Lindsey Graham Goes Full Handmaid's Tale

I'm confused as to whether the headline in the linked article means that graham (who has no right to opine about American women unless he is prepared for other people to make similar comments about men) is saying that female Americans must tow the "traditional" line if they want a "place" in the U.S., or whether he is saying that all Americans have equal opportunity in the U.S.

I don't think that anyone cares whom Barrett beds, how she conducts her personal life, or what religion she practices. What concerns me is that she has been outspoken in her efforts to screw over other Americans and impose her religious choices on others and still was given one of the most powerful positions in the land. She seems to be opposed to preventing other Americans from exercising the freedoms that she herself has taken advantage of.
Women have been put into peer pressure by other women pushing extreme feminism. Some women lie it, others are forced into it. Women have maybe 25 years or so to give birth to children. And a good percentage of them go for careers over motherhood and many become surly and sullen as they age. And to have extreme feminism we have to have a massive amount of of undereducated and unemployed males. Which will not last. It is a disgrace seeing every field being more and more dominated by women as males become more violent. Figure it out you azz. We will become ripe for despots from all sides at some point. And China set to be the world leader by around 2050.

There is no reason to single out something called "extreme feminism" for blame when dirty preachers have pushed this "traditional" crap on women for millennia and groomed girls for it from infancy on. Decent men and women can always have good, healthy relationships with each other, if this is what they both want, and support each other. It takes two. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is a "disgrace" for women to emerge in every field, particularly given the centuries during which women were denied entry. Men can enter any field that they wish, as long as they study and complete the requirements. If you want to be a doctor, lawyer, computer analyst, or anything else, put down the beer, park the pick-up, work hard, pull the grades, get the diploma.

As for "surly and sullen"? Have you seen the current crop of Republican men? All that they seem to be able to do is scream, swear, and have hissy fits in public.
 
It's pretty clear that Graham and a bunch of posters on this board have a "Handmaid's Tale" attitude about women
Its wanting real results and not replacing men because it is the thing to do. The real world is about conquering and being conquered. The Russians and the Chinese have no problem becoming the top dog. So I say to you. The Chinese are coming up fast. East Asia is a powerful high tech and production center of the world. The rise and fall of nations is natural. No matter how they fall, it does not end well.

There is no such thing as one person "replacing" another.

American women know as much about the Chinese as American men do. The situation with the Chinese, and the Russians, has nothing to do with gender. We all cooperate with each other and work together to build a better world. Whatever people want to do in their consensual relationships is their private business. We are all in this together, so stop trying to push anyone off the team.

Remember when members of the Bush 43 administration outed our CIA operator Valerie Plame? Then, of course, there is that anonymous woman at the CIA who found bin Laden.
 

Women can have a "place" if they follow "traditional values"?

This guy has to go.


We know how you homos hate traditional values.
You seem confused. Lindsey is a homo...I am not
 

Women can have a "place" if they follow "traditional values"?

This guy has to go.


We know how you homos hate traditional values.

This "traditional values" seems to be a cheesy attempt to turn some Americans into second-class citizens. The term "values" cannot be defined to include vices.

BTW: I'm a woman, suburban, heterosexual. What is your trip about LGBTQs, anyway?
 
Telling a portion of your constituent F.U. will leave Lindsey wondering why they didn't support him.


Its really sad how hateful so many of our "leaders" are.
 
Lindsey Graham is 100% correct. :thup:
07C29DAF-BF55-4231-A5F5-8EE8F6C5F839.gif
 
It's pretty clear that Graham and a bunch of posters on this board have a "Handmaid's Tale" attitude about women
It's pretty clear that Graham, a bunch of posters on this board, and most – if not all - conservatives have a "Handmaid's Tale" attitude about women – hence conservatives’ desire to violate a woman’s right to privacy.
 
...I guess his words don't apply to him or men. If he followed traditional family values he would be married with some kids and grandchildren. He's never been married. While he supports a man who has 5 children with 3 different women all of whom he cheated on. That's traditional family values? So he expects women to follow "traditional family values" but men don't.
Not at all...

He was saying that if you follow a traditional and faithful path, there is a place for you in America...

He did NOT say that if you did not follow such a path, that there was NO place for you in America...

That was a manufactured self-serving and intentionally and knowingly false articulation of a phony conjured interpretation...

Graham's was a reaction to just how badly women holding traditional and faithful perspectives have been ridiculed and denigrated by the Left in recent years...

Lindsey Graham SHOULD be voted out-of-officce...

But not for THIS...

Bull$hit Arti$t$ come in all colors... including BLUE... as we see in THIS article.



So it's not hypocritical for him to say women have to follow "traditional family vaules" while graham himself doesn't follow traditional family values and supports a man who doesn't follow traditional family values?

I would say yes it is very hypocritical.
 
Not long ago they made a statement (was it Graham?) that blacks could do well in South Carolina...as long as they were "conservatives".

We could be looking at a very different America if we have four more years of this
 
I wonder if anybody would have even heard of that movie if it wasn't for democrat bitching :dunno:

I read the book before it ever became a movie or a TV series. It was published in 1985, and since Margaret Atwood was and is my favourite writer, I read it when it first came out.

The whole idea of the USA government being taken over by an evangelical right wing dictatorship seemed very far fetched, but I'm sitting here watching it play out. Things I never thought I would see happening in a country like the USA are on the news every single day.
 
Not long ago they made a statement (was it Graham?) that blacks could do well in South Carolina...as long as they were "conservatives".

We could be looking at a very different America if we have four more years of this

We really do not know what the term "conservative" means in today's parlance. It now seems to be interchangeable with right-wing fascism. The term "conservative" is used to describe societies in which the rights and freedoms enjoyed by some elements of the society are categorically denied to other members of the society, such as in Saudi Arabia, where sons are given legal authority over their own mothers.
 
...So it's not hypocritical for him to say women have to follow "traditional family vaules" while graham himself doesn't follow traditional family values and supports a man who doesn't follow traditional family values? I would say yes it is very hypocritical.
So, is the subject of this thread: Graham's hypocrisy, or is it Graham's alleged 'handmaiden' pronouncement?

Perhaps I misread the tagline for the OP?
 

Women can have a "place" if they follow "traditional values"?

This guy has to go.
Ya'll are really reaching now. You can feel it coming, can't you? The polls lied again.
Code Red panic mode.
Level 5 meltdown imminent.

The right keeps pushing the fiction that the polls got it all wrong last time, but in reality the polls didn't get it wrong. Clinton won the popular vote within the margin error. But they also noted that Clinton's numbers never reached 50% of the voters in any the national polls pre-election, and that never bodes well for any candidate.


This election is entirely different. Trump had no record to run on in 2016. This year he does have a record to run on and none of it is good. The President has an average approval rating of 40% - the lowest in American history.
Things I never thought I would see happening in a country like the USA are on the news every single day.

Ya mean like arson and looting being called "peaceful protests" by the MSM?

View attachment 409924

No, the USA has been rioting, looting and shooting and having race riots throughout my entire life. You people look for excuses to riot. It's the American way to resist change until people take to the streets.

In sane and sensible countries. equal rights aren't things we have to fight for. We already have them. We don't have ghettos, voter suppression, or a police state which murders 1000 people a year.
 

Forum List

Back
Top