Selective Feminism

[candycorn]

I'm not a Democrat but that struck me as dense too.

"Here's what I say it is, but then I also say that they say what I say it is is what they say it is. But I can't quote them saying that, it's just me saying that they say what I say it is is what they say it is."

I'll have an ipse dixit sandwich, hold the evidence. Make it a double.

From what I heard yesterday in the presser; Governor Christie tried to come off as some sort of grand-thinker.

Look at this quote: "And as I said earlier, I think in the answer to your question, you know, I don't know what the stages of grief are in exact order, but I know anger gets there at some point. I'm sure I'll have that too. But the fact is right now I'm sad." I have to say this rings not only as hollow, but silly. When you've built your career on shooting from the hip, are loved for your straight-forward approach, and have planned your future on bringing that type of tough-love to the masses, this "I will get angry later" approach is pretty lame.

 

[bodecea]

Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!

Who wrote that?

 

[bodecea]

Secondly, "Feminism" isn't about defending all women from attacks. I don't know why you keep using that term.

If a feminist claims to be for all women, but fails to stand up for one when she is denigrated by someone, if a feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women, why does she not support that for all women? Should that not translate into defending them regardless of that they believe as well? How can they say "we represent all women" but sit idly by while certain women are degraded and treated with utter contempt?

Just like you should not attack a woman simply because she is a woman..why would feminists defend a woman just because she is a woman. What happened to dealing with people one at a time?

 

[bodecea]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You say it's about women's rights and beliefs, yet you contend in the same breath that "it's not about defending women." So, which one is it?

Can you really not understand the difference between defending the rights of women, and defending individual women from personal insults?

Uh yeah, I can, but I see the two things going hand in hand to tell you the truth. If you want to defend a woman, you defend her rights to a belief as well as her rights in general no matter who she is.

So...feminist groups are not supposed to question women at all? That we are to go lock step with whatever a woman leader says even if we disagree with her stands?

You sound exactly like the kind of voter the GOP targetted by nominating Palin in 2008. Someone who would vote for her SIMPLY because she is a woman.

 

[candycorn]

Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!

Who wrote that?

It's a cut and past from a few years ago:
AthensTalks.com | Talk Amongst Yourselves

You'd think with all of his free time, he could come up with something original.

 

[bodecea]

Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!

Who wrote that?

It's a cut and past from a few years ago:
AthensTalks.com | Talk Amongst Yourselves

You'd think with all of his free time, he could come up with something original.

Did he ever give credit? I didn't see the cite. If not, that kind of stuff would get him kicked out of college.

 

[candycorn]

Who wrote that?

It's a cut and past from a few years ago:
AthensTalks.com | Talk Amongst Yourselves

You'd think with all of his free time, he could come up with something original.

Did he ever give credit? I didn't see the cite. If not, that kind of stuff would get him kicked out of college.

I'm sure getting "kicked out of college" is probably not high on his lists of concerns.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!

Who wrote that?

He stole the entire thing verbatim

Selective Feminism | AthensTalks.com

 

[bodecea]

The 14th Amendment wasn't part of the initial Constitution, or the original Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights weren't even part of the original Constitution. So that nonsense about the "original intent" is bunk.

Why is the 14th Amendment good in of itself?

The original intent of the framers, for what it's worth, was also that the Constitution would be able to be amended, by the People, and thus the document contains a mechanism for that,

put there by the founders.

Your crackpot notion that the people of this country were expected by the founders to live under the original Constitution, as is, in perpetuity,

qualifies as the laugh of the month.

More proof the far left does not understand the Constitution.

So, even tho the Constitution has a system in place to amend itself, you don't think the Founders' intent was to allow for amendments?

 

[bodecea]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Yes anyone can cut and paste, but do you understand what you posted?

Clearly. Do you?

 

[bodecea]

Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!

Who wrote that?

He stole the entire thing verbatim

Selective Feminism | AthensTalks.com

That's plagiarism, is it not?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yep and whats worse is that someone else called him on it and he didnt answer.

he cant even form his own dam opinions

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because it conforms to the Constitution and its case law, reflecting the original intent of the Framers.

Due process, equal protection doctrine, and the rule of law in general are predicated on the fact that in a free and just society such as our Constitutional Republic, all citizens are treated as equal by the state.

The 14th Amendment wasn't part of the initial Constitution, or the original Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights weren't even part of the original Constitution. So that nonsense about the "original intent" is bunk.

Why is the 14th Amendment good in of itself?

The original intent of the framers, for what it's worth, was also that the Constitution would be able to be amended, by the People, and thus the document contains a mechanism for that,

put there by the founders.

Your crackpot notion that the people of this country were expected by the founders to live under the original Constitution, as is, in perpetuity,

qualifies as the laugh of the month.

Correct.

As the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

 

[candycorn]

Yep and whats worse is that someone else called him on it and he didnt answer.

he cant even form his own dam opinions

Pretty sure cletus was the original author, just on another message board. Probably wrote it while he was in high school and thinks it should have won an award.

 

[kaz]

And Fluke wasn't paying for birth control, it wasn't part of her policy. That means her health insurance company was not charging her for it. If you have evidence that her health insurance company was charging her for birth control coverage, then provide it. But so far, you haven't.

Fluke was ASKING that birth control be included in her health insurance policy as REQUIRED by the ACA. She was NOT asking the taxpayers to pay for her birth control which is what Rush Limbaugh told you she was asking for, and you dutifully parroted.

Wow, you repeated what MS-NBC told you perfectly, good job.

 

[kaz]

-- So you're running away from your own statement? Abandoning ship?

No, I'm laughing at you for your childish hypocrisy. You're asking me to justify a statement for a reason you have no objection to at all. You have no standard for that or anything else ... as long as it was said by a liberal ...

You're a joke, you're empty pants, I just don't take you or anything you say seriously. How could I?

Translation: "I made shit up and got called on it. Boo hoo."

Actually, you got caught up in your own shit. And no translation required. I meant what i said. This isn't a standard for you because you don't apply it to yourself or the leftists you agree with. Since you don't really care about the standard, I don't see the relevance in addressing your question. I'd be glad to answer any question regardless of whether I agree with your position where you have intellectual integrity. Here, you have clearly proven you have none. So your question is uninteresting since you don't care about the standard, you won't care whatever answer you get.

 

[candycorn]

And Fluke wasn't paying for birth control, it wasn't part of her policy. That means her health insurance company was not charging her for it. If you have evidence that her health insurance company was charging her for birth control coverage, then provide it. But so far, you haven't.

Fluke was ASKING that birth control be included in her health insurance policy as REQUIRED by the ACA. She was NOT asking the taxpayers to pay for her birth control which is what Rush Limbaugh told you she was asking for, and you dutifully parroted.

Its amazing how Cons then turn around and claim to be "high information" people. They are all pigs eating from the same trough; the only question is which of their masters is going to feed them.

 

[kaz]

And Fluke wasn't paying for birth control, it wasn't part of her policy. That means her health insurance company was not charging her for it. If you have evidence that her health insurance company was charging her for birth control coverage, then provide it. But so far, you haven't.

Fluke was ASKING that birth control be included in her health insurance policy as REQUIRED by the ACA. She was NOT asking the taxpayers to pay for her birth control which is what Rush Limbaugh told you she was asking for, and you dutifully parroted.

Its amazing how Cons then turn around and claim to be "high information" people. They are all pigs eating from the same trough; the only question is which of their masters is going to feed them.

Stupid post. When government requires via law an insurance company to provide a coverage and raise their premiums to pay for it, that is a tax. That the government didn't hold the money in the middle is a distinction without a difference. Liberals are seriously not bright.

 

[Pogo]

No, I'm laughing at you for your childish hypocrisy. You're asking me to justify a statement for a reason you have no objection to at all. You have no standard for that or anything else ... as long as it was said by a liberal ...

You're a joke, you're empty pants, I just don't take you or anything you say seriously. How could I?

Translation: "I made shit up and got called on it. Boo hoo."

Actually, you got caught up in your own shit. And no translation required. I meant what i said. This isn't a standard for you because you don't apply it to yourself or the leftists you agree with. Since you don't really care about the standard, I don't see the relevance in addressing your question. I'd be glad to answer any question regardless of whether I agree with your position where you have intellectual integrity. Here, you have clearly proven you have none. So your question is uninteresting since you don't care about the standard, you won't care whatever answer you get.

Uh-- no, dear. There's no "standard" at work here. There's a claim.
And I didn't make that claim --- you did. Guess who that leaves the burden of proof.

Tu quoque ain't gonna get you out of this one.

 

[kaz]

Translation: "I made shit up and got called on it. Boo hoo."

Actually, you got caught up in your own shit. And no translation required. I meant what i said. This isn't a standard for you because you don't apply it to yourself or the leftists you agree with. Since you don't really care about the standard, I don't see the relevance in addressing your question. I'd be glad to answer any question regardless of whether I agree with your position where you have intellectual integrity. Here, you have clearly proven you have none. So your question is uninteresting since you don't care about the standard, you won't care whatever answer you get.

Uh-- no, dear. There's no "standard" at work here. There's a claim.
And I didn't make that claim --- you did. Guess who that leaves the burden of proof.

Tu quoque ain't gonna get you out of this one.

LOL, what a dufus. You're just obvious. I'm not into superlatives, but wow, this is probably the most clueless post I've ever read on this site.

no, I've never heard anyone say "Republicans hate women, Democrats, Hispanics, gays, immigrants, the poor, etc.". If I did I would demand they validate that blanket statement.