|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,024 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,024 Likes: 3 |
I picked up that it had to get satire right away. No position could write so many innuendos so well. It was too clever to be real although it's not a stretch to think dirty dems would try such a thing.
Bb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 518
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 518 |
Philly democrats................i.e crooked politicians. That ain't going anywhere. Even the fake demo catholic base would have a phony fit.
Last edited by dallased; 10/06/21.
Home for wayward neglected 99's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2021
Posts: 58
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Apr 2021
Posts: 58 |
It's funny as hell when someone reads a satirical piece and runs with it. You do understand I'm aware it was a satirical piece, given that I was the one that pointed it out? Me running with it is merely taking the hypocrisy to a finer point than the satirical legislation. Men would never allow legislation on their reproductive rights. Reading is fun-da-men-tal. LOL. "You do understand" that my post was directed at the OP, right? Oops! My apologies. Reading is fun-da-men-tal, ya' know?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 3,847 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 3,847 Likes: 1 |
You have to be a complete idiot to think this was real. It's funny to see such intellectual deficiencies on display.
Last edited by BuckHaggard; 10/06/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2021
Posts: 58
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Apr 2021
Posts: 58 |
It's funny as hell when someone reads a satirical piece and runs with it. You do understand I'm aware it was a satirical piece, given that I was the one that pointed it out? Me running with it is merely taking the hypocrisy to a finer point than the satirical legislation. Men would never allow legislation on their reproductive rights. Reading is fun-da-men-tal. Dear Karen, Please do not project your religious proclivities and (lack of) values on others. Signed, Normal, Accountable, Responsible, Sociable People I applaud your religious views and the presence of values. Would you accept legislation that placed restrictions on your reproductive rights, or would you fight it as an assault on your individual freedom? I'm genuinely curious. "Reproductive rights" as you're using the term are not equivalent to abortion. By the time an abortion occurs, reproduction has already taken place and no one's right to reproduce has been curtailed. I understand your point. My use of "reproductive rights" was intended to be in keeping with the original satirical legislation. The Pennsylvania legislator introduced it as a way to point out the discrepancy (hypocrisy?) of how we would act if there were an attempt to legislate the rights of men if the tables were turned. It's obviously imperfect because men can't get pregnant. If they could, I still hold that there's no way it would be tolerated as a group. It's an interesting thought experiment and I'm trying to be intellectually honest of how I would view the State stepping in. I don't want the gov't legislating anything for this individual. I try to live my life asking how I would act if I were in that person's (gender in this case) shoes. The reproductive parts I walk around with means that I'll never have to make an excruciating decision. That legislation was a joke (in many ways), but does our gender legislate differently than we would for ourselves if there were biological changes?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,318
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,318 |
Joke or not, the basic concept for particular people has actually been practiced within the U.S. from the 20's throughout the 60's. Nothing new, the only difference being if its done secretly or out in the open.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,440 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,440 Likes: 1 |
Jeebus. Sometimes a little more reading is worth it.... "Rabb announces parody legislation enforcing reproductive responsibility among men to highlight gendered double standards regarding reproductive rights" Regardless of this guy's legislative antics, it's pretty well established that women's reproductive rights are regulated far more than any man would tolerate. Ever. Considering men cannot "reproduce" squat without a woman present I would suggest you are wrong. I thought the analogy was obvious. "Would tolerate;" the tense should give it away. If a man could get pregnant, we would never tolerate the reproductive restrictions that are currently placed on women. If a man could get pregnant, abortion would be available on demand. Men would never tolerate legislative restrictions on their reproductive rights. The cognitive dissonance that causes doesn't make it any less true. Explain exactly what restrictions are put on a woman's reproductive "rights"?
Dog I rescued in January ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,440 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,440 Likes: 1 |
Don’t they want more democrat voters? They know that they don’t need them any more. No doubt now that the fix is in. The time of the useful idiot is coming to an end. The leftist idiots want to start a civil/race war so we will kill each other off.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,440 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,440 Likes: 1 |
It's funny as hell when someone reads a satirical piece and runs with it. You do understand I'm aware it was a satirical piece, given that I was the one that pointed it out? Me running with it is merely taking the hypocrisy to a finer point than the satirical legislation. Men would never allow legislation on their reproductive rights. Reading is fun-da-men-tal. Dear Karen, Please do not project your religious proclivities and (lack of) values on others. Signed, Normal, Accountable, Responsible, Sociable People I applaud your religious views and the presence of values. Would you accept legislation that placed restrictions on your reproductive rights, or would you fight it as an assault on your individual freedom? I'm genuinely curious. "Reproductive rights" as you're using the term are not equivalent to abortion. By the time an abortion occurs, reproduction has already taken place and no one's right to reproduce has been curtailed. I understand your point. My use of "reproductive rights" was intended to be in keeping with the original satirical legislation. The Pennsylvania legislator introduced it as a way to point out the discrepancy (hypocrisy?) of how we would act if there were an attempt to legislate the rights of men if the tables were turned. It's obviously imperfect because men can't get pregnant. If they could, I still hold that there's no way it would be tolerated as a group. It's an interesting thought experiment and I'm trying to be intellectually honest of how I would view the State stepping in. I don't want the gov't legislating anything for this individual. I try to live my life asking how I would act if I were in that person's (gender in this case) shoes. The reproductive parts I walk around with means that I'll never have to make an excruciating decision. That legislation was a joke (in many ways), but does our gender legislate differently than we would for ourselves if there were biological changes? Possibly acting responsibly with whatever pitiful reproductive parts you may walk around with would have a big impact on making the " excruciating decision" you are speaking of. Personally scum like you should never have been born, you are a stain on the gene pool.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,620 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,620 Likes: 1 |
They don't need this. White women are already in a negative reproduction curve because they want to be like men and do what we do instead of what they are SUPPOSED to do . In Texas for example, meskins are out producing WASPS on a 9:1 ratio. In a way I agree with Margaret Zanger on abortion clinics. put them ALL outside the ghettos..
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,844
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,844 |
it should apply to all welfare recipients only.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,842
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,842 |
I'm for a 1 limit if the people can't pay for their own hospital bills or end up on public assistance.
Quando omni flunkus moritati
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,560 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,560 Likes: 2 |
It's funny as hell when someone reads a satirical piece and runs with it. You do understand I'm aware it was a satirical piece, given that I was the one that pointed it out? Me running with it is merely taking the hypocrisy to a finer point than the satirical legislation. Men would never allow legislation on their reproductive rights. Reading is fun-da-men-tal. Dear Karen, Please do not project your religious proclivities and (lack of) values on others. Signed, Normal, Accountable, Responsible, Sociable People I applaud your religious views and the presence of values. Would you accept legislation that placed restrictions on your reproductive rights, or would you fight it as an assault on your individual freedom? I'm genuinely curious. "Reproductive rights" as you're using the term are not equivalent to abortion. By the time an abortion occurs, reproduction has already taken place and no one's right to reproduce has been curtailed. I understand your point. My use of "reproductive rights" was intended to be in keeping with the original satirical legislation. The Pennsylvania legislator introduced it as a way to point out the discrepancy (hypocrisy?) of how we would act if there were an attempt to legislate the rights of men if the tables were turned. It's obviously imperfect because men can't get pregnant. If they could, I still hold that there's no way it would be tolerated as a group. It's an interesting thought experiment and I'm trying to be intellectually honest of how I would view the State stepping in. I don't want the gov't legislating anything for this individual. I try to live my life asking how I would act if I were in that person's (gender in this case) shoes. The reproductive parts I walk around with means that I'll never have to make an excruciating decision. That legislation was a joke (in many ways), but does our gender legislate differently than we would for ourselves if there were biological changes? Fugk you. Sluts want to be sluts and murder the result of their activities.the whole “reproductive rights” is a nonstarter. The khunhts that push it don’t want to acknowledge the rights the fathers should have in regards to the babies they want to kill out of convenience.
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,560 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,560 Likes: 2 |
I’m opposed to killing unborn children. It truly is that simple. Two way street. You can’t or don’t want to care for a kid? No excuse in this day and age for an oopsie. By the dude or the chick.
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,613
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,613 |
Looks like you Pennsyltuckians better drop your Amish machine guns and grab your kocks. The Rabbi is heading your way with his pinking shears.
Snip, Snip,,,
Last edited by rlott; 10/07/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,831 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,831 Likes: 4 |
Don’t they want more democrat voters? yeah but its cheaper to import them from Mexico and points south....
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
|
|
|
|
|
560 members (1minute, 10gaugemag, 16penny, 06hunter59, 01Foreman400, 222Sako, 63 invisible),
2,383
guests, and
1,245
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,544
Posts18,491,601
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
