Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm ignoring that. In Trumpish fashion, you have no compunction about turning a deaf ear to a lady's objections.My point there was just that it isn't just "talk." But PLEASE don't take the thread there. I should not have brought it up.Nah, those tiny hands have been around. Believe me.He's married to a former model, I think he prefers the female form as uncovered as possible.
And for all his talk, he's not the one being accused of actual sexual misconduct, he just talks like a blowhard about it.
and?
Right now, he is being accused of "verbal assault", which the media wants to translate into actual assault. Yes, he slept around, but is there any proof he forced himself on anyone?
You only deserve low-brow, bitch tits.
It's all you have really, so thanks for trying.
I can debate at any level, Its just turds like you are not worth the effort.
This debating you speak of, are you anticipating taking it up anytime soon? I’d love to see you do some of that with someone.
This coming from a one line bandit such as yourself would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Yeah, I think everyone can see how much you despise that "one line bandit" stuff.
It's all you have really, so thanks for trying.
I can debate at any level, Its just turds like you are not worth the effort.
This debating you speak of, are you anticipating taking it up anytime soon? I’d love to see you do some of that with someone.
This coming from a one line bandit such as yourself would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Yeah, I think everyone can see how much you despise that "one line bandit" stuff.
Your responses don't merit any more consideration.
I can debate at any level, Its just turds like you are not worth the effort.
This debating you speak of, are you anticipating taking it up anytime soon? I’d love to see you do some of that with someone.
This coming from a one line bandit such as yourself would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Yeah, I think everyone can see how much you despise that "one line bandit" stuff.
Your responses don't merit any more consideration.
I'm sorry, I was done with you, move on.
Peace, Granny. Every movement winds up with some extremist wankers that drown out the more sensible arguments of the majority. I'd be happy to discuss it with you sometime, although I'm probably not "up to date" on the state of feminist thought, at this point.I gotta tell you, Old Lady ... I am definitely not into what "feminism" has become. There's not a damned thing feminine about it. It's become a bunch of male wannabes acting like unhinged savages.
Sorry - not meant to derail the thread.
I'm sure we've said tsk tsk about that somewhere. Probably in the UN Human Rights Commission.And my point was, in 1916 would we have wanted a foreign country telling us that we were living in the dark ages and to get with the program, act more like them? That was my point.Marty, when one side doesn't follow the rules, they get lectured; the UN doesn't have real teeth, but it's a start. . It is not our place, as much as we may want to, tell other countries what their culture must be. 100 years ago we didn't allow women to vote and very few women were considered fit to drive, it was still perfectlyThe OP was about not supporting Trump. They pointed to valid concerns involving the Geneva Convention. I don't see that as being overbearing.
I do agree with you that, as much as other countries like to get their digs in, people look up to us as an example of how to do it right.
My issue is still that they don't have a leg to stand on when they include States that are obvious violators of Human Rights issues, domestic or international.
And the Geneva conventions were never meant to allow certain groups to hide behind them while rules are not followed. The Idea of the conventions is that BOTH sides of a conflict follow the rules. When one side doesn't, the other isn't obligated either.
acceptable for a husband to beat the shit out of his spouse and a woman's swim suit still included stockings.
I somehow doubt if we would have appreciated Sweden or China coming in and telling us to get with the program. Sometimes being exposed to new ideas through diplomacy or the cocktail hour afterward does more good than finger wagging and criticism.
Sinking to the level of a member nation that is not following the rules does NOT actually solve the problem.
The whole idea of the Geneva conventions was to make a level battle condition, similar to the past systems of organized combat. Examples are the greek method of phalanx on phalanx at an agreed upon battlefield, or the set rules of Napoleonic warfare between masses of musketmen.
When one side decides to not follow the rules, only an idiot would keep to them without question or debate.
and while some men did indeed swim naked, the more dignified suit wasn't too far off a woman's suit.
Tell that to the gay people being hung on a monthly basis in countries like Iran.
Rather, it is a joke to have the United States which invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia which is bombing civilians in East Aleppo to be on the so-called UN Security Council.Why don't you like the UN? Too many foreigners for you?
That was snarky, sorry. So why don't you like the UN?
The Human Rights Commission of the UN is a joke. Countries that are some of the worst abusers can get onto the committee, basically making it a "hey look at the US doing X" distraction board.
I'm sure we've said tsk tsk about that somewhere. Probably in the UN Human Rights Commission.And my point was, in 1916 would we have wanted a foreign country telling us that we were living in the dark ages and to get with the program, act more like them? That was my point.Marty, when one side doesn't follow the rules, they get lectured; the UN doesn't have real teeth, but it's a start. . It is not our place, as much as we may want to, tell other countries what their culture must be. 100 years ago we didn't allow women to vote and very few women were considered fit to drive, it was still perfectlyMy issue is still that they don't have a leg to stand on when they include States that are obvious violators of Human Rights issues, domestic or international.
And the Geneva conventions were never meant to allow certain groups to hide behind them while rules are not followed. The Idea of the conventions is that BOTH sides of a conflict follow the rules. When one side doesn't, the other isn't obligated either.
acceptable for a husband to beat the shit out of his spouse and a woman's swim suit still included stockings.
I somehow doubt if we would have appreciated Sweden or China coming in and telling us to get with the program. Sometimes being exposed to new ideas through diplomacy or the cocktail hour afterward does more good than finger wagging and criticism.
Sinking to the level of a member nation that is not following the rules does NOT actually solve the problem.
The whole idea of the Geneva conventions was to make a level battle condition, similar to the past systems of organized combat. Examples are the greek method of phalanx on phalanx at an agreed upon battlefield, or the set rules of Napoleonic warfare between masses of musketmen.
When one side decides to not follow the rules, only an idiot would keep to them without question or debate.
and while some men did indeed swim naked, the more dignified suit wasn't too far off a woman's suit.
Tell that to the gay people being hung on a monthly basis in countries like Iran.
Rather, it is a joke to have the United States which invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia which is bombing civilians in East Aleppo to be on the so-called UN Security Council.Why don't you like the UN? Too many foreigners for you?
That was snarky, sorry. So why don't you like the UN?
The Human Rights Commission of the UN is a joke. Countries that are some of the worst abusers can get onto the committee, basically making it a "hey look at the US doing X" distraction board.
Short of bombing and then occupying a foreign country because you don't like its culture, what would you do instead? It's something. That was my initial point. The UN doesn't have teeth, but at least it's a forum for countries to be made aware that their behavior isn't "universally accepted."I'm sure we've said tsk tsk about that somewhere. Probably in the UN Human Rights Commission.And my point was, in 1916 would we have wanted a foreign country telling us that we were living in the dark ages and to get with the program, act more like them? That was my point.Marty, when one side doesn't follow the rules, they get lectured; the UN doesn't have real teeth, but it's a start. . It is not our place, as much as we may want to, tell other countries what their culture must be. 100 years ago we didn't allow women to vote and very few women were considered fit to drive, it was still perfectly
acceptable for a husband to beat the shit out of his spouse and a woman's swim suit still included stockings.
I somehow doubt if we would have appreciated Sweden or China coming in and telling us to get with the program. Sometimes being exposed to new ideas through diplomacy or the cocktail hour afterward does more good than finger wagging and criticism.
Sinking to the level of a member nation that is not following the rules does NOT actually solve the problem.
The whole idea of the Geneva conventions was to make a level battle condition, similar to the past systems of organized combat. Examples are the greek method of phalanx on phalanx at an agreed upon battlefield, or the set rules of Napoleonic warfare between masses of musketmen.
When one side decides to not follow the rules, only an idiot would keep to them without question or debate.
and while some men did indeed swim naked, the more dignified suit wasn't too far off a woman's suit.
Tell that to the gay people being hung on a monthly basis in countries like Iran.
And what has that gotten? It makes people feel like they are "doing something", when they aren't doing something.
Short of bombing and then occupying a foreign country because you don't like its culture, what would you do instead? It's something. That was my initial point. The UN doesn't have teeth, but at least it's a forum for countries to be made aware that their behavior isn't "universally accepted."I'm sure we've said tsk tsk about that somewhere. Probably in the UN Human Rights Commission.And my point was, in 1916 would we have wanted a foreign country telling us that we were living in the dark ages and to get with the program, act more like them? That was my point.The whole idea of the Geneva conventions was to make a level battle condition, similar to the past systems of organized combat. Examples are the greek method of phalanx on phalanx at an agreed upon battlefield, or the set rules of Napoleonic warfare between masses of musketmen.
When one side decides to not follow the rules, only an idiot would keep to them without question or debate.
and while some men did indeed swim naked, the more dignified suit wasn't too far off a woman's suit.
Tell that to the gay people being hung on a monthly basis in countries like Iran.
And what has that gotten? It makes people feel like they are "doing something", when they aren't doing something.
Why don't you like the UN? Too many foreigners for you?
That was snarky, sorry. So why don't you like the UN?
When the candidate has a platform that violates existing human rights guidelines such as the Geneva Convention, the UN does indeed have the right to pipe up. They did make a big deal of apologizing for "butting in."Why the UN Rights Commission is getting involved in American elections?
Sometimes they're intrusive
