Apparently the best way for a bunch of women to march for unity is for them to exclude those that don't agree with them 100%
I wonder how many of the women who marched realized how many of the sponsor organizations are bankrolled by one man.
I wonder if folks realize that leaving mountains of trash on the streets doesn't make them or their cause look good.
I wonder how it is the the tolerant, inclusive, nonviolent leftists seem unable to protest much of anything without violence and damage to property.
I wonder why we never see a bunch of racist, gun loving, violence prone oppressive white guys running amok in the streets burning stuff.
I wonder what exactly the goal was on the protests this weekend. It seems that the reason why the civil rights protests were successful (in part) was that they had a specific clearly articulated goal that they hoped to achieve. I'd guess that "no justice, no peace." doesn't really count as a clearly articulated specific goal so much as a selfish tantrum.
Perhaps the left could take a break and demonstrate some of the tolerance they claim is so important to them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I wonder how it is the the tolerant, inclusive, nonviolent leftists seem unable to protest much of anything without violence and damage to property.
There were literally millions of progressive people protesting this weekend. Add to that, tens of millions of other sympathizers.
These marches were organized and planned for non-violence. There were peacekeepers involved and it was made clear over and over that this was a non-violent protest.
There were, what? 100? 200? protestors who engaged in bad behavior... who IGNORED the planners rules for non-violence.
That is a tiny percentage... 1/10th of 1 percent, or even less, of people who, presumably were liberal or anarchists (unless they were provocateurs...), but who were not in the march as organized, since they didn't follow the rules of the march.
I think having a tenth of one percent of your group to be misbehaving is not a bad record.
Beyond that, I don't think it's reasonable to blame conservatives on their tiny percentage of conservative mass killers (Dylann Roof, Tim McVeigh, etc), any more than it's reasonable to blame liberals on a tiny percentage of vandals.
My thoughts on that question.
I wonder what exactly the goal was on the protests this weekend. It seems that the reason why the civil rights protests were successful (in part) was that they had a specific clearly articulated goal that they hoped to achieve.
You are right that NVDA activists generally want to have specific and attainable goals for actions. But, there is a time and place for a general action to let those in power know, "We are watching you, we are opposed to your stated goals, we are opposed to your abusive, oppressive, lying leader and we will always stand against you, en masse, if and when you should try to enact harmful laws or actions.
fyi.
Perhaps the left could take a break and demonstrate some of the tolerance they claim is so important to them.
If you are against intolerance, then it is only rational that you do not tolerate intolerance. I see this line of reasoning often mentioned by conservatives, but it seems that they are not clear on what it means to stand against intolerance. It does not mean tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance.
That would be irrational.
RE: Tiny percentage. The left of late has shown a penchant for burning and looting in the name of "peaceful protest" this has all the appearance of just one more.
RE: Goals. Thank you for confirming that there is no goal. Although given the clout of the pro-abortion crowd, the vitriol with which they expelled anyone who dared disagree, and the multiple signs advocating unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion, perhaps one could draw a conclusion. Look, if you think a march with no goals, protesting against things that haven't happened is useful, more power to you.
Re: Tolerance. Thank you for making my point. The crowd this weekend, while marching in the name of tolerance, chose not to extend that tolerance to others who disagreed with them By definition this behavior is intolerant. What kind of response do you think you will get when you demand what you will not give.
It's a strange world where advocating that human children in utero should not be killed is considered intolerant. I guess that whole "agree to disagree" has some pretty significant limits.
If you are against intolerance, then it is only rational that you do not tolerate intolerance.
If you tolerate intolerance, then you are no longer an advocate for tolerance.
That would be irrational.
if you think a march with no goals, protesting against things that haven't happened is useful, more power to you.
You are right that NVDA activists generally want to have specific and attainable goals for actions. But, there is a time and place for a general action to let those in power know, "We are watching you, we are opposed to your stated goals, we are opposed to your abusive, oppressive, lying leader and we will always stand against you, en masse, if and when you should try to enact harmful laws or actions."
Do you think there is no time you would march against, say, a dictator, just to be clear that you are not going to support that dictator in any oppressive action, even if there's no direct "ask" at the time? If so, fine. I think it's reasonable. As a starting point.
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens
a wise man once said.
"I wonder what exactly the goal was on the protests this weekend."
I was asking myself the same thing. The headlines all seemed to say they were declaring that they would oppose the president. Some called for his impeachment. Others said it was "democracy at work" because, as we all know, lawfully voting in a president is not democracy at work if the "wrong guy" gets elected.
I thought it was ironic that if Hillary had been elected and anyone right of her camp said, "We won't work with her", they would have been discarded as obstructionist and purely politically-motivated. So much for "reaching across the aisle" this time, I suppose. It's wrong for the Right to stand for what they believe, but it is heroic when the Left does it. Especially with such violence and hate.
The goal of the protests was to let Trump know that we/they will not stand idly by and let him accomplish bad deeds.
I don't see why that's hard to understand, but I hope that helps in your confusion.
And Stan, a full half of the country (it seems) and a good part of the world does not think this election is business as usual. This Trump candidate is a different and unique thing - and not good - in all of US history. Never has a president been elected who is so thoroughly morally and rationally and temperamentally unfit for the job, or who has expressed such vehement anti-liberty/anti-American values. There's nothing wrong in opposing such an unfit candidate.
Beyond that, given the eight years of conservatives refusing to cooperate with Obama, your side doesn't really have the moral right to say that standing in stubborn opposition to a president is wrong. Hypocrisy and all that.
The difference, of course, between the two instances is that there was nothing fundamentally unfit about Obama, you all just disagreed with his policies, but he was brilliant, qualified and fit for office. Trump, not so much.
More later but I think that the 8 years of conservatives not cooperating is one of those alternative fact things. Let's just compare how the conservative minority didn't attempt to block or slow down P-BO's first term cabinet or Supreme Court nominees. Just to start with. Let's look at the number of conservatives who boycotted P-BO's inauguration. How many conservatives flat out said that they wouldn't even consider talking to P-BO to even explore common ground.
Sorry, that dog just won't hunt.
As for the last Supreme Court vacancy, I'd argue that a principled case can be made for waiting for the results of the election before considering a lame duck President's nominee. The leadership was clear that had Clinton won they would have either moved on P-BO's nominee or confirmed Clinton's.
Apparently the only way to stop intolerance is more intolerance. I guess the best way to stop violence is by kicking someone's butt.
I posted on this earlier. But it seems like a march which is full of such vitriol and excludes anyone who disagrees with even the tiniest bit of what the financial sponsors are paying for sounds a lot like what we've seen historically from dictators and fascists. Of course, reducing women to their vaginas and demanding that taxpayers fund their sexual activity doesn't seem too rational to me. But I've addressed that elsewhere also.
"Fxxx you." "Fxxx you." "I have thought a lot about blowing up the White House."
What a bunch of a classy broads. is that really the language of love, inclusion, and unity?
" blacks are in shackles for being black. "
" we've traded a mustache for a toupee. "
again what a classy group of vaginas preaching love, unity, and inclusion. As long as you agree with them 100%. Strikes me as not unlike something by Leno Reifenstahl.
What's the internet "law" that says the once you invoke Hitler you've lost the argument. I guess one of the vaginas on stage lost it for all of them.
I just love it when people are so sincere about how much they love, include, and respect people with whom they disagree. It's just refreshing to see such kind and civil discourse in the public square.
No one has said you must agree with them 100%. It hasn't happened. It doesn't happen in the real world. The progressive/anti-Trump community includes Christians and non-Christians (and we're each fine with the other), as well as Muslims and Jewish folk, gay and straight, more conservative socially and less conservative socially. More and less traditionally fiscally responsible. Etc. There's plenty of room for disagreement.
What there isn't room for is oppression, harm, denying of rights. THAT is what we are being intolerant of. As we all should be.
Perhaps you're just not familiar with the people you are speaking about and what they really stand for?
As for Madonna, she has clarified she didn't mean it literally. As one should expect from her. For all her faults (and I really don't know or care much about Madonna one way or the other), I would have no reason to think that she was seriously suggesting blowing up the WH.
But tell me, when KY Gov Bevin (GOP), said that people needed to be shed blood to defend against a Clinton presidency, did you condemn him (and others who similarly at least appeared to threaten violence)?
"I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically. But that may, in fact, be the case…. I do think it would be possible [to "survive" a Clinton presidency! Goodness, what girlish fear-mongering!), but at what price? At what price? The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood of who? The tyrants, to be sure, but who else? The patriots."
Are you consistent in your condemnation?
So your excuse for Madonna is that she intemperate Lee and in the heat of the moment miss spoke herself and said something that is out rages and impolitic, is that correct?
No, they don't say it, they just exclude groups who don't toe the line put out by the leaders and big money donors. Until by exclusion. Tolerance by intolerance. Denial of science when it contradicts their politics.
If you want to make excuses for the official speakers and their vulgarities, invocations of Hitler etc go right ahead it's your choice to ally yourself with this sort of behavior. I'm just not sure how " Fxxk you" can be interpreted as unifying in any way.
Oh, don't be mistaken, she was CLEARLY wrong to say this. But I'm glad to say that she was wrong to say it (even though I didn't for one second think she was serious).
Now, my question is why do conservatives not call out their own for being clearly wrong when they call, much more seriously-sounding, for bloodshed? Will you/have you condemned Bevin?
Sounds like you want to call out an actor (arrest her?) for making an obviously emotion-charged, reason-less, clearly not serious call for blowing up the WH but NOT hold an elected official to the same degree of blame for his words that, IN CONTEXT, clearly were saying, "Hey, if we lose, we might need to kill our neighbors/fellow-citizens"). Show me I'm wrong and condemn this elected official as strongly as you are condemning this actor.
"Perhaps you're just not familiar with the people you are speaking about and what they really stand for?"
Oh trust me, my Facebook "news feed" has been loaded with propaganda.
"But tell me, when KY Gov Bevin (GOP), said that people needed to be shed blood to defend against a Clinton presidency, did you condemn him (and others who similarly at least appeared to threaten violence)?"
A couple of answers for that. Up here in the cosmopolitan, liberal hipster mecca that is the people republic we don't here much about every little thing said by every governor below the Mason Dixon line. So this might shock you, but I've never heard of gov Bevan, nor have I heard what he actually said as opposed to your paraphrase of it. So, unfortunately I was unable to denounce his comments in a timely manner. Of course, if you've paid any attention to what I've written over the years I've pretty consistently spoken against unjustified violence both actual (firebombings and throwing large chunks of concrete at police officers, burning down businesses in the name of racial harmony or locking oneself in a cabin and conducting an armed standoff) and threatened ("Fry 'em like bacon.", etc). So given my consistent track record of disapproving of violence on both sides it should be clear how I would have reacted had I been paying attention to this clearly evil man.
"Are you consistent in your condemnation?"
I have been, why you would think I'd change otherwise is beyond me.
You do realize that the part about watering the liberty tree is a reference to a quote by Thomas Jefferson (whom you seem to selectively admire) which does not refer to a general mass killing of political opponents. So, if you're going to be consistent I guess you'd have to denounce Jefferson as well as gov Bevis or whatever.
"Now, my question is why do conservatives not call out their own for being clearly wrong when they call, much more seriously-sounding, for bloodshed? Will you/have you condemned Bevin?"
Holy crap you're impatient. Why not read the previous comment. Of course Bevis or whatever didn't make his comment in front of a huge public televised march either.
"Sounds like you want to call out an actor (arrest her?) for making an obviously emotion-charged, reason-less, clearly not serious call for blowing up the WH..."
No it doesn't. It sounds like I want to point out the hypocrisy inherent in using such language at an event allegedly intended to foster unity and inclusiveness. You've dodged this at least twice, but in what context is "Fxxk you.", "Fxxk you." inclusive, loving, unifying or positive? Do you think the gullible moms who brought their young children thought that was appropriate? You've also ignored the multiple Hitler references as well. Look if you want these folks as your allies, then your stuck with what they say and do.
"..but NOT hold an elected official to the same degree of blame for his words that, IN CONTEXT, clearly were saying, "Hey, if we lose, we might need to kill our neighbors/fellow-citizens"). Show me I'm wrong and condemn this elected official as strongly as you are condemning this actor."
Again (good lord you love repeating yourself don't you), had gov Bevis (or whatever) made his comment in a more public context, I might have heard about it and denounced it. But he didn't and I hadn't until the previous comment.
"Now, my question is why do conservatives not call out their own for being clearly wrong when they call, much more seriously-sounding, for bloodshed?"
Once again, you seem to have this strange notion that I somehow speak for all of the people you consider to be conservative, I don't. I have no idea how you've reached the conclusion that all conservatives support this guy your so obsessed with. Not only that, since I don't control what others you consider conservative do or say, I really don't obsess about it that much. However, I've addressed enough instances of conservatives doing and saying stupid things that it's clear that I'm pretty equal opportunity when it comes to calling out stupidity.
"Sounds like you want to call out an actor (arrest her?) for making an obviously emotion-charged, reason-less, clearly not serious..."
I have no idea how serious or not serious she was. I find it interesting that you are making excuses for her for engaging in behavior that in others gets you all riled up.
Once again. In what context is "Fxxk you." "Fxxk you" a call to unity, tolerance, inclusiveness or love?
You've dodged this at least twice, but in what context is "Fxxk you.", "Fxxk you." inclusive, loving, unifying or positive?
I've dodged nothing. I have not read the reports you are speaking of or the context of what was and wasn't said, so I have nothing to say about it, not knowing about it.
Sorta like you and Bevin's comments (although, it was covered nationally, as one would expect a US Governor calling for armed insurrection if his side loses).
Having sad that, I do not have a huge problems with using vulgar "curse" words, it largely depends on context. Someone saying, for instance, "I just grab them by the p***y!" is extremely vulgar, because it is speaking of harmful sexual predatory actions.
On the other hand, someone hearing people say "Trump is the most honest politician we've ever had. Only HE can save us..." and responding "F**k that s**t!" It is not a wholly inappropriate response to a vulgar claim.
I would not generally approve of someone saying "F you..." but again, I don't know the context.
"Are you consistent in your condemnation?"
I have been, why you would think I'd change otherwise is beyond me.
Because I have not generally seen or heard you condemn conservatives. Especially this political season, when you all have had the most vulgar, offensive and unfit candidate who's regularly promoted violence and encouraged people like Bevin to make calls for violence if they lose... If it was MY side that was so far afield from basic human decency or morality, I'd be loudly condemning my side regularly and clearly. I've only seen half-hearted "aw, I don't really support him" kinds of messages from you about Trump. So, since I have not seen you stepping up against the violence inherent in the Trump candidacy and in general, that is why I ask. I'm not saying you haven't been, I'm just saying I have not seen it from you.
Just to repeat:
RE: Tiny percentage. The left of late has shown a penchant for burning and looting in the name of "peaceful protest" this has all the appearance of just one more.
MILLIONS of people globally have been sickened by the Trump presidency. There have been about 250 people arrested for misbehaving to some degree or another.
Yes, TINY percentage. Less than 1/100th of 1% IS a tiny percentage. Infintessimal.
You do understand how percentages work, yes?
Double standard alert!!!!!
OK once I was done answering your one question 5 times I looked up gov Bevis (or whatever)'s quote in it's actual context as well as his clarifying remarks. (If you have any desire at all to be fair then you can't simply accept Madonna's clarification blindly, while ignoring the gov's)
The parts you left out, or chose to ignore.
"I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, SO THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO DO IT PHYSICALLY. (emphasis added) If one adheres to basic English grammar, syntax, and definitions it seems reasonable that he would consider physical violence as an absolute last resort. (Unlike some on the left)
"Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room,"
I don;t see how you can make the case that he's talking (Just as Jefferson did when he said it first) about self sacrifice. About believing in an ideal enough that you would die to defend it. You know, like Christians in Muslim countries do.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-governor/2016/09/13/bevin-blood-patriots-may-have-shed/90275284/
Look, do I wish he'd phrased things differently, do I agree that we're anywhere near the point of some sort of armed revolution, no. Am I willing to say that we'll never, ever, not in a million years get to that point, no I just can't predict the future.
What I can say is that after a bit of research and looking at the data, it's pretty clear that you've read quite a bit into his remarks.
Just to be clear (as if saying this earlier isn't enough), I have no doubt that Madonna put her foot in her mouth with the "blow up the WH" comment. My problem is not that she should be punished or denounced for the comment, it's that it (and other comments) were so antithetical to the alleged purpose of the march that I'm more pointing out the rank hypocrisy of the remarks. I (unlike you) am willing to extend some grace when people make "obviously emotion-charged, reason-less, clearly not serious call"s for anything. I'd hope that you'd consider extending the same grace, it's not like any of us are exempt from having said stupid things.
"I've dodged nothing. I have not read the reports you are speaking of or the context of what was and wasn't said, so I have nothing to say about it, not knowing about it."
Really, It's more of Madonna's speech. It's been all over the news. I note you've still dodged the question I asked.
"Because I have not generally seen or heard you condemn conservatives."
Then you haven't paid attention. If you're going to flat out call me a liar, then prepare to be deleted. The evidence is there if you have the tiniest bit of desire to look. Especially as I condemned this Bevis (or whatever) character.
"Especially this political season, when you all have had the most vulgar, offensive and unfit candidate who's regularly promoted violence..."
So when I specifically said directly and repeatedly that because Trump was vulgar and offensive and that I could not vote for him because of that, you've somehow turned that into me supporting him. Of course, I've never actually heard him directly promote violence, but whatever.
"If it was MY side that was so far afield from basic human decency or morality.."
Really link to your condemnation of the folks on your side who laid siege to and firebombed a police precinct, and those on your side who dropped large chunks of concrete from a highway overpass on police, go ahead put up or shut up. Where is your condemnation for the rioters in DC last weekend, or the women's marchers who verbally harassed women who held a different ideological position. Seriously, over the past few years we've seen way more behavior from your tribe that is "afield from basic human decency or morality...", than from any side but Muslim extremists. (Ok it's hyperbole don't gets your panties in a bunch, lighten up)
"I've only seen half-hearted "aw, I don't really support him" kinds of messages from you about Trump."
Bullshit.
"So, since I have not seen you stepping up against the violence inherent in the Trump candidacy and in general,.."
Maybe that's because I tend not to get as worked up about imaginary violence, as I do about real violence and specific threats of violence ("Fry 'em like bacon"). I've got enough stuff going on in the real world to invest much time in trying to impute stuff to people I disagree with, but that's just me.
"I'm not saying you haven't been, I'm just saying I have not seen it from you."
And I'm saying bullshit.
"MILLIONS of people globally have been sickened by the Trump presidency. There have been about 250 people arrested for misbehaving to some degree or another."
So. I wasn't aware that our political system was run by public opinion polls from around the world.
The facts are that the tolerant, inclusive, unifying, non violent left has been engaging in lots of exclusive, intolerant, divisive, violent activity over the last few years.
I guess consistency isn't that important compared to a narrative.
"You do understand how percentages work, yes?"
I do, do you understand how people acting in ways that are diametrically opposed to the values they claim to hold dear makes folks look either hypocritical or pathological, yes?
It's amazing that after specifically spelling out that it's not so much the actions as it is the hypocrisy (and the denial of the double standard), that is what I take issue with. Look, I don't care if y'all want to be as disgusting, vulgar, divisive, exclusive, intolerant as you claim others are, just be honest, up front and stop hiding behind lofty slogans and platitudes if you aren't going to live up to them.
You are the one supporting.
"Intolerance as essential to tolerance"
"Exclusion as essential to inclusiveness"
"Divisiveness as essential to unity"
In reality, it's not really unity as much as it is forced conformity.
One more try.
In what context is "fxxk you", "fxxk you" inclusive, loving, unifying or tolerant?
You've dodged this by implying that it didn't happen, by justifying that sometimes vulgarities are somehow appropriate even necessary, and by ignoring it.
One question, will you answer it?
Talk percentages all you like, but you simply don't see this kind of crap from right-wing protests, assemblies and rallies. You also don't see anyone on the right that is a mirror image to a Dan Trabue defending such behavior as Dan is doing here.
You've dodged this at least twice, but in what context is "Fxxk you.", "Fxxk you." inclusive, loving, unifying or positive?
I REPEAT:
I've dodged nothing. I have not read the reports you are speaking of or the context of what was and wasn't said, so I have nothing to say about it, not knowing about it.
But, if you want me to talk about this in theoretical terms, I've said...
I would not generally approve of someone saying "F you..." but again, I don't know the context.
and I have noted...
I do not have a huge problems with using vulgar "curse" words, it largely depends on context. Someone saying, for instance, "I just grab them by the p***y!" is extremely vulgar, because it is speaking of harmful sexual predatory actions.
On the other hand, someone hearing people say "Trump is the most honest politician we've ever had. Only HE can save us..." and responding "F**k that s**t!" It is not a wholly inappropriate response to a vulgar claim.
To repeat the answer I've already given:
To respond to a vulgar, obscene claim, "F**k that s**t!" ...is not a wholly inappropriate response to such a vulgar claim.
OR, put another way, To respond to a vulgar claim "F you" is not a wholly inappropriate response.
OR, to make it even more clear, IN WHAT CONTEXT is F* YOU inclusive, etc... I am saying that we don't always want to be inclusive. WE DO NOT WANT to be inclusive, for instance, to pigs who laugh about grabbing women by the crotch/sexually assaulting women. If Trump was laughingly using his "locker room" talk to giggle about his sexually assaulting women, I WOULD SAY, F*** YOU. Gladly.
I would want to punch him, but I would very likely use vulgarities in response to his piggish behavior and then call the police and turn him in.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE INCLUSIVE to that sort of excrement.
So, using that sort of vulgarity is NOT an effort to be inclusive, etc. It's an effort to condemn criminal, awful behavior.
I know once upon a time that good conservative men and women would have joined me in refusing to be "inclusive" of such disgusting behavior. Lord, increase their tribe.
I'll give you credit for sort of answering the question I asked, it's just too bad it took so much effort and contortions.
I remember a day when people were able to disagree without having to resort to vulgar locker room talk.
It's kind of amusing to watch you defend Madonna for the same kind of thing you excoriate Trump for. It's also amusing to watch you try to pretend that this event was all sweetness, light, and vagina costumes. That being offensive, intolerant, divisive, vulgar, and exclusive are somehow appropriate and justified.
It's not like this is the first immoral man in the Oval Office in the last 50 years.
Of course, you can't define or qualify exactly what morality is, but your very confident that Trump is immoral enough to be vilified.
I know this might be outside of your ability to wrap your mind around, but (as I said elsewhere) Trump is simply a reflection of our pop culture society. We live in a country where we spend millions of dollars on "art" that is multiple times more denigrating to women than the combined total of the vile things Trump has said. We live in a society that glorifies the "hook up", and rewards actors and musicians when they cheat on their wives or girlfriends. Where teenage pop stars release sex tapes, and sell sexuality instead of talent. Sure Trump is all the things I wrote about last fall. But really he's just a reflection of a debased culture courtesy of the dope smoking, free love question authority, all truth is relative, no fault divorce, abortions for all, American left wing.
I think some wise man said it like this.
"When you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.".
Our culture has sown the wind.
I know it's easier to simply bash Trump, but it's intellectually dishonest to divorce Trump from the culture. Frankly the bigger cultural picture is a much more interesting topic than the gross vulgarity and offensiveness of either Trump or the marchers. Their behavior is just two sides of the same coin.
Wouldn't it be interesting to compile a list of outrageous, immoral things Madonna has said and done and compare that to Trump? Unless your claim is that it's perfectly appropriate to use any tactic no matter how offensive or immoral it may seem to oppose what you perceive might be a greater threat.
Does anyone find it strange that the stock retort against abortion was always something like "If you don't have a uterus, your not qualified to comment." or something similar. Yet these same folks have no problem accepting that it's possible to be a woman without having a uterus.
"Someone saying, for instance, "I just grab them by the p***y!" is extremely vulgar"
Not nearly as vulgar as repeatedly insisting he said something he didn't say just to demonize him to anyone who hasn't taken the time, or is not willing to take the time, to investigate what he actually said. In other words, Dan. You're an inveterate lying sack of shit. How's that for an acceptable and appropriate context for profanity? The ironic hypocrisy is that you continue to perpetuate this lie after your nonsense about which candidate lies the most.
On a lighter note, but still on topic, my wife...a REAL woman...shared this with me the other day:
KFC has special buckets for marchers. Two small breasts, two Hugh thighs, and the rest of the bucket is filled with left wings.
I saw this piece and had to share it here, as it is totally on topic. Dan should read it, but won't because he's to concerned about believing his own delusional fantasies and hatreds.
Here's a display of the "peaceful" marchers' classy signs from a site that seems to be approving of the feminist idiocy. I especially like exploiting children and dragging them to this circus and exposing them to disgusting people. They'll have to find out eventually, but why not just let them be kids while they have the chance?
And Byron York provides more here that does more to show the caliber of lowlifes marching for pretty much nothing that is denied them. I'm going to bet that the guy with the cutout ("This is what a FEMINIST looks like") if feo who was unsurprisingly proud to march with them (or so he says).
If I could figure out how to copy and paste it, I would add a copy and paste an episode of Steven Crowder's show wherein he and Not Gay Jared dress up like transsexuals and interview various goofballs from the event, including a former Texas politician of ill repute, and expose more nastiness and crude expression.
Crowder has a full twelve hours of footage from which he could have shown all sorts of examples. Between the three sources I've just references, one must wonder just how much of the crude stuff there was. A great many of the signs have a decidedly aggressive tone, which, if I was a lefty, would require I seek out a safe zone for the intimidation they mean to express. More to the point, if a right-wing rally had anything even remotely similar in tone, even while being more ambiguous as to intent, the left would wail and weep over the violent intent and encouragement, insisting they are responsible for criminal acts that might take place anywhere nearby.
I'm betting you'll see a far better class of women marching for life in the coming days. In fact, I guarantee it.
"... as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, the abortion rate in the United States has been falling steadily. The Guttmacher Institute reported last month that the rate of abortions per 1,000 women has fallen to the lowest rate since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. While the causes for this decrease are complex, many of us who are pro-life found this to be good news.
I hope my fellow evangelicals will join me in neither resting on the recent positive developments nor focusing solely on the traditional pro-life agenda. There is reason for hope, but there is so much yet to be done to protect the not yet born and those born into broken systems. The rate of incarceration for black males continues to be six times that of white males. Millions of lower-income Americans lack access to quality food, education and health care. We must also take up these causes, and others.
Or take another issue, right now in the news and central to my work: our country’s response to the global refugee crisis. I understand the concern that many of my neighbors have about security. But how can I demand absolute security for myself (which I do not expect or demand in any other part of my life) while 65 million people are fleeing the very terrorism, war and persecution that are the antithesis of life?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/im-pro-life-and-pro-refugee.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
"Despite the overwhelmingly pro-choice atmosphere at the march, Hamlet told the Cut she felt welcome. “I’m in a minority, and before we came to the march [we worried we wouldn’t be welcome],” she said, referring to the news about New Wave’s partnership status. “But since we’ve been here everyone has been respectful and kind.”
http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/pro-choice-and-pro-life-feminists-at-the-womens-march.html
Post a Comment