach science as well...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? What does Bill Clinton have to do with any of this? Or Obama? Did I miss something? I called you a misogynist, not "the left" or "liberals," and certainly not some specific liberal. Calling Obama a hypocrite (a position I basically agree with; he's been embarrassingly bad on women's issues) is so absurdly irrelevant to the conversation, so mind-blowingly dumb-****ingly unrelated, that I can't help but think you obviously know that, and are just using "Clinton! Lewinsky! OBAMA!!" as a diversion... or something.

 

And I can't even respond to the last sentence of your post, because there's only like a 1/10 chance it's sincere.

 

Hello, welcome to the section of the forum defined by the word: Politics.

 

This is a thread about politics.

 

Now what were you asking about why would I make this political?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to the section of the forum defined by the word: Politics.

 

This is a thread about politics.

 

Now what were you asking about why would I make this political?

 

I was asking why you were grouping MY politics with President Obama's politics, President Clinton's sex scandal, and some vaguely defined notion of "liberalism." Sure, the discussion here should be about politics, but the sub-forum isn't labeled "PRESIDENTS AND PRECEDENCE!"

 

My charge was that your comments were misogynistic. Your response was "Clinton and Obama are hypocrites" is a complete non sequitur, and only serves as a distraction to any real exchange of ideas. Do you disagree? I mean, we were definitely talking about politics, but we were definitely not talking about Bill Clinton. And you know that, so I ask again.

 

What are you talking about?

 

 

Edit: Also strange is why you assume I am a liberal, let alone an Obama apologist. I voted for Obama in 2008, but did not vote for him in 2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the politics forum, with others using the War on Women lines, I accidently assumed you also felt similar to the lefty nut cases who are so sure that republicans hate women that nothing else could be true.

 

If you put in the context of the thread, the section of the forum and the fact that I responded to the current discussion without quoting your post, do you think its possible that I wasn't only speaking to you?

 

Pointing out that President Obama ( who I also voted for in 08 but not 12 ) pays women less then their male counterparts, and that the past democrat who is the closest thing to democrat celebrity there is alive today Bill Clinton, who actually was a misogynist, do you really think I should go back and change my response to make you clear that I was speaking to the subject and not to you alone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton just won a father of the year award from the National Father' Day Council.

 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the politics forum, with others using the War on Women lines, I accidently assumed you also felt similar to the lefty nut cases who are so sure that republicans hate women that nothing else could be true.

 

If you put in the context of the thread, the section of the forum and the fact that I responded to the current discussion without quoting your post, do you think its possible that I wasn't only speaking to you?

 

Pointing out that President Obama ( who I also voted for in 08 but not 12 ) pays women less then their male counterparts, and that the past democrat who is the closest thing to democrat celebrity there is alive today Bill Clinton, who actually was a misogynist, do you really think I should go back and change my response to make you clear that I was speaking to the subject and not to you alone?

 

I am the first person that used the word "misogynist," and I accused you of being a misogynist, so it wasn't unreasonable for me to assume, when, in the very next post, you used the word "misogynist," that you were responding to me. The "speaking only to me" thing is a bit trickier, but only because it is absurd. How was I supposed to respond when you just started randomly invoking Democrat Presidents? Like, "hey, guys, this part might not be for me, so somebody else should take it."

 

Sure.

 

Or no.

 

Or whatever the thing I have to say to get you engage me without pretense or nonsense. (<--- Let's assume I said whatever that thing was.)

 

 

So I've suggested you are misogynistic. And I don't care about your "Clinton and Obama are misogynists so liberals lack the moral standing to suggest I am misogynistic" argument.

 

FINALLY I COME TO SOMETHING TO ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF TO PARSE IT

 

 

Do you think you judge women solely on their individual merits?

 

If yes, do you disagree that some of your earlier statements could easily be construed to contradict that?

 

 

Edit: I guess I'm saying, why don't we argue politics on the merits, instead of getting bogged down in the crapy?

 

 

And why did you vote for the Obama ticket in 08 instead of McCain?

Edited by NickCave
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton just won a father of the year award from the National Father' Day Council.

 

 

lol

 

I am probably missing something, and honestly don't mean this to be rude despite how it reads, but...

 

 

Is "Bill Clinton won a father of the year award! That is hilarious!" relevant to the discussion apart from the fact that somebody mentioned Clinton a few posts ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know someone mentioned him. It was just funny, and this is the thread being used for discussion. I don't really care about society's rules of appropriateness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The need to redefine words to fit me into your pre-conceived label that you 'know' is true is the reason you don't understand that a woman 'civilizing a man' is a compliment that shows the vital role women play in all societies.

 

And how you determine I'm selfish from an opinion shared by most real men on the planet is interesting enough for me to ask how you can arrive at that conclusion.

 

Boring troll is boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the first person that used the word "misogynist," and I accused you of being a misogynist, so it wasn't unreasonable for me to assume, when, in the very next post, you used the word "misogynist," that you were responding to me. The "speaking only to me" thing is a bit trickier, but only because it is absurd. How was I supposed to respond when you just started randomly invoking Democrat Presidents? Like, "hey, guys, this part might not be for me, so somebody else should take it."

 

Sure.

 

Or no.

 

Or whatever the thing I have to say to get you engage me without pretense or nonsense. (<--- Let's assume I said whatever that thing was.)

 

 

So I've suggested you are misogynistic. And I don't care about your "Clinton and Obama are misogynists so liberals lack the moral standing to suggest I am misogynistic" argument.

 

FINALLY I COME TO SOMETHING TO ADVANCE THE CONVERSATION INSTEAD OF TO PARSE IT

 

 

Do you think you judge women solely on their individual merits?

 

If yes, do you disagree that some of your earlier statements could easily be construed to contradict that?

 

 

Edit: I guess I'm saying, why don't we argue politics on the merits, instead of getting bogged down in the crapy?

 

 

And why did you vote for the Obama ticket in 08 instead of McCain?

 

Lost a golf bet with Checky McFold, the little commie

 

 

As far as my statements being misconstrued, of course they can be. The PC movement has made us unable to admit many things. You mention women, gays, blacks, if you do not tow the party line exactly as prescribed, then you are sexist, homophobe, racist.

 

I don't care about labels, because I'm a grown up

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost a golf bet with Checky McFold, the little commie

 

 

As far as my statements being misconstrued, of course they can be. The PC movement has made us unable to admit many things. You mention women, gays, blacks, if you do not tow the party line exactly as prescribed, then you are sexist, homophobe, racist.

 

I don't care about labels, because I'm a grown up

 

Reminds me of the Big Bang episode when Leonard kept telling Sheldon's racist, pyscho, homophobic far right mom, "We don't talk like that anymore". ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's freaking me out to see all these Republicans praising Obama for not stopping the NSA from continuing Bush's Patriot snooping. I mean how much more evidence do you need to know it's wrong! Christ, when Lindsey Graham agrees with you, you have to think twice about what your'e doing! And ohhh the irony, about them loving the NSA having all the info they need, but turn around claim background checks infringe on our freedoms!

 

Oh well, the Republicans needed a new scandal for the week since all the other bogus ones didn't pan out. Can we impeach Issa now? I mean, child please! Release the damn IRS records if you have something or else admit what we already know, you don't have squat!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's freaking me out to see all these Republicans praising Obama for not stopping the NSA from continuing Bush's Patriot snooping. I mean how much more evidence do you need to know it's wrong! Christ, when Lindsey Graham agrees with you, you have to think twice about what your'e doing! And ohhh the irony, about them loving the NSA having all the info they need, but turn around claim background checks infringe on our freedoms!

 

Oh well, the Republicans needed a new scandal for the week since all the other bogus ones didn't pan out. Can we impeach Issa now? I mean, child please! Release the damn IRS records if you have something or else admit what we already know, you don't have squat!

 

I'm pretty sure covertly surveilling millions of Americansis a big and legitimate enough scandal to last everyone for quite a while. That he was continuing the previous administration's practice does nothing to absolve President Obama of any responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...