Newsnews

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:00 AM

Gloria Steinem Blames Rush Limbaugh for Ruining Word Feminism: "feminazis"

Friday’s CBS This Morning to promote her latest book, far-left feminist Gloria Steinem eagerly blamed Rush Limbaugh for making the word feminism a “bad word” because he “talks about feminazis everyday.”

Co-host Norah O’Donnell teed up Steinem to bash Limbaugh by noting the Meryl Streep “doesn't consider herself a feminist. This view of feminism probably does not include Steinem’s radical views on abortion which the she argues women “need” because it is a “sacrament.”

(( said Steinem: Women “Need” Abortion and Abortion is a “Sacrament”
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/24/gloria-steinem-women-need-abortion-and-abortion-is-a-sacrament/ ))


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-meyer/2015/10/23/gloria-steinem-blames-rush-limbaugh-ruining-word-feminism

I am not a Steinem Feminist...in my eyes, she sits at the same table as Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood.

Steinem and Sanger have tried to destroy many women's lives.

PAX OUT


84 replies, 7937 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gloria Steinem Blames Rush Limbaugh for Ruining Word Feminism: "feminazis" (Original post)
SocialJustice Oct 2015 OP
i verglas Oct 2015 #1
D.Libby Oct 2015 #15
News2Me Oct 2015 #2
SocialJustice Oct 2015 #4
News2Me Oct 2015 #6
kcci Oct 2015 #42
i verglas Oct 2015 #3
SocialJustice Oct 2015 #5
i verglas Oct 2015 #7
SocialJustice Oct 2015 #13
i verglas Oct 2015 #18
Currentsitguy Oct 2015 #9
i verglas Oct 2015 #12
Currentsitguy Oct 2015 #19
i verglas Oct 2015 #21
Currentsitguy Oct 2015 #26
i verglas Oct 2015 #27
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #17
kcci Oct 2015 #43
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #44
kcci Oct 2015 #45
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #46
kcci Oct 2015 #47
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #48
kcci Oct 2015 #51
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #52
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #54
kcci Oct 2015 #56
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #57
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #50
kcci Oct 2015 #53
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #55
kcci Oct 2015 #58
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #59
kcci Oct 2015 #61
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #62
kcci Oct 2015 #63
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #64
kcci Oct 2015 #67
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #68
kcci Oct 2015 #69
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #70
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #71
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #72
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #73
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #60
oldenuff35 Oct 2015 #82
kcci Oct 2015 #84
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #65
RATFINK_5.0 Oct 2015 #8
Doctor_R Oct 2015 #10
frankt8242 Oct 2015 #11
D.Libby Oct 2015 #14
His Daughter Oct 2015 #16
i verglas Oct 2015 #22
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #24
His Daughter Oct 2015 #28
Nephrite Oct 2015 #35
id-entity Oct 2015 #75
Nephrite Oct 2015 #79
His Daughter Oct 2015 #31
i verglas Oct 2015 #36
His Daughter Oct 2015 #40
_eek Oct 2015 #81
id-entity Oct 2015 #74
MedusasRage Oct 2015 #20
His Daughter Oct 2015 #30
i verglas Oct 2015 #37
His Daughter Oct 2015 #38
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #23
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #25
Doctor_R Oct 2015 #29
His Daughter Oct 2015 #32
SocialJustice Oct 2015 #34
MoshMasterD Oct 2015 #33
His Daughter Oct 2015 #39
who_what_where Oct 2015 #41
Da Mannn Oct 2015 #49
ProLapse Oct 2015 #76
Da Mannn Oct 2015 #77
ProLapse Oct 2015 #78
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #66
kc_tim Oct 2015 #80
Zimm_Man_Fan Oct 2015 #83

Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:04 AM

1. they can't open their mouths without lying

 

Headline on article:
Gloria Steinem: Women “Need” Abortion and Abortion is a “Sacrament”... and yet the truth is even right there in their own article:

“Honey, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”

What the fuck sense does
Steinem’s radical views on abortion which the she argues women “need” because it is a “sacrament.” even fucking make??

Women need abortion because they have unwanted pregnancies. Fuckin' duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:51 AM

15. " they can't open their mouths without lying"

yep...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:06 AM

2. Get the quote straight if you're going to use it.

Quote Investigator: The earliest published evidence located by QI appeared in an issue of the periodical “Off Our Backs” dated June 24, 1971 in which a speech given by the prominent activist Florynce Kennedy at a rally held on May 15, 1971 in Washington D.C. was described: 1


Florynce Kennedy, author of Abortion Rap defined the situation with her usual clarity: “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” She also read parts of the Metropolitan Abortion Alliance’s statement on the media and urged a national boycott of the media sponsors.

The leading feminist Gloria Steinem also used the expression in speeches delivered in 1971, but intriguingly Steinem pointed to another person as creator of this saying. In her 1983 memoir “Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions” Steinem indicated that the statement was spoken to her and Florynce Kennedy by the “elderly Irish woman driver” of a taxi in Boston. Details are given further below.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/11/men-pregnant/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to News2Me (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:12 AM

4. How can any woman claim to know what men would call a sacrament?

Women have no clue what men live while they are like under the thumb of dictator women. How dare they claim to know what it is like to be living the life of oppression.... I wonder how many males of color have been sacrificed at Planned Parenthood...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:14 AM

6. Way to deflect. You used an article that misquoted Ms. Steinem. That's all I was referring to.

Maybe you should verify your source before you post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 04:38 PM

42. What's it like being so easily mislead?

 

I'm truly curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:11 AM

3. so much fun to be had with the anti-choice

 

They write their own epitaphs.

In an interview with The Washington Post, she said, “Approximately one in three women in this country needs an abortion at some time in her life”. Aside from the dubiousness of this statistic, note that she uses the term “needs.”

Needs? Laura Enriquez has written convincingly on abortion as a preferential, not medically necessary, condition. What is clear is that what passes for “need” in the world of Ms. Steinem is actually the desire of a woman in a difficult or inconvenient situation to end a pregnancy.

There is nothing dubious about the statistic. I believe outfits like LifeNews are the ones constantly bleating about the numbers of abortions obtained by women.

The only thing dubious about it would be the premise that every woman who needs an abortion gets one, since the figure is based on women who actually obtain abortions.

Needs? There is no medical necessity for a mortgage. And yet, for most people, if they want a house, they need a mortgage.

For many women, if they want the life that they choose for themselves, they need an abortion.

Again: fuckin' duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:13 AM

5. their own epitaphs...

babies cannot write...."they want the life that they choose for themselves, they need an abortion."...I am tempted to call this the "Ultimate Selfishness".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:22 AM

7. yes indeed!

 

WOMEN wanting to choose how to live THEIR OWN LIVES is the ultimate selfishness!

We must all be like Mary, the adolescent girl impregnated without so much as a by-your-leave ...

Women, of course, do not have lives of our own. We are vessels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:47 AM

13. We are vessels.

yes...this is true. We all are vessels. What you have inside you is seen by others....let us hope that what others see is worthy of sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:24 PM

18. Did I hear somebody say

 

"gibberish"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:31 AM

9. Logical gibberish

Look, I support access to legal abortion services, but to equate that with a need is fallacious. Only a very small percentage of abortions can be deemed as medically necessary. The analogy you make would be akin to saying "I want a younger face, therefore I NEED Botox". You need no such thing. You may want it, and that's perfectly OK, but lets be honest here and not play parse the word. From a medical perspective, unless a pregnancy is going to kill or seriously injure the mother, an abortion is not needed. It is an elective medical procedure that may serve some psychological benefit or expedient convenience, but it is hardly medically necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:03 AM

12. "I support access to mortgage funding,

 

but to equate that with a need is fallacious."

It's perfectly okay to deny people access to mortgage funding that will enable them to achieve their own goals -- based on their personal characteristics ... race, sex, national origin ... because I say they don't need to own a house.

Just as it's perfectly okay to deny people access to health care services that will enable them to achieve their own goals -- based on their sex ... because some nobody says that no woman NEEDS to finish her education, or keep her job, or get away from an abusive man, or maximize her opportunities to have a secure, let alone fulfilling, life and a stable family in future ... or just plain avoid putting her health and life at risk for something she DOES NOT WANT.

Nope. YOU decide what she needs. And then some third party decides what she will be permitted to do based on YOUR decision about what she needs.

I thought that thing wasn't a Bill of Needs?



Now kindly note that NO ONE has said Thing One about "medical necessity" except your lying source. But you keep riding that hobbyhorse til it drops, if you like. Your choice -- which says nothing about anything except yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:25 PM

19. It's not my source

I am just trying to draw a line of distinction between what is desired and what is medically necessary. As I said it just doesn't make a good or convincing argument, when so many better ones can be made. Once can make very sound, strong arguments about how unwanted pregnancy results in poverty, abuse, etc, but to conflate that with actual "need" dilutes the strength of the position. Nobody "needs" a mortgage. An apartment provides adequate shelter. That does not mean that ready access to home lending shouldn't exist, just understand that it falls into the category of strong desire and not need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:33 PM

21. so?

 

I am just trying to draw a line of distinction between what is desired and what is medically necessary.



As I said it just doesn't make a good or convincing argument, when so many better ones can be made.So, trying not to choke on the straw and pretending there is a point there:

No "argument" is needed by any woman who wants an abortion, or by any person who opposes limiting or denying access to abortion.

NO argument is needed.

Anyone who wants to limit or deny access to abortion has the burden of justifying their proposal.

How many times does this need to be said?

That does not mean that ready access to home lending shouldn't exist, just understand that it falls into the category of strong desire and not need.If people want to own homes, 99% of them will need mortgages.

If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she needs an abortion.

It's pretty plain English.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:57 PM

26. It's not my concern

If you want to make a lousy weak argument.

If you would rather stick to tired, old, cliched talking points that gain no ground, win no minds, and make nonsensical points, be my guest. Who am I to stop you?

It's bad enough to waste time with people who disagree with you on stupid minutiae in English grammar rather than make substantive arguments, now you are actually arguing with someone who in large part agrees with you. It seems, however that agreeing isn't enough. One must be ideologically rigid and parrot the approved talking points without deviation to pass the litmus test.

Bottom line abortion, like any other medical procedure, is simply that: a medical procedure and is no more of a "Right", in the political sense, than cardiac bypass surgery. As it is an approved medical procedure, I accept the legality and properness of it being performed. I simply do not elevate it to some sort of special status to which it is undeserving.

Those on both sides of the issue who attempt to assign it some special moral and political status beyond the medical are equally foolish and are deserving of my equal contempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 01:12 PM

27. wtf are you claiming has to do with "English grammar"?

 

You, and the source in the OP, are claiming that Steinem made a statement about medical necessity.

She did no such thing.

You, and the source in the OP, are flailing at a straw Steinem, for the sole purpose of misrepresenting what she said, which was:

“Approximately one in three women in this country needs an abortion at some time in her life”.
Plain English.

Nothing to do with "medical necessity".

People in our societies decide for themselves what their needs are. They base those decisions on what they wish to achieve.

When I wished to become a lawyer, I needed an LL.B.
If I wish to visit Vancouver, I need a means of locomotion.
If I wish to survive, I need to eat.

If a pregnant woman does not wish to be pregnant, she needs an abortion.

The logic is really very basic.


Bottom line abortion, like any other medical procedure, is simply that: a medical procedure and is no more of a "Right", in the political sense, than cardiac bypass surgery.
What kind of abject nonsense is that?

Are you seriously saying that your legislators could pass a law prohibiting you from obtaining cardiac bypass surgery, or banning the method of cardiac bypass surgery that your surgeon believed was in your best interests, or requiring that you sit out a waiting period and listen to lectures about how Jehovah's Witnesses object to your surgery because it involves blood transfusions?

Are you saying that governments may interfere in the health care services that you decide you NEED?

The right involved is the right to life -- which includes the right not to be forced to assume the risk of injury or death, by being prohibited from taking the steps that would, in one's own opinion, best avoid those risks.

Of course, it is also the right to liberty -- the right to live one's own life as one chooses, unless someone comes up with good reason to interfere in one's choices.

Sometimes people require "medical procedures" in order to exercise those rights.

You let me know when anyone else's access to any other medical procedure is interfered with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:21 PM

17. Note that the reply you get equates a human life with bank mortgages, which

says something about the deep anti-human and callous loathing of life itself that your average feminist harbors. Such specimens are more to be pitied than censored; the problem is, in past generations, they were quite properly told to go away and stew in private, and not trouble the rest of us with their rancid self-hatred. Today, their ideological filth reigns in current law regarding abortion and other realms of public policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #17)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 04:43 PM

43. "loathing of life"

 

Says someone that named himself after a child killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:29 PM

44. 1. Trayvon Martin was not a "child." 2. Using deadly force to defend one's

life from being taken (or serious bodily injury being inflicted) is legal in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Zimmerman exercised that right legally to stop the unprovoked assault of thug Martin upon his person.

A jury in Florida has so determined.

Eric Holder's own Department of Justice - after a two year FBI investigation - has so determined.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #44)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:55 PM

45. 1. Let us see the definition of the word "child", shall we?

 

"child CHīld/ noun a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

If you need anymore help with English-to-English translations, you just let me know.

2. So is fighting back against an armed agressor.

Southern juries have a long history of finding killers of black children "not guilty"

You have a loathing of life. You admire and support a child killer.
Deal with it.....and try to learn basic English words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #45)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:02 PM

46. A Florida jury and Eric Holder's DOJ agrees with me, not you.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #46)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:28 PM

47. No one questions that Zim killed Martin.

 

No one that has a grasp on basic English words questions that Martin is a child.

Anyone that supports a child-killer has a loathing of life.

As you said that others have a "loathing of life" it would be accurate to call you a "laughably transparent hypocrite". However, seeing as how even the meaning of the word "child" is beyond your education level, you wouldn't even know what it is I called you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #47)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:43 PM

48. A Florida jury and Eric Holder's DOJ agrees with me, not you. STILL.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #48)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:01 PM

51. They agree that Zim shot and killed Martin.

 

Of course a jury agreed that Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson didn't kill anybody.

In any case I'm discussing how much of a clueless hypocrite you are supporting a known child killer while accusing others of having a "loathing of life".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:02 PM

52. Not quite: they agree that Zimmerman was 100% justified when he acted in self-defense

against the life-threatening assault of thug Martin.

Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:05 PM

54. Further: Anthony and OJ denied killing the people they killed; Zimmerman never

once denied that it was he who acted in self-defense to preserve his life when thug Martin illegally assaulted him in a life-threatening manner.

Your false analogy is...false.

Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #54)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:08 PM

56. So you only support those that beyond any question or doubt killed an unarmed child.

 

And you think this helps your argument.....

How marvelous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #56)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:09 PM

57. Gibberish + A Florida jury and Eric Holder's DOJ agrees with me, not you.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #47)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:55 PM

50. "...Martin was 5 feet 11 inches (1.80 m) tall and weighed 158 pounds (72 kg)

at the time of his death."

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Trayvon_Martin

So much for the nonsense about thug Martin being a "child"....

He was a grown man - and he illegally and with malice aforethought assaulted George Zimmerman, who was standing by his car in a place he had a perfect right to be waiting for the cops when thug Martin jumped out of the bushes, sucker punched, threw him to the ground, and began beating his head into the sidewalk, threatening his life.

And both a Florida jury and Eric Holder's Department of Justice said: Zimmerman = 100% justified and innocent.

Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #50)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:04 PM

53. Having difficulty with basic English, are you?

 

"child CHīld/ noun a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

But thank you for freely admitting that scrawny and unarmed children physically intimidate you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #53)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:07 PM

55. A Florida jury and Eric Holder's DOJ agrees with me, not you.

Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #55)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:13 PM

58. A southern jury also found the killers of Emmitt Till not guilty.

 

But that's not the purpose of this thread.

This thread started by pointing out the hypocrisy of a person who supports a known child-killer accusing others of having a "loathing of life".

It moved on to your inability to grasp the basic English word "child".

Then you proved that you are physically intimidated by unarmed children.

And frankly, I've been thoroughly enjoying every bit of this particular thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #58)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:17 PM

59. Guess what: Eric Holder's DOJ says Zimmerman was 100% justified when he

acted to defend himself against thug Martin's illegal assault, on top of the Florida jury that said the same.

So it's delightful to see you keep digging a hole you can't get out of, allowing me to reiterate those irrefutable facts time and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #59)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:10 PM

61. How fun!

 

Do tell what have I posted that you have refuted?
After all, I managed to refute you with nothing more than a dictionary.

Be sure to quote me when you do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #61)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:16 PM

62. The thread speaks for itself from ^^^ to bottom. But thanks for kicking the OP

back up to the top again, so more folks can see what an utter fail looks lie.



You just gotta be a satire account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #62)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:30 PM

63. That's what I thought.

 

The thread does speak for itself.

1) You are a hypocrite.
2) You don't know the definitions of words as basic as "child". Ergo, you likely don't even know what was stated above.
3) Unarmed children physically intimidate you.
4) When proven to be full of shit you simply try cluelessly using words (which you, again, likely don't understand the definition of) and emojis.
Ironically that exposes exactly what you are so desperately trying to hide. Namely, the meager level of your education.

You are exactly what I thought you were.
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to prove it.

Of course the above is likely too difficult for a person of your education level to understand.
Allow me to translate the above for a person of your intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #63)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:32 PM

64. Sure. Keep kickin' it back up to the top - the more see it the better. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #64)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:50 PM

67. Oh my! How adorable.

 

I'm perfectly fine with this being bumped.

I enjoy helping teach those so willing to expose their education level.
I am amused knowing that basic English words are beyond you.
I'm certainly perfectly content watching you admit that unarmed children physically intimidate you.


You are exactly what I thought you were, and I am very comfortable with others seeing that.
More to the point, I really enjoy helping you create threads like this.
Society needs a social ladder. I like demonstrating why certain people occupy the bottom rung.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #67)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:57 PM

68. Keep on kickin' it! Every time you do, I win again.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #68)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:07 PM

69. You think this is "winning"?

 

It seems our discussion is a win/win.
I thourghly enjoy our correspondence.

You are exactly what I thought you were and I enjoy showing exactly where you are.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #69)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:11 PM

70. Keep kickin' it back up to the top - the more see it the better. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #69)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:15 PM

71. Context/Greatest hits *Kick*:

1. Trayvon Martin was not a "child." 2. Using deadly force to defend one's

life from being taken (or serious bodily injury being inflicted) is legal in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Zimmerman exercised that right legally to stop the unprovoked assault of thug Martin upon his person.

A jury in Florida has so determined.

Eric Holder's own Department of Justice - after a two year FBI investigation - has so determined.

Deal with it.

http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=194680

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #67)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:17 PM

72. *Kickin' it some more:

...Martin was 5 feet 11 inches (1.80 m) tall and weighed 158 pounds (72 kg)

at the time of his death."

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Trayvon_Martin

So much for the nonsense about thug Martin being a "child"....

He was a grown man - and he illegally and with malice aforethought assaulted George Zimmerman, who was standing by his car in a place he had a perfect right to be waiting for the cops when thug Martin jumped out of the bushes, sucker punched, threw him to the ground, and began beating his head into the sidewalk, threatening his life.

And both a Florida jury and Eric Holder's Department of Justice said: Zimmerman = 100% justified and innocent.

Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #61)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:19 PM

73. And in for the easy-win *Kick*:

Guess what: Eric Holder's DOJ says Zimmerman was 100% justified when he

acted to defend himself against thug Martin's illegal assault, on top of the Florida jury that said the same.

So it's delightful to see you keep digging a hole you can't get out of, allowing me to reiterate those irrefutable facts time and again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #58)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 07:19 PM

60. All. Too. Easy. One almost begins to suspect you're really a conservative

posting here to make liberals look bad, and this is all an act, like Graham.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #53)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 04:29 PM

82. Travon Martin did not asked to be shot that night

He absolutely demanded it!!!!!

We should be angry at the person who caused that death and that would be Travon Martin!!!!!

When you take the word games out of the situation it is all very simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldenuff35 (Reply #82)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:40 AM

84. By walking home? With tea?

 

Really asking for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #17)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:36 PM

65. ^^^^Unexpected bonus: check out the thread from this post all the way down, folks.

All. Too. Easy.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:31 AM

8. In your eyes ...

Flush is an attractive turd. . .

Peace Out Dude !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:36 AM

10. "Feminists"

ruined that word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:49 AM

11. I used to listen to "Limpballs" for comic relief at one time..

 

But when he started using the "feminazi" meme, I tuned his sorry ass out permanently..Watching his demise has been my "comic relief" substitution lately...
And "selectively modified quotations" are indeed the stock in trade of the RWNJ contingent, aren't they..!!!..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankt8242 (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:49 AM

14. Poor Rushbo.... he's scared of da gurls

What a pathetic dope to be head of the Cons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:58 AM

16. Lots of different schools of feminism, some rational, some not so much

My take is that we are asymptotic and getting better.

Some so called feminists make things worse for ALCON, like TERFs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:40 PM

22. did someone say

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:46 PM

24. "First wave" feminism was just barely plausible, though it led to many

unexpected things, some of them quite harmful to society. Every "wave" after that has simply tried to make the law deny that biology exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 02:09 PM

28. There is main stream feminism and then there is extremism calling itself leading edge feminism

Most of us are for equal pay for equal work, right for all adults to vote, own property in their own name, etc. Same with opposing sexual harassment and discrimination in the work place. Its good for us as a society and helps keep us ahead of those societies where they ignore and do not utilize half of their people. That is the fruit of early feminism and its clearly a good thing.

There are zealots who worship at the high altar of the Church of the Perpetually Offended. If there is no outrage, they have no life. They include the very religious, the militant atheist, those with extreme political views, and unfortunately some schools of feminism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #28)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 07:01 PM

35. Then there is the HoF clique

best we all settle in the middle for egalatarianism, sure it is old school but it does have an undeniable charm to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nephrite (Reply #35)

Sun Oct 25, 2015, 06:37 AM

75. "settle in the middle"

Yeah, the old "treat others the way you want to be treated" thingie... sure it is old school but it does have an undeniable charm to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to id-entity (Reply #75)

Sun Oct 25, 2015, 05:15 PM

79. If equality is not the goal

one does have to wonder where the terminus points are!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 02:30 PM

31. The definition is there, clear in context

ALCON = All Concerned. Its a common usage where I have been an am now.

My take is that things are much better than they were legally and structurally. If equality was an asymptote, we as a society are close to if not actually asymptotic to it.

The really issue is what is equality. Equality of outcome? Equality of number? Equality of opportunity? I tend towards the latter since the prior two have other first order determinants that are not gender related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 07:21 PM

36. good for you!

 

U.S. military standard abbreviation for "all concerned" was kind of the obvious choice, given the source, eh?

If I want to read stuff written in US military gibberish that I have to ask wiki to explain to me, I'll probably go find a US military gibberish-writing website somewhere. Unbelievable, I know, but I know no one who speaks it, and have never felt any desire to.

The really issue is what is equality.
Sez you, and who cares?

The real issue is women's interests and women's rights and women's welfare.

Some aspects of those involve equality rights. But the aim of genuine feminism is not and has never been "equality". That's just a straw woman.

"Equality" doesn't stop men from assaulting and abusing and killing women, just for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #36)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:16 PM

40. Your definition of feminism is pretty narrow in scope

Being safe and secure in one's person is part of equality.


Its more Gov speak than just military speak. Read some of the controversial emails

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #40)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 04:12 PM

81. "You know things I don't"

.. "But I know everything, so you must be wrong"..

Lest the house of cards falls..

Keep on keeping on HD,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:30 PM

20. Steinem's writing helped me a great deal at one point in my life.

Probably basic psychology she was offering, but I understood something in regard to an incident that happened during my childhood and that understanding helped me find peace. So, I'm thankful to her for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MedusasRage (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 02:28 PM

30. I read her too, though I had the benefit of good role models and parents that believed in equality.

and took active measures to support it.

Steinem for a while made the mistake of thinking she had to keep far ahead of society to remain relevant. Its a common mistake made by some leaders of leading edge movements. As society moves towards their positions, they move further out. Steinem is an emeritus leader, she no long has to do that.

The problem is that feminism is a broad front with many different groups/schools. Some are rational, others not. The extremists make the news, and that turns the rational people off to the entire movement since what is being seen are the extremists. This is not just true with feminism, but with BLM, OWS, and other groups.

In the past others have said the reason for this is that there are no single points of authority and therefore there is no doctrinal control. They may have a point. For example, TERFs are a very small part of the women's movement, but due to the publicity, sully all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 07:22 PM

37. "us"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #37)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:12 PM

38. Yes, the non-TERF feminists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:44 PM

23. It's like willingly giving some a ride in your car: once you consent to sexual

intercourse, you consent to the possibility that another human being may need to "hitch a ride" inside you for a bit.

Let's look at this apt analogy: a man approaches you, and says "I'm wondering if you'd let my kid ride with you on your nine month trip across the country." You consent. The child get into the back seat of your vehicle, and you set off. According to feminist ideology, if you once tired of having that child you originally consented to have ride with you in that car, you could legally and with feminist applause boot that child out of the car while driving ninety miles an hour through the Arizona desert.

But that's not how it works: such a person would quite rightly be charged with manslaughter. If you consent to let a child ride in your car, you gotta get them to a safe station and carry them with you during the entirety of the trip, unless special circumstances arise. In the case of a pregnancy, the "safe station" is the delivery room - and if you allow a man to put his reproductive organ into your body and ejaculate DNA into your own reproductive parts, you have potentially consented to give a kid a "ride" in your "car."

It is that simple, and clear. Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:55 PM

25. Now, rape:

A man approaches you and at gunpoint says "let my kid ride in your car! Take her to California and drop her at the Santa Monica pier!"

You leave, headed West. It's a tragic situation for both of you: but you still gotta get that kid to the pier. You can't leave her at the side of the road in Winslow, Arizona, for the cactus and willows. Once you get to the pier, adoption can take place - and hopefully the despicable man who forced you to make that journey will be in prison for his crime. But you can't open the door and say "get out" until the Santa Monica exit. Sorry: life is often times not fair. But that's how it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #25)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 02:22 PM

29. "You can't leave her at the side of the road in Winslow, Arizona,..."

Especially not "standin' on a corner..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zimm_Man_Fan (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 02:32 PM

32. By your logic, the male is also accepting the "risk" of having to provide child support for many

years. Many do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #32)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:33 PM

34. Many do not....

...true....and shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:25 PM

33. The more the left talk about Rush

Out only makes him more relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoshMasterD (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:13 PM

39. He gets space rent free in a lot of heads

Surprising how many

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:05 AM

41. Gloria Steinem is STILL alive? I figured she'd died years ago.

Rush wouldn't have ruined the word "feminism" if lots of folks didn't agree with him.

"Feminazi" is a very good, descriptive word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:53 PM

49. After Fart Rape and Manspreading crimes? Feminists have only themselves to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #49)

Sun Oct 25, 2015, 07:19 AM

76. You are triggering me. Use jazzhands plz.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProLapse (Reply #76)

Sun Oct 25, 2015, 07:33 AM

77. fart rape and Manspreading links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #77)

Sun Oct 25, 2015, 07:43 AM

78. I had heard about manspreading....

 

but fart rape? FFS. This is what happens when a movement runs out of things to talk about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:38 PM

66. *Bookmarked* for future reference (see the fun above). n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialJustice (Original post)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 01:04 PM

80. Steinem is nuts

Controlling speech and thought has been associated with Nazi's long before Rush became famous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kc_tim (Reply #80)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 04:31 PM

83. Exactly right. It's amazing how obsessed they are with Limbaugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews