|
Post by redleg on Mar 27, 2015 18:37:35 GMT -5
IOW, you want Communists that don't spend as much. Ain't going to happen. You are a true master of stating things that aren't true about what other people say. To the extent that it can't stay out of folks' bedrooms, the GOP is rapidly alienating young people. If it wants to go out for being puritans, then it's on the right path. The GOP can't stay out of folk's bedrooms? Really? When Dems demand the "right" to kill their unborn children for any reason whatsoever, and are forcing everyone to bow to "gay marriage" or face retribution? When Puppettax is now forcing everyone to pay for abortions, contraception, and sex change operations?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 27, 2015 18:51:31 GMT -5
The GOP can't stay out of folk's bedrooms? Really? When Dems demand the "right" to kill their unborn children for any reason whatsoever, and are forcing everyone to bow to "gay marriage" or face retribution? When Puppettax is now forcing everyone to pay for abortions, contraception, and sex change operations? No, it can't. No one is being required to have an abortion, nor to marry someone of the same sex. The ACA, which you call Puppettax I guess because you like to make up your own language, has nothing to do with bedrooms. That may turn out to be an economic disaster, but it's got nothing to do with the kind of prurient interest the GOPers display in other folks' sexual activities.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 27, 2015 18:53:41 GMT -5
The GOP can't stay out of folk's bedrooms? Really? When Dems demand the "right" to kill their unborn children for any reason whatsoever, and are forcing everyone to bow to "gay marriage" or face retribution? When Puppettax is now forcing everyone to pay for abortions, contraception, and sex change operations? No, it can't. No one is being required to have an abortion, nor to marry someone of the same sex. The ACA, which you call Puppettax I guess because you like to make up your own language, has nothing to do with bedrooms. That may turn out to be an economic disaster, but it's got nothing to do with the kind of prurient interest the GOPers display in other folks' sexual activities. No, but we are all being required to pay for those abortions, and to accept, under penalty of jail, loss of all property, and someday, possibly death, any perversions that the Left decides they want.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 27, 2015 18:55:00 GMT -5
The GOP can't stay out of folk's bedrooms? Really? When Dems demand the "right" to kill their unborn children for any reason whatsoever, and are forcing everyone to bow to "gay marriage" or face retribution? When Puppettax is now forcing everyone to pay for abortions, contraception, and sex change operations? No, it can't. No one is being required to have an abortion, nor to marry someone of the same sex. The ACA, which you call Puppettax I guess because you like to make up your own language, has nothing to do with bedrooms. That may turn out to be an economic disaster, but it's got nothing to do with the kind of prurient interest the GOPers display in other folks' sexual activities. It has everything to do with bedrooms. You are forced, despite any religious objections, to not only acquiesce to, but pay for and support all perversions, up to and including murder.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 27, 2015 20:30:24 GMT -5
It has everything to do with bedrooms. You are forced, despite any religious objections, to not only acquiesce to, but pay for and support all perversions, up to and including murder. I'd rather not pay to support Israel, a country which is all grown up now and can take of itself. I'd rather not pay to support corporate welfare programs. I'd rather not pay for a lot of things. That comes with being a grown up and living in a society. Or, as your own book says, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..."
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 27, 2015 21:01:38 GMT -5
But in the meantime I did notice your willingness to attack him on a fairly minor point. Why dont you find an attack point that means something. Geez. It was a comment about a minor screwup, meant mostly for humor value. My guess is that the Republicans would like to have the Oval Office back. Which means there's no chance Cruz gets the nod. He'd be thrashed by any Democrat you could name. Hell, against him there's even a chance Warren could win. Cruz and his supporters don't seem to understand how far away from mainstream America their positions really are. Honestly? No. He would not be 'thrashed by any Democrat you could name.' He would probably be thrashed by Hillary Clinton provided the e-mail thing and the Clinton Foundation don't explode any further. If the 'Crats put up Warren, Cruz will seem like the sane option. If the 'Crats put up O'Malley, Cruz will seem like the competent option. If the 'Crats put up Biden, Cruz will seem like the non-sex predator option. In short, Cruz thrashes all of the second-tier 'Crat candidates, and they've only got one first-tier option.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 27, 2015 21:04:56 GMT -5
IOW, you want Communists that don't spend as much. Ain't going to happen. You are a true master of stating things that aren't true about what other people say. To the extent that it can't stay out of folks' bedrooms, the GOP is rapidly alienating young people. If it wants to go out for being puritans, then it's on the right path. Dude, you're REALLY becoming very out of touch regarding the GOP. You want to know who's in folks' bedrooms? You need to see what the feminists are up to these days. "No means no" has been replaced with "Only yes means yes." The left basically wants everyone involved to sign a legally binding release form before sex happens, and you think being in bedrooms is a GOP problem? LMAO!
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 28, 2015 9:40:36 GMT -5
It pretty to keep the Repubs out of your bedroom, the Democrats out of your doctors office isnt so easy with Obumblecare now the law.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 28, 2015 11:33:32 GMT -5
No, it can't. No one is being required to have an abortion, nor to marry someone of the same sex. The ACA, which you call Puppettax I guess because you like to make up your own language, has nothing to do with bedrooms. That may turn out to be an economic disaster, but it's got nothing to do with the kind of prurient interest the GOPers display in other folks' sexual activities. It has everything to do with bedrooms. You are forced, despite any religious objections, to not only acquiesce to, but pay for and support all perversions, up to and including murder. Pay for?... maybe... but support?... no...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 28, 2015 11:38:46 GMT -5
Dude, you're REALLY becoming very out of touch regarding the GOP. You want to know who's in folks' bedrooms? You need to see what the feminists are up to these days. "No means no" has been replaced with "Only yes means yes." First, this statement does not repudiate the statement that the GOP wants to monitor what folks do in the bedroom. Maybe that wasn't a goal. Second, I really don't have a problem with folks being opposed to rape. Be certain she wants to have sex and you won't have a problem. I remember being appalled that someone, on one of these various boards, had no problem having sex with a woman so drunk she was barely awake. Basically, the Bill Cosby model. There are a lot of people who seem to think that any way they can get it that's short of physical violence is okay. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 28, 2015 12:59:22 GMT -5
Dude, you're REALLY becoming very out of touch regarding the GOP. You want to know who's in folks' bedrooms? You need to see what the feminists are up to these days. "No means no" has been replaced with "Only yes means yes." First, this statement does not repudiate the statement that the GOP wants to monitor what folks do in the bedroom. Maybe that wasn't a goal. Second, I really don't have a problem with folks being opposed to rape. Be certain she wants to have sex and you won't have a problem. I remember being appalled that someone, on one of these various boards, had no problem having sex with a woman so drunk she was barely awake. Basically, the Bill Cosby model. There are a lot of people who seem to think that any way they can get it that's short of physical violence is okay. It's not. Tell you what, why don't you specifically state what policies the GOP advances that involve being 'in folks bedrooms'? Second, I'm not talking about actual rape. And neither are the feminists. They think it's perfectly OK to accuse a man of rape, even if there was no rape, just to punish a man for not getting her flowers on Valentines Day.. or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 28, 2015 13:41:32 GMT -5
Tell you what, why don't you specifically state what policies the GOP advances that involve being 'in folks bedrooms'? The two biggest are their obsession with preventing gay marriage, and their obsession with abortion. More generally, because they're in bed with fundamentalists, they're advocates of encoding religious law as secular law, and the problem with that is that it ignores or disenfranchises those who aren't fundamentalists. But you knew that. Second, I'm not talking about actual rape. And neither are the feminists. They think it's perfectly OK to accuse a man of rape, even if there was no rape, just to punish a man for not getting her flowers on Valentines Day.. or whatever. Tell you what, why don't you specifically name a feminist that advocates falsely accusing a man of rape. With a link to the quote, please.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 28, 2015 13:54:09 GMT -5
Tell you what, why don't you specifically state what policies the GOP advances that involve being 'in folks bedrooms'? The two biggest are their obsession with preventing gay marriage, and their obsession with abortion. More generally, because they're in bed with fundamentalists, they're advocates of encoding religious law as secular law, and the problem with that is that it ignores or disenfranchises those who aren't fundamentalists. But you knew that. Ok. You lose. Neither of those takes place in the bedroom. You mean other than Crystal Mangum's supporters, and the people supporting "Jackie" from UVA?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 28, 2015 15:51:11 GMT -5
Ok. You lose. Neither of those takes place in the bedroom. Well, I was using "bedroom" as a euphamism for "sex life". The sexual activities of others seem of extraordinary interest to the GOP, I don't know why. You mean other than Crystal Mangum's supporters, and the people supporting "Jackie" from UVA? Okay, you lose. Neither of those is a feminist.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 28, 2015 16:01:10 GMT -5
Ok. You lose. Neither of those takes place in the bedroom. Well, I was using "bedroom" as a euphamism for "sex life". The sexual activities of others seem of extraordinary interest to the GOP, I don't know why. Then you're still wrong. Gay sex happens all the time without gay marriage. Gay marriage is a legal issue, not a 'sex life' one. Gay marriage happens in a church or a courtroom, not a bedroom. And abortion is a 'women's health issue' not a sex life issue either. Just ask any liberal. LOL... seriously, the ONLY people supporting Crystal Mangum or "Jackie" are feminists. Oh, and then of course, there's Lena Dunham.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 28, 2015 22:01:56 GMT -5
It has everything to do with bedrooms. You are forced, despite any religious objections, to not only acquiesce to, but pay for and support all perversions, up to and including murder. I'd rather not pay to support Israel, a country which is all grown up now and can take of itself. I'd rather not pay to support corporate welfare programs. I'd rather not pay for a lot of things. That comes with being a grown up and living in a society. Or, as your own book says, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." And the things, in our country, that are Caesar's, are defined by the Constitution. Today's Leftists, and far too many LIV's, are content to render everything to Caesar, not just what is his. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing welfare, corporate or otherwise, health care, or nearly any of the other accretions that have grown up around the corruption we call the Federal Government.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 28, 2015 22:04:17 GMT -5
It has everything to do with bedrooms. You are forced, despite any religious objections, to not only acquiesce to, but pay for and support all perversions, up to and including murder. Pay for?... maybe... but support?... no... Really? How many individuals have you heard of lately that have been fired for not supporting "gay marriage" devotedly enough? Or having had the temerity to actually oppose it? Or any other perversion insisted on by the Left? I've read about at least a dozen in the last year or so.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 28, 2015 22:05:45 GMT -5
Dude, you're REALLY becoming very out of touch regarding the GOP. You want to know who's in folks' bedrooms? You need to see what the feminists are up to these days. "No means no" has been replaced with "Only yes means yes." First, this statement does not repudiate the statement that the GOP wants to monitor what folks do in the bedroom. Maybe that wasn't a goal. Second, I really don't have a problem with folks being opposed to rape. Be certain she wants to have sex and you won't have a problem. I remember being appalled that someone, on one of these various boards, had no problem having sex with a woman so drunk she was barely awake. Basically, the Bill Cosby model. There are a lot of people who seem to think that any way they can get it that's short of physical violence is okay. It's not. The problem is that the Left has redefined rape to include saying "good morning" when some female is in a bad mood. Yet, they don't want women armed, because that would remove one of their core constituencies: victims.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 28, 2015 22:09:25 GMT -5
Tell you what, why don't you specifically state what policies the GOP advances that involve being 'in folks bedrooms'? The two biggest are their obsession with preventing gay marriage, and their obsession with abortion. More generally, because they're in bed with fundamentalists, they're advocates of encoding religious law as secular law, and the problem with that is that it ignores or disenfranchises those who aren't fundamentalists. But you knew that. Second, I'm not talking about actual rape. And neither are the feminists. They think it's perfectly OK to accuse a man of rape, even if there was no rape, just to punish a man for not getting her flowers on Valentines Day.. or whatever. Tell you what, why don't you specifically name a feminist that advocates falsely accusing a man of rape. With a link to the quote, please. In the first place, why should perversion be encoded in law? Pubs don't care what gays do to each other, but see no reason for the law to encode it. In the second place, over half the country sees abortion as murder. The Democrats have made it a rite of passage, a tenet of their faith. In the third place, there are colleges and universities all over the country that have "feminist groups" demanding that accusers be considered guilty regardless of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 29, 2015 11:26:13 GMT -5
Pay for?... maybe... but support?... no... Really? How many individuals have you heard of lately that have been fired for not supporting "gay marriage" devotedly enough? Or having had the temerity to actually oppose it? Or any other perversion insisted on by the Left? I've read about at least a dozen in the last year or so. None... and I am firmly against same-sex marriage... and have NO intentions of changing that position...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 29, 2015 11:57:25 GMT -5
In the first place, why should perversion be encoded in law? Pubs don't care what gays do to each other, but see no reason for the law to encode it. They see plenty of reasons for the law to target it, though. Or did you forget about the ill-named DoMA? In the second place, over half the country sees abortion as murder. A bald-faced lie. A tiny percentage of the country regards all abortion as murder. Most of the country is fine with it anytime within the first trimester. Fewer are okay with it until the end of a the second trimester. And a tiny percentage wants it legal until birth. And most of the country (principal execeptions: religious GOPers) is fine with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or if pregnancy endangers the mother's health. In the third place, there are colleges and universities all over the country that have "feminist groups" demanding that accusers be considered guilty regardless of evidence. With so many people, either you or Ranger John should *certainly* be able to find one specific name, with a linked quote. Yet you haven't.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 29, 2015 11:58:48 GMT -5
I'd rather not pay to support Israel, a country which is all grown up now and can take of itself. I'd rather not pay to support corporate welfare programs. I'd rather not pay for a lot of things. That comes with being a grown up and living in a society. Or, as your own book says, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." And the things, in our country, that are Caesar's, are defined by the Constitution. Today's Leftists, and far too many LIV's, are content to render everything to Caesar, not just what is his. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing welfare, corporate or otherwise, health care, or nearly any of the other accretions that have grown up around the corruption we call the Federal Government. Your pension is not defined by the Constitution, but you're not giving it back. I guess what you really mean is "things redleg, and only redleg, believes in are okay"
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Mar 29, 2015 12:06:35 GMT -5
In the second place, over half the country sees abortion as murder. A bald-faced lie. A tiny percentage of the country regards all abortion as murder. Most of the country is fine with it anytime within the first trimester. Fewer are okay with it until the end of a the second trimester. And a tiny percentage wants it legal until birth. And most of the country (principal execeptions: religious GOPers) is fine with exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or if pregnancy endangers the mother's health. And most of them don't consider it "murder"...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 29, 2015 18:01:23 GMT -5
In the third place, there are colleges and universities all over the country that have "feminist groups" demanding that accusers be considered guilty regardless of evidence. With so many people, either you or Ranger John should *certainly* be able to find one specific name, with a linked quote. Yet you haven't. Just google "expelled rape accusation" You'll get a pile of links. Start here: Reason.com
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 29, 2015 19:50:42 GMT -5
With so many people, either you or Ranger John should *certainly* be able to find one specific name, with a linked quote. Yet you haven't. Just google "expelled rape accusation" You'll get a pile of links. Start here: Reason.comFail. This article does not contain the name of or a quote from a specific feminist advocating this. Administrators, politicians, and bandwagon riders of all stripes have accused men of rape on flimsy evidence; I do not deny that. Why they do this - one could probably write a sociology paper on that, or a psychology paper. My point has been that neither you nor redleg has produced a person quoted as advocating this. You seem to think it's some kind of feminist conspiracy, for reasons only you understand. It isn't. For a long time it was incredibly difficult for rape victims to get justice. They were routinely portrayed as having "asked for it" by style of dress or conduct or some other irrelevant thing by defense attorneys whose job is to get their clients set free. Why prosecutors did not object or judges disallow these lines of defense is a more complex question. But they did not. Then, as eventually happened, people started realizing how bad this was. How difficult it was for rape victims to even come forward, and how the system actively discouraged it, enabling rapists to continue to offend. And the reaction has swung things perhaps too much in the other direction, to the point where women who make false accusations aren't held to account for it. It's no one person or group of people calling for this behavior, it's collective guilt at what the previous few generations did. Blame them if you want to blame anyone. As to your cite, I will say this: a gentleman does not get a woman drunk for the purpose of having sex with her, or have sex with her while she is impaired. Men who behave like boors aren't entitled to much sympathy, in my view. No matter what she says.
|
|