RE: Another example of the "war"

RE: Another example of the "war" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 10:02:28 AM)
I dread to think. Pregnancy farms? like death row, but for poor pregnant women who dont want to have a child at the time she gets pregnant. Who are then sterilized so they cant get caught again. And then selling the babies at a profit to cover the costs? facetious, yes... but to be honest, I could gfive a flying fuck right now. We are being ignored but we wont be quietened

tazzygirl -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 10:13:05 AM)
Why not when we are now compared to pigs and cattle... fucking animals. Yet, I am supposed to stay quiet? Yeah, fat chance on that one.

GrandPoobah -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 4:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah ..........Get the government the hell out of the Uterus! It really is that simple. If it ain't yours, leave it alone..................... Since it's not yours, leave it alone...even if you think she's really hot! I nominate this for Sunny's Quote of the Day!!!! I'm not sure, but I think that's a compliment. I'll take it that way...and thanks.

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:18:02 PM)
Nicely done. I see lots of words, numbered list, conclusions and links to websites for credibility. Like the infamous Huffington Post. Well, here is an interesting link to Redstate. For balance of course. http://www.redstate.com/center77/2012/02/26/bill-maher%e2%80%99s-obnoxious-blog-post-identifies-huffington-post-as-an-unserious-%e2%80%9cinternet-newspaperblog%e2%80%9d/

Lucylastic -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:23:51 PM)
why dont you actually look up the information other than your totally biased site that is likening a blog post to NEWS.. Now how about getting back to the damn topic Google is not too hard to use, try it to find other sites full of references to the OP..

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Tazzy, what can I tell you? After reading the Georgia statute, I am pretty convinced that the intent and the practicality is that it does not prohibit removal of a fetus that has died naturally. Those two definitions are not the same. I am certainly not defending the law, I believe it it unconstitutional and morally appalling. But claiming it does something that it doesn't is only going to hurt the cause f the opponents of the law. And I dont know what to tell you other than to see it how others do as well. Intent is all well good and fine. In the political environment we have now, I dont want good intentions. I want it spelled out. Intent is what I heard in the video... not what I read on line. I'm sorry. What video? I believe that I should not and would not quote something I heard (and interpreted myself with perhaps a little bias, eh? ) on an internet video as if it were factual and I would never then say later: "oh well, I just heard that on the video so you can't blame me". I agree that I could not simply have good intentions in doing so because I could not, if I were being honest with myself, believe my intentions were that good.

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:36:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic why dont you actually look up the information other than your totally biased site that is likening a blog post to NEWS.. Now how about getting back to the damn topic Google is not too hard to use, try it to find other sites full of references to the OP.. I'm very sorry to have upset you with a single small link in a small attempt to bring some balance... *Hey, waitaminute, this is on subject,* the link discussed how some Democratic proponent of great exposure is clearly at "war" with women, women of the right. Balance. You decide. But I know I am on subject and clearly your post to me just now IS NOT! It again occurs to me there is a war on men.

Owner59 -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:40:47 PM)
That would be war on someone`s politics...... Your con-war doesn`t discriminated among political POVs or partys. Every woman regardless of status or affiliation is potentially a victim here.And in many cases......their children are also potential victims

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:41:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Its one hell of a slippery slope, and we both have been talking about this since 2010..weve been poo pooed and accused of fear mongering by more than a few. this is just the start if they get their way and are not challenged. That this is happening in the 21st century is an abomination I think drama and fear mongering and snake oil is an abomination in any century.

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:43:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 That would be war on someone`s politics...... Your con-war doesn`t discriminated among political POVs or partys. I fear calling someone a dumb bitch on TV is not a war on politics. It is a war on smart and successful women. Such women are not fooled by the left propaganda and so they're a threat. The way to deal with a threat in the left playbook is ...what...can you guess? I think you can.

Owner59 -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Its one hell of a slippery slope, and we both have been talking about this since 2010..weve been poo pooed and accused of fear mongering by more than a few. this is just the start if they get their way and are not challenged. That this is happening in the 21st century is an abomination I think drama and fear mongering and snake oil is an abomination in any century. "snake oil" Which party is pushing the junk science that abortions increase the chance of getting breast cancer? If that`s not fear mongering......I don`t know what is. The better tact is to claim we`re tricking the cons into looking like complete dopes.....

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:49:13 PM)
You gotta be kidding me. First of all, I am a pro choice, educated, professional woman. Second, I actually took the time on a Saturday night, as pathetic as that is, and looked up the Georgia code on Westlaw, including all the cross references. When I first read the law, I could see how someone could draw the conclusion that it required a woman to carry a dead fetus to term. Then, I read the definition of abortion in the Georgia Code. It specifically excludes the removal of a dead fetus, that has spontaneously died. That means that if a woman does something that induces the fetus to die, intentionally or negligently, then that is not excluded from the definition of abortion. It also doesn't say that she needs to carry the dead fetus, it just means that she can be prosecuted criminally. Now, all that is bad enough. Why claim that the law "might" do something that it really doesn't do? There are plenty of reasons to find this law to be an abomination, as well as unconstitutional. Creating some fanciful stretch just weakens the credibility of the opposition, and makes one look, well, hysterical. I don't know if you have ever been involved in legislation, but just because some fucked up mouth breather makes a stupid comment on the floor doesn't make it true, either. Read the whole bill, including the definitions currently used in the code, and incorporated in the law. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I see it the way you do Lucy. For a few years now, we have been complaining about the treatment of women. Only to be told we were too "emotional". I am emotional. I am pissed that men are making the decisions for me... that they can decide what I can do with my body, that any decision I may make is dismissed.... unless its to vote them into office again. And I see it here. "This is not what the bill means" Medically, I know what it says, I know the implications, and I see the slippery slope to abuse. If the political climate were different, I might agree and believe I was worrying too much. But, I wont be silenced, I wont be told I am making something out of nothing. And, while I understand the reason behind the following... quote: But claiming it does something that it doesn't is only going to hurt the cause f the opponents of the law. That pisses me off too. Because that is the prevailing thought. Be a good woman and dont push too hard, you might make things worse off How much worse does it have to get before women realize this is a war against us..... that does not include us?

Lucylastic -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:50:15 PM)
no there is a war against the bills and their repurcussions. FOR women, NOT men. Deluded attempt at obfuscation, your post was regarding bill maher and his blog making huffpo non serious. You deny theres a war on womens rights but it occurs to you that its against men scuse me while I treat your post with the contempt it deserves, But please feel free to start a thread if you feel so put upon, give bill numbers and proof if you can. I cant wait to see the justification

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:52:14 PM)
t You gotta be kidding me. I sure as hell didn't suggest you not "push.". First of all, I am a pro choice, educated, professional woman. Second, I actually took the time on a Saturday night, as pathetic as that is, and looked up the Georgia code on Westlaw, including all the cross references. When I first read the law, I could see how someone could draw the conclusion that it required a woman to carry a dead fetus to term. Then, I read the definition of abortion in the Georgia Code. It specifically excludes the removal of a dead fetus, that has spontaneously died. That means that if a woman does something that induces the fetus to die, intentionally or negligently, then that is not excluded from the definition of abortion. It also doesn't say that she needs to carry the dead fetus, it just means that she can be prosecuted criminally. Now, all that is bad enough. Why claim that the law "might" do something that it really doesn't do? There are plenty of reasons to find this law to be an abomination, as well as unconstitutional. Creating some fanciful stretch just weakens the credibility of the opposition, and makes one look, well, hysterical. I don't know if you have ever been involved in legislation, but just because some fucked up mouth breather makes a stupid comment on the floor doesn't make it true, either. Read the whole bill, including the definitions currently used in the code, and incorporated in the law. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I see it the way you do Lucy. For a few years now, we have been complaining about the treatment of women. Only to be told we were too "emotional". I am emotional. I am pissed that men are making the decisions for me... that they can decide what I can do with my body, that any decision I may make is dismissed.... unless its to vote them into office again. And I see it here. "This is not what the bill means" Medically, I know what it says, I know the implications, and I see the slippery slope to abuse. If the political climate were different, I might agree and believe I was worrying too much. But, I wont be silenced, I wont be told I am making something out of nothing. And, while I understand the reason behind the following... quote: But claiming it does something that it doesn't is only going to hurt the cause f the opponents of the law. That pisses me off too. Because that is the prevailing thought. Be a good woman and dont push too hard, you might make things worse off How much worse does it have to get before women realize this is a war against us..... that does not include us?

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 5:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 That would be war on someone`s politics...... Your con-war doesn`t discriminated among political POVs or partys. Every woman regardless of status or affiliation is potentially a victim here.And in many cases......their children are also potential victims Perhaps it is a war on someone's politics. But is that different than saying a "war on men" or a "war on smart and successful women of the Right"? I think not because our politics represent us, it represents how we think of and deal with each other, which is the basis and cause and origin of politics. So, I think it is just "cover" to say "war on another's politics only" because one may be against another's politics and disagree with another's politics but one cannot rightfully justify a purely negative action to support a "war on women or men" of any political outlook. So, I feel it is Snake Oil to say "I am at war with your politics".

Politesub53 -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 6:00:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas It again occurs to me there is a war on men. Indeed bruv. You only have to take a look around the world and see how many men are beaten into a pulp when the missus comes home from the bar on a saturday night. You only have to look at how many men are raped while walking home from a night out. Why just this week some damn women in Ukraine were demonstrating just becuase two politicians sons had raped and then set a girl on fire and hadnt been charged. You need to get a grip on reality my friend.

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 6:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic no there is a war against the bills and their repurcussions. FOR women, NOT men. Deluded attempt at obfuscation, your post was regarding bill maher and his blog making huffpo non serious. You deny theres a war on womens rights but it occurs to you that its against men scuse me while I treat your post with the contempt it deserves, But please feel free to start a thread if you feel so put upon, give bill numbers and proof if you can. I cant wait to see the justification I think the war on men is well represented here by angry, hurt, defensive women who post in words and terms characterizing their feelings toward men and toward women who respect men. I think the war on GOP men and women is not done with bills but by snake oil, like that exposed by that article in Redstate.

Arturas -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 6:06:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas It again occurs to me there is a war on men. Indeed bruv. You only have to take a look around the world and see how many men are beaten into a pulp when the missus comes home from the bar on a saturday night. You only have to look at how many men are raped while walking home from a night out. Why just this week some damn women in Ukraine were demonstrating just becuase two politicians sons had raped and then set a girl on fire and hadnt been charged. You need to get a grip on reality my friend. I don't follow you, my friend. Are you saying there is a lot of rape of women while walking home from a night out (and this) supports the OP or this fact suggests that I should not believe there is a another "war on men", specifically GOP men and some women, also in some quarters? I really don't see the connection but you are entitled to you opinion and I respect it even though I cannot agree with the logic.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 6:06:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas It again occurs to me there is a war on men. Indeed bruv. You only have to take a look around the world and see how many men are beaten into a pulp when the missus comes home from the bar on a saturday night. You only have to look at how many men are raped while walking home from a night out. Why just this week some damn women in Ukraine were demonstrating just becuase two politicians sons had raped and then set a girl on fire and hadnt been charged. You need to get a grip on reality my friend. I used to get beaten by my ex wife on a regular basis. The local constabulary frowned up male retaliation (because, after all, fair's fair) and being a "good Catholic" I just tried to work on my marriage. I could have beat the piece of shit twat waffle to a pulp but, then, it would have made her attacks on me meaningful. You spout a goiod party line, Polite. I think you're a nice guy but, I also think that you spend far too much time, reading about what goes on over here and not experiencing it for yourself. Toward that end, I am re-enacting an old rule I used to have. Please don't take it personally but a pollyanna act from someone that is on the outside looking in is about as appealing as my next molar extraction. Peace and comfort, Michael

Politesub53 -> RE: Another example of the "war" (3/18/2012 6:15:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas I don't follow you, my friend. Are you saying there is a lot of rape of women while walking home from a night out (and this) supports the OP or this fact suggests that I should not believe there is a another "war on men", specifically GOP men and some women, also in some quarters? I really don't see the connection but you are entitled to you opinion and I respect it even though I cannot agree with the logic. Im just going on the many misogynistic posts I have seen you make across the forums. The fact you feel that debating such topics is a "war on men" or a war on GOP men in particular is, in my opinion, very sad. Just for the record, I`m not even in the US I am in the UK and a Conservative.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875