The War on Women begins ....

#77
#77
Rasputin_Vol said:
I think that we endorse irresponsible behavior with funding PP and all of these social programs that help these baby mommas.

Women want to pound their fists and say "My body, my choice", but don't take accountability or want to suffer the consequences for when they let the wrong guy at the wrong time get them knocked up.
Click to expand...

The whole my body my choice sure doesn't apply to the poor chap who was unlucky enough to have a burst condom with the wrong partner. Just boom and indentureship for the next 18 years all at her whim on if she keeps it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
This thread is not about abortion. It's about the politics of defunding planned parenthood.

The fundraising off of this, alone, will give the Dems complete control by 2020.
Click to expand...

Do you think that you know what women want? I mean do you think the majority of women think like you about planned parent hoodlums?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#79
#79
I would say 95% of the women I know are staunchly opposed to abotion--moreso than any man I know.

If this is a "war", it is not on "women".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#80
#80
The dems have been at war with us for 8 years ... the last time I looked they lost.. elections have consequences... have a. Nice day
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
luthervol said:
We certainly know different women. 95% I know support a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...

So... It's not a war on women? It's a war of ideals?

Seems to me, if it was a "war on women", it woudn't matter which circles a man runs in, he'd find the same thing. If it's a war of ideals, it would depend greatly on who you were prodominantly surrounded by. Correct?
 
#83
#83
Orange_Crush said:
So... It's not a war on women? It's a war of ideals?

Seems to me, if it was a "war on women", it woudn't matter which circles a man runs in, he'd find the same thing. If it's a war of ideals, it would depend greatly on who you were prodominantly surrounded by. Correct?
Click to expand...

Semantics.

It's like saying reasonable gun legislation is a war on gun owners or a war on the 2nd amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
Just a side thought here. LG, according to your thread title the "War on Women" is beginning now. Doesn't this mean you don't think there's been a "Wow" prior to now? Is that what you're admitting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#86
#86
luthervol said:
Semantics.

It's like saying reasonable gun legislation is a war on gun owners or a war on the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Those semantics are important, though I'm not sure you'll see that.

I would say that leftist gun legislation is a war on the 2nd Amendment, and not personal against gun owners. I would say that the abortion discussion is a discussion between women's rights and baby lives, not a war on women.

I fundamentally believe that there is a difference between disagreement on issues and personal feelings about the person that I disagree with.

It's semantics that differentiate between identity politics and political discourse.
 
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
This thread is not about abortion. It's about the politics of defunding planned parenthood.

The fundraising off of this, alone, will give the Dems complete control by 2020.
Click to expand...

Planned parenthood will stand guilty of first degree murder in Gods court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#89
#89
Orange_Crush said:
Those semantics are important, though I'm not sure you'll see that.

I would say that leftist gun legislation is a war on the 2nd Amendment, and not personal against gun owners. I would say that the abortion discussion is a discussion between women's rights and baby lives, not a war on women.

I fundamentally believe that there is a difference between disagreement on issues and personal feelings about the person that I disagree with.

It's semantics that differentiate between identity politics and political discourse.
Click to expand...

I said "reasonable" gun legislation and you said "leftist" gun legislation. Semantics?

No one on the right supports REASONABLE gun legislation? (no need to answer - I know plenty who do)

Baby lives? The whole "when does individual life begin?" debate. There is no answer that is agreed upon and that's what makes the supreme court's ruling so brilliant.

War on the 2nd amendment? I wish. I like for people to answer this question. "What is the most deadly weapon that should be available to the public and what is the lest deadly weapon that should not be legal to own?" That's always a good starting point for the debate.
 
#90
#90
T-TownVol said:
kinda like......"make America sick again"........Dems are desperate as hell.......
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that the Democrats haven't run that stupid idiot Democratic Senator Grayson from Florida out there in the public eye mocking Republicans & saying horrible things about what Republicans will do to help Obamacare to be repealed & replaced.
 
#91
#91
luthervol said:
I said "reasonable" gun legislation and you said "leftist" gun legislation. Semantics?
Click to expand...

That's the political discourse I was speaking of. What you (on the left) consider reasonable is (probably) far from what I (a 2nd Amendement-er) would, no?

luthervol said:
No one on the right supports REASONABLE gun legislation? (no need to answer - I know plenty who do)
Click to expand...

Again... Our ideals are what inform "reasonable". You are using relative verbage.

luthervol said:
Baby lives? The whole "when does individual life begin?" debate. There is no answer that is agreed upon and that's what makes the supreme court's ruling so brilliant.
Click to expand...

Thus the conversation about political discourse and disagreement. I decouple my disagreements from the people I disagree with. I realize that to disagree on ideas is not to "attack" others. It's discourse as opposed to identity politics.

luthervol said:
War on the 2nd amendment? I wish. I like for people to answer this question. "What is the most deadly weapon that should be available to the public and what is the lest deadly weapon that should not be legal to own?" That's always a good starting point for the debate.
Click to expand...

Why are you turning this into a debate on specific issues when I was speaking at the meta level? Remember? It's a conversation about political discourse versus identity politics. It would do no good to discuss ideals if we couldn't agree on the validity on such discussions. If I am just disagreeing, but you define my disagreement as a war on "somebody", the discussion is dead before it begins.

So, do you agree that identity/war politics short-circuit rational and productive discussions? If so, we have nothing further to discuss on this, since we're in agreement. If not, we have nothing further to discuss since (as I see it) productive discussion has been made impossible.
 
#92
#92
Rasputin_Vol said:
I think that we endorse irresponsible behavior with funding PP and all of these social programs that help these baby mommas.

Women want to pound their fists and say "My body, my choice", but don't take accountability or want to suffer the consequences for when they let the wrong guy at the wrong time get them knocked up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it can definitely be seen as an endorsement, but the question still remains...what is the best way to reduce the social burden or irresponsible sex? I am not convinced that asking for accountability is going to be the best solution.
 
#93
#93
luthervol said:
I said "reasonable" gun legislation and you said "leftist" gun legislation. Semantics?

No one on the right supports REASONABLE gun legislation? (no need to answer - I know plenty who do)

Baby lives? The whole "when does individual life begin?" debate. There is no answer that is agreed upon and that's what makes the supreme court's ruling so brilliant.

War on the 2nd amendment? I wish. I like for people to answer this question. "What is the most deadly weapon that should be available to the public and what is the lest deadly weapon that should not be legal to own?" That's always a good starting point for the debate.
Click to expand...


I think the line should be drawn between weapons that simply put lead in the air vs. Explosives/explosive rounds.

Example..any type of rifle or handgun that fires a normal "bullet" or standard lead projectile to include semi and full automatic rifles should be legal, though I think full auto should be only legal to possess on your own private property as a means of home defense since nobody uses then for hunting purposes and they are not necessary for riding in vehicles. We don't need bangers rolling around with ak47s.

Grenades, launchers, rugs, Explosives such as c4, mines, claymores, etc should all be illegal. They are not needed for home defense, and have too much potential for terrorist activity. Police can wear full body armor to protect themselves from projectiles, but Kevlar won't help with a grenade.

I also think explosive rounds for typical firearms should be illegal. For the same reasons listed above
When an idiot loses their mind, law enforcement needs to be able to neutralize the threat.

Suck on that libs. 2a. Deal with it. I'd like to have a ma deuce at the house for when the economy collapses. If a band of robbers comes to the house, I'd like to put as much lead as possible down range between my family and the pile of corpses at the road. I believe that is my right as an American. The way the law stands now, that is not possible. I am and will still be as prepared as possible for that scenario within the boundaries of law. This is not "living in fear" as the libs claim, this is being prepared for the consequences of liberal spending unchecked. Go Vols.
 
#95
#95
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, it can definitely be seen as an endorsement, but the question still remains...what is the best way to reduce the social burden or irresponsible sex? I am not convinced that asking for accountability is going to be the best solution.
Click to expand...

One way is to introduce legislation that gives women incentive to have their tubes tied instead of giving them more government handouts for continuing to have kids they don't care about. Can you imagine how much cheaper it would be in the long run if we could pay for that surgery and give them a few grand as the motivation?
 
#96
#96
davethevol said:
One way is to introduce legislation that gives women incentive to have their tubes tied instead of giving them more government handouts for continuing to have kids they don't care about. Can you imagine how much cheaper it would be in the long run if we could pay for that surgery and give them a few grand as the motivation?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it'd be cheaper....the unintended consequence is that the US government would not only pay for every tube-tying surgery, but it would also be paying the patient to get the surgery. Most women are going to eventually elect to have this surgery if they get paid for it. That's like 90M surgeries if it's just 1 out of every 2 women.
 
#97
#97
marcusluvsvols said:
I think the line should be drawn between weapons that simply put lead in the air vs. Explosives/explosive rounds.

Example..any type of rifle or handgun that fires a normal "bullet" or standard lead projectile to include semi and full automatic rifles should be legal, though I think full auto should be only legal to possess on your own private property as a means of home defense since nobody uses then for hunting purposes and they are not necessary for riding in vehicles. We don't need bangers rolling around with ak47s.

Grenades, launchers, rugs, Explosives such as c4, mines, claymores, etc should all be illegal. They are not needed for home defense, and have too much potential for terrorist activity. Police can wear full body armor to protect themselves from projectiles, but Kevlar won't help with a grenade.

I also think explosive rounds for typical firearms should be illegal. For the same reasons listed above
When an idiot loses their mind, law enforcement needs to be able to neutralize the threat.

Suck on that libs. 2a. Deal with it. I'd like to have a ma deuce at the house for when the economy collapses. If a band of robbers comes to the house, I'd like to put as much lead as possible down range between my family and the pile of corpses at the road. I believe that is my right as an American. The way the law stands now, that is not possible. I am and will still be as prepared as possible for that scenario within the boundaries of law. This is not "living in fear" as the libs claim, this is being prepared for the consequences of liberal spending unchecked. Go Vols.
Click to expand...

Thanks for a thoughtful answer, that's more than most can give.

Not wanting to start a debate, but in my opinion, that position is hard to defend with the 2nd amendment.

FYI - spending and deficits are worse under republican administrations.
 
#98
#98
A person has to have a license to drive, hunt, fish ext. So when a female gets to breeding age put in an IUD and once they are of age and can prove financial responsibility give them a license to take it out and breed. Sort of like requiring car insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#99
#99
Marcus already answered the question but the most dangerous/ deadly weapon for a civilian to own is industrial chemicals with the knowledge of how to employ them. Everything from crude chemical weapons to home made explosives can be crafted. That is truly dangerous.

I do believe there is no substitute for education and experience with firearms though. For example, all hunter born after 1970 require a hunter's safety course. In the Army, we constantly get weapons training. Responsible CCW carriers attend training be it mandatory or of their own volition.

A firearm is a tool. Much like a chainsaw or heavy equipment. They can be dangerous if not used properly. One thing that will never be able to be legislated away is intent. Hate will always be in the heart of man. If someone truly wants to do harm they will do so regardless of means. Firearms are able to level the playing field.

As the old saying goes, "God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal".
 
#100
#100
hog88 said:
A person has to have a license to drive, hunt, fish ext. So when a female gets to breeding age put in an IUD and once they are of age and can prove financial responsibility give them a license to take it out and breed. Sort of like requiring car insurance.
Click to expand...

Car insurance is a requirement for using the government's road. Forcing somebody to put something in their body that messes with their sex organs and hormones is not really comparable to earning a license and insuring your behavior.

Do you agree with licensing people to fish? I don't know much about those laws.

BTW, my sister just got pregnant with an IUD in. It's something like 2 out of 1000 are defective. I'm happy, tho. Their boy is my godson and I don't mind taking on another.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top