BainsBane Propositioned By A Pimp

[txradioguy]

Do you have evidence to support that assumption?  And can you show how it might have led to decreasing wages?

You're kidding right?  You have to have this explained to you how it effects both?  Really?



ETA:  Took all of 30 seconds of a generic google search of "cost effects of epa regulation" to find this.

This is just the effect of the new draconian regulations they have in story for the coal industry in 2014.

Employment falls by nearly 600,000 jobs.
 
Manufacturing loses over 270,000 jobs.
 
Coal-mining jobs drop 30 percent.
 
A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,200 per year, and its total income drops by nearly $24,400 over the entire period of analysis.
 
Aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) decreases by $2.23 trillion over the entire period of the analysis.

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/12/10/economic-consequences-of-epa-power-plant-regulations/

[txradioguy]

There are many, many restrictions on abortions and very few on guns.

There are roughly 20,000 laws on the books regulating firearms.

How many on abortion?

Yeah that's what I thought.

[txradioguy]

You are factually wrong, so much so it's startling, I gave you a simple statement of fact.

Then you should have no problem providing a credible factual link then right?

[txradioguy]

Chicago's gun ban was struct down

Umm...that would be struck down...Doctor.

 

[txradioguy]

I talked about reaching better equality

And who exactly gets to determine what is equal and what isn't?

[obumazombie]

I love it when a lib runs out of taking points in an argument. Then it's time to bring out the big persuasion guns with retorts like "That's complete bullshit".
By libs I mean Bane.

[CollectivismMustDie]

You have a lot of insults and nothing else.  You are factually wrong, so much so it's startling, I gave you a simple statement of fact. That you haven't bothered to inform yourself on abortion restrictions is obvious, probably because you refuse to read any decent news source.  You can buy a gun in virtually every town and county in America while abortion restrictions have increased at a rapid pace thanks to your party's efforts to impose big government on women's bodies.
During this same period, gun rights have expanded.  Shall issue concealed carry has systematically expanded throughout the nation.  Chicago's gun ban was struct down.  The gun lobby has continued to increase influence, with some exceptions in CT, CO and a few other places. 

Heres your "simple statement of fact":

"There are many, many restrictions on abortions and very few on guns."

The problem is, it isn't a fact. You think it is, because you don't know what you don't know. You are unaware of what you're ignorant of.

Let us know, when slapping someone, being caught with an illegal drug, being involuntarily committed, convicted of a felony at the state or federal level, convictions in foreign courts, become abortion prohibiting offenses.

Let us all know when a federal government bureaucracy is created to police abortion the same way as ATF polices guns - kicking down doors, shooting dogs and stomping kittens.

Let us all know the next time the ATF runs an ATF flag up the pole immediately after burning down an abortion clinic, right after a 51 day standoff over illegal abortions.

Let us all know when some abortions require the age of 18 and others the age of 21.

Let us know when chewing your pop tart into the shape of an abortion gets any kids suspended from school.

Let us all know the next time you have to get a background check to get an abortion.

Let us all know the next time some abortions are consider "special" and require a tax stamp.

I could go on.

There are over 20 THOUSAND state federal and local gun laws.

I doubt there are one fifth as many laws having to do with abortion.


Also, you're confusing legal success - Chicago gun ban being struck down, Heller, McDonald, with removal of a significant number of gun laws. It isn't. What those cases did, was affirm a constitutional right, and place significant roadblocks in the way of those who wish to infringe on that right, such as people like you. Boo ****in hoo  . What you call "expanded", we here in the fact based real world, call "forced to stop ignoring the bill of rights".


In America, one could ALWAYS buy a gun in nearly every town in America. Before 1994 prior to one of those laws that was passed, which you seem to think doesn't exist, there were no background checs AT ALL.

Prior to 1968, there were no restrictions on felons or mail order firearms.

Prior to 1934 one could own machineguns sawed off shotguns, explosive devices, and so forth, with ZERO licensing registration or oversight.

That is one article.  Someone who thinks himself as superior as you should have no trouble to do a google search to inform yourself on the subject.

You're obviously a mole with an ax to grind against me.  Get over it.  You're not half as smart as you think you are.   

Don't you just wish you had that alert button? Do you has a sad? 

As to "superior", I'm far less educated than you are in the formal sense. Far far less. But I make it a point to know what the hell I'm talking about, when it comes to subjects which I think are important or interesting enough to comment on in a meaningful way. Particularly when its subjects that can land an individual in jail if that individual does not follow the law.


And this...is oh so rich. You telling me to inform myself after claiming there are more abortion restrictions in America than gun restrictions.

If you had any idea how wrong you were you'd apologize hourly to every living creature the planet for for saying something so stupid, and embarrassing every last one of them by virtue of sheer proximity.

CMD

[txradioguy]

I love it when a lib runs out of taking points in an argument. Then it's time to bring out the big persuasion guns with retorts like "That's complete bullshit".
By libs I mean Bane.

They think if they thow out all of their talking points and memes in one big barrage we'll never be able to counter all of it.

Then they realize how easy it is to swat away their crap and they're left with retorts like the one you quoted.

It's simply the difference between seeing things factually versus through the prisim of emotions...which is what all Libtard "facts" are based in.

[miskie]

Why would a healthy male be afraid of raping a woman?  All he needs is her consent.  If she is drunk to the point of incoherence or passed out, she cannot give her consent, but then men who assault women in such circumstances are not interested in healthy relationships.

Your question strikes me as odd.  It's not at all difficult to know if a woman wants to have sex with you.  She behaves eagerly.  Perhaps you need to wait a bit longer until she feels comfortable enough to be eager.  Is that such a bad thing? 

You didn't address the main point.

Is making the assertion that all men need anti-rape education sexist ? Yes, or no.

[Freeper]

Do you have evidence to support that assumption?  And can you show how it might have led to decreasing wages?

Still waiting for your evidence that gazillions of women are being denied the right to murder their offspring.

[Freeper]

You're kidding right?  You have to have this explained to you how it effects both?  Really?



ETA:  Took all of 30 seconds of a generic google search of "cost effects of epa regulation" to find this.

This is just the effect of the new draconian regulations they have in story for the coal industry in 2014.

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/12/10/economic-consequences-of-epa-power-plant-regulations/

You have to remember she is a student of obamanomics, she believes that increased overhead magically produces more jobs. She believes the more we tax, regulate and raise the min wage the more jobs there will be.

[txradioguy]

You have to remember she is a student of obamanomics, she believes that increased overhead magically produces more jobs. She believes the more we tax, regulate and raise the min wage the more jobs there will be.

Kenyesian economics is a proven failure.  Too bad out Troll, Ph D. doesn't realize that.

Next thing you'll know she'll try to convince us that the Government can create wealth.

[obumazombie]

Kenyesian economics is a proven failure.  Too bad out Troll, Ph D. doesn't realize that.

Next thing you'll know she'll try to convince us that the Government can create wealth.

Libs like "Bela" Pelosi not only believe that, but broadcast that belief at any opportunity.

[txradioguy]

Libs like "Bela" Pelosi not only believe that, but broadcast that belief at any opportunity.

Exactly!  That whole unemployment compensation creates jobs and hels the economy bullshit.  How they say that crap with a straight face is beyond me.

[wasp69]

Considering that her DUmmie buddy "fitman" has not been on this thread, kicking her ass for running him off of DU, I'm not convinced Alexandra has come for a visit.  This poster is not nearly as foaming at the mouth stupid as our favorite Hooters madame.

[Traveshamockery]

I just remembered this.  Alex, you didn't write this, did you?

PIV = "penis in vagina."  It took a group of us modern women on Facebook to figure out what the hell that meant.  Whoever wrote this certainly has some issues. 

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.

This is a developed recap from what I’ve been saying in various comments here and there in the last two years or so. as a radfem I’ve always said PIV is rape and I remember being disappointed to discover that so few radical feminists stated it clearly. How can you possibly see it otherwise? Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? That makes no sense at all.

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not – which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances – it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.

[Traveshamockery]

Well seems to me, unions and the government, the EPA, have made industry much more expensive since the 1970s, but I'm sure it's all Bush's fault.

Hell, even in Obamalamadingdong's administration, it's been proven that women are paid less than men.  

Why isn't the collective of DU feminazis up in arms over that?  

[Splashdown]

Here's my issue:  When you decide your constitutional 2nd amendment right trumps the rest of the constitution including my right to life, I have a problem with that.  I do not support gun confiscation.  I live in a state full of hunters.  If I ever get a cabin in the woods, I'll have a gun myself.  My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own gun policies. 

Wow. A DUmmie just proclaimed there's a right to life.

 

[Mike220]

Wait, wait, wait... I just caught this, probably due to the fact I've been up for almost 30 hours and am able to think like a DUmmy.

First, A-S states:

My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own gun policies. 

Then later, as an example:

You can buy a gun in virtually every town and county in America while abortion restrictions have increased at a rapid pace thanks to your party's efforts to impose big government on women's bodies.

Anyone catch the difference? When it comes to guns, cities (and I assume other constituencies such as counties) should have the right to be able to restrict firearms ownership to whatever they deem necessary. But when it comes to abortion, that right suddenly disappears. Why is that? If an enumerated right can be restricted based on societal mores, why not other, derived rights?

Shall we play a game?

My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own gun policies.
My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own abortion policies.
My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own marriage policies.
My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own voting policies.
My issue is that cities are very different from rural areas and we should be able to determine our own immigration policies.

Based on what I know of DUmmies, only the first one is permitted while the others are forbidden. How does that work? Rights are rights, so if you wish one to be negotiable (not the word I want, but I can't think... cause you know, sleep deprived) then by extension all must be. Or you're a hypocrite.

It's a zero-sum game. All or nothing.

[Tucker]

Hell, even in Obamalamadingdong's administration, it's been proven that women are paid less than men.  

Why isn't the collective of DU feminazis up in arms over that?  

Just for you.

[DUmpsterDiver]

It's about establishing a more equitable society where everyone shares the responsibilities of work, family, and public service. 

Work?  On the democrat plantation work is optional because you keep your voters stuffed with cash and handouts.  Work my @ss.

[CollectivismMustDie]

It's about establishing a more equitable society where everyone shares the responsibilities of work, family, and public service. 

I'll just bet this is an accurate characterization of the "equitable" part of your "equitable society": "From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs."

Tell me I'm wrong.

CMD

[USA4ME]

Say, you guys are getting especially mean lately.  I wonder if I can just go ahead and stipulate that I'm deformed, hideously ugly and totally un****able, will you then let up a bit?

This doesn't make any sense. If someone had issues with what we do, then to draw even more attention to it happening to them would be counterproductive.

So what's this really all about, Alex?

.

[JGHB]

^H5

As much as I hate abortion, I also hate what the radical feminists are doing to the men in this country.  I wonder how many of these women have ever been wives and mothers of sons.  As far as equality goes, I also think women have had it a lot better.  You would think, according to feminists, that the traditional roles of men and women, all women were slaves to their husbands and fathers, when nothing could be further from the truth.  That is not the natural or instinctive role men play in women's lives, nor is it the natural roles of women to be submissive objects and treated like doormats.  I find most men to be respectful and protective of women, which, as a woman, I happen to like. 

I could go on and on about this subject, but you get my point.



 

 

I do get your point, Dori, and I agree.  I also think that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far the other way.  Yes, women should be treated fairly and equitably, but so should men.  (Yes, I will admit it.  I happen to like men, in particular, the one I married.)

[JGHB]

If I have ever seen something more ignorant in print, it sure isn't coming to mind right now.

This is why you earn so much of the "hate" you get...Because you try to speak authoritatively about things you know nothing about, and then demonstrate to everyone you're speaking to that you know nothing about that which you speak, all in the same sentence.

I'm not saying you're always that efficient, but I suspect its rather habitual with you. Its obvious when someone speaks authoritatively whether or not they don't know what they don't know, to people that do. What is it you got your PHD in? African studies? Something along those lines? Doesn't matter. Whatever it was, if someone came along and was attempting to speak authoritatively on it, but had no ****ing clue what they were talking about, you'd view them a certain way. Call them out on it. Point and laugh. Make fun of them. Wonder how someone could possibly try to do something so stupid, and so stupidly obvious, and not expect anyone to notice.

That, is what you just did in your above quote.

CMD

That is what blew me away, CMD.  Many, many, restrictions on abortion?   I'm still waiting to hear WHERE she is talking about.  If women were being denied abortions, NOW, the DOJ, Miss Hillary, Madame Pelosi, most of the Senate and the entire Obama administration would be suing any medical facility that even tried to pull that.