Dear Sexist Leftists,

[GrassrootsConservative]

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/cnn_wonders_do_hormones_drive_womens_votes/


Pursuing those women voters might be a lost cause for the 2012 candidates, CNN Health (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/do-hormones-drive-womens-votes/)says, because their lady parts might be doing the voting for them:

I thought the left was all about women, giving them the "choice" about whether to destroy their children and all that crap, but now the leftist drive-by media CNN is saying that women think with their vaginas?
In a move that parallels the common sexist phrase about men thinking with their genitals, it appears CNN views women as walking vaginas with brains.
Let's move on, shall we?


“While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles."
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

This is even more pathetic. Dumbocrat media is painting women like they make their decisions about how to vote there on the spot at the voting venue instead of early like rational people. I've got my decision made up already, I know a lot of people do, and I don't know anyone who is going to wait until they get to their voting location to decide who they're going to vote for.

I tried to go to the article itself to see what was really said, but instead I got this lame ass excuse of a page on my computer instead:


Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/do-hormones-drive-womens-votes/)
A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.

After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and feedback.



http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/do-hormones-drive-womens-votes/

So now CNN has editorial standards? Oh ho ho, no I don't think so. They never had them before.

What we have here is a case of a classic Dumbocrat cover-up. Surprise surprise. Someone complained and so the numbskulls in charge of that place had a look and said "oh shit, this won't look good to women at all" so they took it down.

So now it's my job to get it out there. Pass this on Dumbocrats, this is what the party of women really thinks about women; They see women as nothing but walking vaginas who think with their vaginas and can't make a single decision without their hormones playing hell upon their braincells.

Disgusting Dumbocrats, when will you learn that women are way more intelligent than you want to think and make them think they are?

[Kizzume]

Troll. That's all you do here is troll. But anyone on the left who does the same thing as you---well, that's just not acceptable to you. You can't take what you dish out. You're a pathetic child.

[KC]

Troll. That's all you do here is troll. But anyone on the left who does the same thing as you---well, that's just not acceptable to you. You can't take what you dish out. You're a pathetic child.

I'm not sure a post exposing bad media is trolling, even if the tone of it is harsh. That's Grassroots' style, and it's fine for him or anyone when it's not targeting specific members.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I'm not sure a post exposing bad media is trolling, even if the tone of it is harsh. That's Grassroots' style, and it's fine for him or anyone when it's not targeting specific members.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate a serious response and hope for more.

[Kizzume]

I'm not sure a post exposing bad media is trolling, even if the tone of it is harsh. That's Grassroots' style, and it's fine for him or anyone when it's not targeting specific members.

He won't read it anyway, he has me blocked. He's a pussy, he gets his feelings hurt easily and can't take debate if it gets heated--he thinks blocking people makes his position stronger.

[GrassrootsConservative]

He won't read it anyway, he has me blocked. He's a pussy, he gets his feelings hurt easily and can't take debate if it gets heated--he thinks blocking people makes his position stronger.

Actually I have hit "view post" on both your replies.
I appreciate actual criticism, but attacking my person doesn't make actual criticism.
When I write something like this, I'm sure you can see it has a lot of thought in it, I care what people think.
:)
Thanks for responding, but if you could please give me a more serious and substantial response it would be greatly appreciated.

[Kizzume]

Actually I have hit "view post" on both your replies.
I appreciate actual criticism, but attacking my person doesn't make actual criticism.
When I write something like this, I'm sure you can see it has a lot of thought in it, I care what people think.
:)
Thanks for responding, but if you could please give me a more serious and substantial response it would be greatly appreciated.

Right, so because CNN put out a sexist story, all democrats think that women are just vaginas? Sorry, but you wouldn't accept a generalized post about republicans that was that blatantly false, you'd call it trolling. Maybe I should judge all republicans based on Fox News?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Right, so because CNN put out a sexist story, all democrats think that women are just vaginas? Sorry, but you wouldn't accept a generalized post about republicans that was that blatantly false, you'd call it trolling. Maybe I should judge all republicans based on Fox News?

If Fox News put out a "news" story as ridiculous as this, I would hope that you wouldn't think too highly of Republicans based on it.
Fox News is called a "Right-Wing News Source" for a reason. Because their stories are slightly biased to reflect the way that the right wants their stories reported, even though they are way more balanced than other news sources.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC and CBS are all Left-Wing news sources and their stories reflect the way Democrats want their news reported. This is common knowledge.
The fact of the matter is that almost all stories you hear about on the news are biased, that's how they make money.. by passing agendas.

The agenda here is clearly to paint women as morons, and they did an excellent job of reflecting Democrat views.

[Kizzume]

If Fox News put out a "news" story as ridiculous as this, I would hope that you wouldn't think too highly of Republicans based on it.

I wouldn't judge republicans on it, I would simply judge Fox News about it. Now, if they had a panel of a bunch of republicans saying "yeah, this is great information and is so true", THEN I might start judging republicans on it, but I understand that sensationalist media is sensationalist media--Fox just happens to deliver things from the right-wing perspective.


Fox News is called a "Right-Wing News Source" for a reason. Because their stories are slightly biased to reflect the way that the right wants their stories reported, even though they are way more balanced than other news sources.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC and CBS are all Left-Wing news sources and their stories reflect the way Democrats want their news reported. This is common knowledge.
The fact of the matter is that almost all stories you hear about on the news are biased, that's how they make money.. by passing agendas.

They make money by promoting a mindset that will potentially buy the products or services advertised during those slots. It's not about actual agendas, it's about getting viewers.


The agenda here is clearly to paint women as morons, and they did an excellent job of reflecting Democrat views.
Sorry, but that's just blatantly false about "reflecting democrat views".

[patrickt]

Right, so because CNN put out a sexist story, all democrats think that women are just vaginas? Sorry, but you wouldn't accept a generalized post about republicans that was that blatantly false, you'd call it trolling. Maybe I should judge all republicans based on Fox News?

No, not just that. Liberals seem to find Bill Maher hilarious. His use of the words "****" and "twat" to describe a woman are just too funny for words. When I came to this site this morning I was greeted by a post by a liberal explaining why all women, they're all the same you know, have to vote for the incumbent. Liberals actually seem to think women, as a group, are stupid enough to buy the "War on Women" nonsense. There are women who own small businesses or work in small businesses or are retired and trying to live on investment accounts. There are women who don't dream of a workers' paradise in the former United States.

I don't ask friends or family how they're voting. I think they're bright enough to decide how they want to vote without my help. My sister has told me she isn't voting for President Obama, though. My daughter has mentioned her mother is voting for President Obama and her tone would suggest she isn't.

[Deadwood]

Troll. That's all you do here is troll. But anyone on the left who does the same thing as you---well, that's just not acceptable to you. You can't take what you dish out. You're a pathetic child.

You need to re-think you definition of troll....

It's a seemingly well researched and thought out OP. Just because you disagree and have no response does not make it trolling

[exotix]

Joke of a thread ... Faux Noize only hires women-hosts who are the most dumbass ho's in the media.

[birddog]

Troll. That's all you do here is troll. But anyone on the left who does the same thing as you---well, that's just not acceptable to you. You can't take what you dish out. You're a pathetic child.


It wasn't trolling, although some trolling is not a bad idea at times IMHO. What was spoken of by GC is quite accurate, but you can't get past your blind biases.

[Deadwood]

I wouldn't judge republicans on it, I would simply judge Fox News about it. Now, if they had a panel of a bunch of republicans saying "yeah, this is great information and is so true", THEN I might start judging republicans on it, but I understand that sensationalist media is sensationalist media--Fox just happens to deliver things from the right-wing perspective.

They make money by promoting a mindset that will potentially buy the products or services advertised during those slots. It's not about actual agendas, it's about getting viewers.

Sorry, but that's just blatantly false about "reflecting democrat views".


Nut most republicans in here to date would.

The OP is pretty balanced, although the Headline is a bit too far down the road.

He has a point, and deserves a civil response. I don't have you on ignore and thought your immediate responses were the result of your own tin skin and were a personally based attack, which is out of character for you.

Perhaps what's happening here is more about past exchanges where the two of you have gotten under each other's skin?


Just an observers view...I like both of you and suggest if you are both a bit more open minded and thick skinned, who knows, one or more of you could have one of those "aha" moments...

[GrassrootsConservative]

Nut most republicans in here to date would.

The OP is pretty balanced, although the Headline is a bit too far down the road.

He has a point, and deserves a civil response. I don't have you on ignore and thought your immediate responses were the result of your own tin skin and were a personally based attack, which is out of character for you.

Perhaps what's happening here is more about past exchanges where the two of you have gotten under each other's skin?


Just an observers view...I like both of you and suggest if you are both a bit more open minded and thick skinned, who knows, one or more of you could have one of those "aha" moments...

Thanks FAL, but he never got under my skin and I think my responses to his flame baiting in my thread have been quite civil. I haven't made 1 personal attack back at him despite his continued attempts to get them from me. I don't hold grudges, but it's clear that he does.
I appreciate your criticism.

Exotix, it's clear that you are a true Dumbocrat, your use of the term "dumbass ho's" would offend any woman. I'm not sure how you people can consider yourselves the party that women should vote for.

Keep up the intelligent discussion guys, I enjoy reading each and every post and now that I am awake again my response to you all will be quick and painless.
;)

[GrassrootsConservative]

Anyone else?

[Kizzume]

I think it's funny that some people think that if you call a woman a bad name, it's more against women in general than supporting legislation that is actually anti-women.

[Mister D]

I think it's funny that some people think that if you call a woman a bad name, it's more against women in general than supporting legislation that is actually anti-women.

You would describe pro-life polciies as anti-woman?

[GrassrootsConservative]

You would describe pro-life polices as anti-woman?

I think we should stop calling the opposing view of pro-life as pro-choice and start calling it what it is: pro-death.

[Mister D]

I think we should stop calling the opposing view of pro-life as pro-choice and start calling it what it is: pro-death.

Generally, I try not to demonize people who disagree with a position I hold. Its makes dialogue impossible.

[Kizzume]

You would describe pro-life polciies as anti-woman?

Yes, because it says that a woman does not have the right to her own body.

[Chris]

You need to re-think you definition of troll....

It's a seemingly well researched and thought out OP. Just because you disagree and have no response does not make it trolling

Agree. And it continues to be argued, not a set up just to attack those who respond.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Agree. And it continues to be argued, not a set up just to attack those who respond.

I think it's a very valid point, especially when I realized the article had been removed.
I've been on CNN a lot, and I've NEVER seen an article removed until last night.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Yes, because it says that a woman does not have the right to her own body.

That is not what it says at all.
Pro-Life simply means that you are against abortion. There's nothing about it that "says a woman does not have the right to her own body."

[Mister D]

Yes, because it says that a woman does not have the right to her own body.

Pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the unborn not with controlling women. I think this sort of reasoning poisons the well.

[Kizzume]

That is not what it says at all.
Pro-Life simply means that you are against abortion. There's nothing about it that "says a woman does not have the right to her own body."

Actually, it does. It says that if a baby is growing inside a mother, she has to carry it to term, she cannot have it removed or destroyed. That's removing a woman's right to her own body.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Pro-lifers are concerned about the life of the unborn not with controlling women. I think this sort of reasoning poisons the well.

Very much so. We're not trying to transform women into slaves, we're just trying to make sure that innocent, unborn babies have a chance at life instead of a doctor flooding the womb with poison so the baby dies.

[Mister D]

That is not what it says at all.
Pro-Life simply means that you are against abortion. There's nothing about it that "says a woman does not have the right to her own body."

The state already restricts what I can and cannot do with my body. I cannot commit suicide, take narcotics, or terminate a late pregnancy. The argument is specious but, more importantly, it makes discussion impossible.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Actually, it does. It says that if a baby is growing inside a mother, she has to carry it to term, she cannot have it removed or destroyed. That's removing a woman's right to her own body.

Go ahead and google "pro life" for me. Thanks.

[Kizzume]

The state already restricts what I can and cannot do with my body. I cannot commit suicide, take narcotics, or terminate a late pregnancy. The argument is specious but, more importantly, it makes discussion impossible.
I think it's wrong that someone cannot commit suicide or take narcotics, it should be up to that person and nobody else.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I think it's wrong that someone cannot commit suicide or take narcotics, it should be up to that person and nobody else.

:)

Like I said, you are pro-death.

[Mister D]

I think it's wrong that someone cannot commit suicide or take narcotics, it should be up to that person and nobody else.

But it's legal to these things. That's my point. Restrictions on what I can and cannot do with my body are nothing new. As for suicide, you'd be OK with depressed people killing themselves?

[Kizzume]

But it's legal to these things. That's my point. Restrictions on what I can and cannot do with my body are nothing new. As for suicide, you'd be OK with depressed people killing themselves?
It doesn't matter if they're nothing new. People should have the right to their own bodies. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should have that right. I'm not "cool" with people killing themselves, but I think people should be able to be in control of their own bodies.

[Kizzume]

:)

Like I said, you are pro-death.

If you want to word it that way, fine. You're probably pro-death-penalty, so you're also pro-death. I think people should have the right to their own bodies.

[Mister D]

It doesn't matter if they're nothing new. People should have the right to their own bodies. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should have that right. I'm not "cool" with people killing themselves, but I think people should be able to be in control of their own bodies.

If that's freedom then I'm not for "freedom". That's monstrous. In any case, we would do better (all of us) to acknowledge where the people we disagree with are actually coming from. Pro-lifers are concerned with life. Pro-choicers with government power over our individual choices.

[Kizzume]

If that's freedom then I'm not for "freedom". That's monstrous. In any case, we would do better (all of us) to acknowledge where the people we disagree with are actually coming from. Pro-lifers are concerned with life. Pro-choicers with government power over our individual choices.

Freedom to the right to your own body is "monstrous"? That's a very strange way of putting it. Doctors can give you medications that kill you, but if you smoke a little weed you're "monstrous"? Someone wanting to die because they have a chronic deadly ailment with not much life left is "monstrous"?

[oceanloverOH]

Actually, it does. It says that if a baby is growing inside a mother, she has to carry it to term, she cannot have it removed or destroyed. That's removing a woman's right to her own body.

I have to vehemently disagree with this. Yes, a person should have a right to their OWN body, IMO. Piercings? Tats? As many as you want or can afford; tear yourself up. Drugs? Suicide? Go for it; if you wanna leave that bad, who am I to stop you? But that does NOT give anyone the right to remove or destroy a new life. That baby has the SAME right to its own body that the mother does. Just because it's helpless doesn't bestow a choice of removal or destruction on the mother. Carry that life, give it a chance, give it up for adoption and go back to whatever you were doing with YOUR OWN body.

[Mister D]

Freedom to the right to your own body is "monstrous"? That's a very strange way of putting it. Doctors can give you medications that kill you, but if you smoke a little weed you're "monstrous"? Someone wanting to die because they have a chronic deadly ailment with not much life left is "monstrous"?

Indeed, that would have been a very strange thing to say which is why I suspect you understand that wasn't my intention. The state acquiescing in a victim's supposed right to suicide is monstrous. The vast majority of suicides in this country have zero do with chronic or deadly ailments that do not have a psychological basis.

[Kizzume]

I have to vehemently disagree with this. Yes, a person should have a right to their OWN body, IMO. Piercings? Tats? As many as you want or can afford; tear yourself up. Drugs? Suicide? Go for it; if you wanna leave that bad, who am I to stop you? But that does NOT give anyone the right to remove or destroy a new life. That baby has the SAME right to its own body that the mother does. Just because it's helpless doesn't bestow a choice of removal or destruction on the mother. Carry that life, give it a chance, give it up for adoption and go back to whatever you were doing with YOUR OWN body.

Until the baby is born, for the mother, it's like having a parasite or a tumor growing inside you. You should have the right to have it removed.

[Mister D]

Until the baby is born, for the mother, it's like having a parasite or a tumor growing inside you. You should have the right to have it removed.

A growing human being is analogous to a parasite and a tumor?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Until the baby is born, for the mother, it's like having a parasite or a tumor growing inside you. You should have the right to have it removed.

Wow. I can't believe you really think this way.
Babies are beautiful things, tumors and parasites are ugly. If you really think of babies this way, it's no wonder you're pro-death.

[Kizzume]

Indeed, that would have been a very strange thing to say which is why I suspect you understand that wasn't my intention. The state acquiescing in a victim's supposed right to suicide is monstrous. The vast majority of suicides in this country have zero do with chronic or deadly ailments that do not have a psychological basis.
Why is it monstrous? If someone wants to kill themselves, why is it any of the state's business?

[Chris]

oceanloverOH, great post.


Kizzume, freedom is a responsibility, not an escape from it.



Way I see it it's a false dichotomy fostered largely by the left to see pro-life and pro-choice factions opposed, for neither women's nor the unborn's rights trump one another, the rights of both need to be considered.

[Mister D]

Well I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything positive to come of this...:rollseyes:

[Kizzume]

A growing human being is analogous to a parasite and a tumor?

While it's still in the mother, yes.

[oceanloverOH]

Until the baby is born, for the mother, it's like having a parasite or a tumor growing inside you. You should have the right to have it removed.

Oh, Kizz....a baby - - a parasite? a tumor? I can't even dignify that with an argument; it's so sad that you deem life of such little worth.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Oh, Kizz....a baby - - a parasite? a tumor? I can't even dignify that with an argument; it's so sad that you deem life of such little worth.

Like I said, babies are beautiful, life is amazing... whether you are religious or not every life should be a miracle.

[Kizzume]

I'll say what I've said before: If there was an affordable, reliable way for the baby to be removed from the mother, without killing it, and have it survive, then I think abortion should be illegal. Until we have that technology, I'm pro-choice.

[GrassrootsConservative]

i'll say what i've said before: If there was an affordable, reliable way for the baby to be removed from the mother, without killing it, and have it survive, then i think abortion should be illegal. Until we have that technology, i'm pro-choice.

There is, it's called birth!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kizzume]

There is, it's called birth!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't be silly. You know what I was saying. Someone can't just give birth if they've only been pregnant for a short time.

[Chris]

A growing human being is analogous to a parasite and a tumor?
While it's still in the mother, yes.


Special pleading, if not begging the question, kizzume, you're attempting to define away the issue.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Don't be silly. You know what I was saying. Someone can't just give birth if they've only been pregnant for a short time.

You said an affordable, reliable way for the baby to be removed from the mother without killing it, and have it survive.
Birth does all those things, so you do think abortion should be illegal? It's great.
Guy's, were making some headway here.

[Kizzume]

You said an affordable, reliable way for the baby to be removed from the mother without killing it, and have it survive.
Birth does all those things, so you do think abortion should be illegal? It's great.
Guy's, were making some headway here.
Premature babies often don't survive with the way things are now. You know very well the point I was making.

[Mister D]

Why is it monstrous? If someone wants to kill themselves, why is it any of the state's business?

Why is it the state's business if a man would rather not support his bastard children? Why do children have to receive a basic education? The state has an obvious interest in all three. Again, the vast majority of suicides have nothing to do with chronic or deadly ailments. Such a conception of freedom is indeed monstrous. It's not freedom but the abuse thereof.

[Mister D]

While it's still in the mother, yes.

That's chilling but OK.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Why is it the state's business if a man would rather not support his bastard children? Why do children have to receive a basic education? The state has an obvious interest in all three. Again, the vast majority of suicides have nothing to do with chronic or deadly ailments. Such a conception of freedom is indeed monstrous. It's not freedom but the abuse thereof.

Holy shit you're brilliant.

[WalterSobchak]

Thanks FAL, but he never got under my skin and I think my responses to his flame baiting in my thread have been quite civil. I haven't made 1 personal attack back at him despite his continued attempts to get them from me. I don't hold grudges, but it's clear that he does.
I appreciate your criticism.

Exotix, it's clear that you are a true Dumbocrat, your use of the term "dumbass ho's" would offend any woman. I'm not sure how you people can consider yourselves the party that women should vote for.

Keep up the intelligent discussion guys, I enjoy reading each and every post and now that I am awake again my response to you all will be quick and painless.
;)



Liberal "women" are the most unladylike people on the planet.

Between Moochow Odumba wanting to dictate the diets of the children in America to this old crone making middleschoolish babble about Ann Romney... Everyone on the left should be ashamed.


So calling Women "dumbass ho's" is bad, but calling the First Lady "Moochow Odumba" is ok?

Listen kid, you can't be against a group of people saying nasty things about Women they never met when you do it as well.

[Kizzume]

Why is it the state's business if a man would rather not support his bastard children? Why do children have to receive a basic education? The state has an obvious interest in all three. Again, the vast majority of suicides have nothing to do with chronic or deadly ailments. Such a conception of freedom is indeed monstrous. It's not freedom but the abuse thereof.
Look I'm not trying to say suicide is a good thing. It's a horrible thing. But I don't think it should be illegal.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So calling Women "dumbass ho's" is bad, but calling the First Lady "Moochow Odumba" is ok?

Listen kid, you can't be against a group of people saying nasty things about Women they never met when you do it as well.

I'm pretty sure "dumbass ho" is way more offensive than "Moochow Odumba"

[WalterSobchak]

I'm pretty sure "dumbass ho" is way more offensive than "Moochow Odumba"


Don't try to justify your hatred for one woman by calling her a cow and saying that isn't offensive enough.

Call your Mom, Sister.......hell, ANY Woman you know a cow and see how she responds to you.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Don't try to justify your hatred for one woman by calling her a cow and saying that isn't offensive enough.

Call you Mom, Sister.......hell, ANY Woman you know a cow and see how she responds to you.

Nice strawman, why don't you read the OP and tell me who's really the woman-hater?
Hint: It's Democrats.

[WalterSobchak]

Nice strawman, why don't you read the OP and tell me who's really the woman-hater?
Hint: It's Democrats.


Don't try to weasel your way out of your bullshit kid. YOU stated you are against people berating Women and saying awful things about them. Yet you have NO ISSUES calling the First Lady a cow.

You son, are a hypocrit.

[Chris]

I don't know, walter, there's a difference between berating women in general and berating a woman.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I don't know, walter, there's a difference between berating women in general and berating a woman.

Let him go, he's determined to attack me over a simple joke.

[WalterSobchak]

I don't know, walter, there's a difference between berating women in general and berating a woman.


There is NO difference. Women ARE Woman. Surely your Mothers didn't bring you up saying it's ok to berate A Woman but not a group of Women. My Mom would smack the taste out of my mouth if I dare said ugly shit to ANY Woman.

[WalterSobchak]

Let him go, he's determined to attack me over a simple joke.


Oh, so you do not believe Michelle Obama to be a cow?

Is it ok for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a **** or twat? After all, he is a comedian. I'm sure it was just a simple joke, right?

[GrassrootsConservative]

:laughing4:

Like I said.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Oh, so you do not believe Michelle Obama to be a cow?

Is it ok for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a **** or twat? After all, he is a comedian. I'm sure it was just a simple joke, right?

I never called her a cow, what the fuck is wrong with you that you are determined to attack me so bad that now you're sticking words in my mouth?
Get off my nuts.

[WalterSobchak]

:laughing4:

Like I said.


And like I said. You don't give a shit about offending Women. Your a hypocrit.

[WalterSobchak]

I never called her a cow, what the fuck is wrong with you that you are determined to attack me so bad that now you're sticking words in my mouth?
Get off my nuts.


Oh, so MOOchow is a childhood nickname of hers?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Oh, so MOOchow is a childhood nickname of hers?

No.... It's my own personal name for her that comes from MOOCH, not MOO like a cow. Are you really that ignorant that you think I'm trying to call her a cow?

Look up the word "mooch" and then back off. You're so wrong my stomach is hurting from laughing so hard.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Holy shit I can't believe this kid doesn't know what a Mooch is. Here's a fuckin hint:
She flies around on taxpayer dollars to see the world in jumbo jets doing dumb shit for no reason in a separate plane from Odumbas.
She hates her husband so much she can't even fly in the same plane as him.

[GrassrootsConservative]

And like I said. You don't give a shit about offending Women. Your a hypocrit.

Also: Hypocrite.
English is a great language to speak on an English forum. You should totally learn it so you can communicate effectively with us Americans.

[WalterSobchak]

They're well aware that Moochelle Odumba is a male. We've all heard from the people of Chicago about Odumba's life in that city's gay community. It all adds up.



We should have given that fat commie cow a box of twinkies beforehand to shut her up.



:biglaugh: funniest shit ever, it's really fucking simple people:
You can't win something if you fucking cheated. That fat fuck lesbian Libtard CNN moderator **** should have become informed on the FACTS before the debate and should have KNOWN that Odumba lied about ever calling the Libya attack terrorism. She said so after, but the damage was already done. Most biased debate moderator ever, she should be fired immediately.
Anyone who thinks that anyone besides Mitt Romney won that debate needs to have their head examined. If you were playing Monopoly with someone and they won by taking all the money from the bank while you weren't looking, is that a real win? Of course not. And that's what Odumba and that two-faced baby-eater did. They cheated. They cheated and soon everyone will know it because it's gaining rapid attention on the internet and in the news. Personally, I can't wait for these 2 conniving little asshats to be ousted so we can elect a president FIT TO RUN THIS COUNTRY and move on into the next true American triumph and away from this disaster.
It's pretty pathetic that to "win" a debate Odumba has to lie, interrupt, bully, and cheat. Barack Hussein Odumba, Joe Gaffe-o-matic Biden, Hillary Balls-of-Steel Clinton and every other puke-faced Libtard in The White House should all be fired immediately with the exception of Barack Hussein Odumba who should be arrested for treason and given life in prison. It's a joke to see a debate go this way without any kind of proper moderation. I watched the youtube video of it this morning and actually couldn't help but crack up every little bit, it was like watching an adult (Romney) try and reason with 2 children (Barack Hussein Odumba and that twinkie-guzzling woman from CNN) about why they're wrong. All the children could do was bicker and nitpick everything Romney said. No substance or anything to THEIR (2 vs 1) side of the debate.
This 2nd debate shouldn't be given a look for anything more than shits and giggles, and to show just WHY we need the presidential debates to be run by someone who isn't a big fat biased beefcake. Clearly this is the PERFECT example of why fair-and-balanced moderation is a MUST for our decision as to who elect president. The first debate is the most important and the VP debate is semi-important because it shows us just why we need to have civility in The White House and not an insane gigglebox.

That's all for now.


Oh yes GRC. Your just a typical good christian man who would NEVER say anything bad about Women.

[WalterSobchak]

Thank god the Women in this Country have you to be their champion against hate GRC.

[WalterSobchak]

No.... It's my own personal name for her that comes from MOOCH, not MOO like a cow. Are you really that ignorant that you think I'm trying to call her a cow?

Look up the word "mooch" and then back off. You're so wrong my stomach is hurting from laughing so hard.


Your full of shit kid. You know damn well what you meant. Don't play your bullshit semantics game with me.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Oh yes GRC. Your just a typical good christian man who would NEVER say anything bad about Women.

I am no Christian, I think Religion is one of the world's biggest problems right now.

But your argument is changing now, you're making this about something else because you realize that your attacks on me were completely unfounded and the assumptions you had about me were wrong so now what? You're making this about one of my rants? Pathetic.

You lost, grow up.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Your full of shit kid. You know damn well what you meant. Don't play your bullshit semantics game with me.

You're* full of shit, not "your".

You should take an English as a Second Language course instead of spending time on the internet trying to dabble in politics.

[WalterSobchak]

I am no Christian, I think Religion is one of the world's biggest problems right now.

But your argument is changing now, you're making this about something else because you realize that your attacks on me were completely unfounded and the assumptions you had about me were wrong so now what? You're making this about one of my rants? Pathetic.

You lost, grow up.


Man up kid. You don't give a damn about Women. Not with the words YOU WROTE that I have shown everybody who reads this thread.


It's time to nut up and admit your a fucking hypocritE <------Happy now, spelling Nazi?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Man up kid. You don't give a damn about Women. Not with the words YOU WROTE that I have shown everybody who reads this thread.


It's time to nut up and admit your a fucking hypocritE <------Happy now, spelling Nazi?

Don't call me a nazi, that's really fucking rude from someone who STILL can't spell "you're" instead of "your."

Don't drop out of highschool, you should drop the bong instead.

[WalterSobchak]

You're* full of shit, not "your".

You should take an English as a Second Language course instead of spending time on the internet trying to dabble in politics.


Ah, the final nail in the coffin for a failed argument. Resorting to grammatical and spelling errors instead of discussing your own horseshit.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Man up kid. You don't give a damn about Women. Not with the words YOU WROTE that I have shown everybody who reads this thread.


It's time to nut up and admit your a fucking hypocritE <------Happy now, spelling Nazi?

I care a lot more about women than any Liberal. I think your argument sucks and it's not even relevant to this thread. Read the OP and respond to that, if you can, child.

[WalterSobchak]

Don't call me a nazi, that's really fucking rude from someone who STILL can't spell "you're" instead of "your."

Don't drop out of highschool, you should drop the bong instead.


Don't claim to give a shit about Women when it is clear that you don't.

Now you resort to personal insults? Man you are a lost cause.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Ah, the final nail in the coffin for a failed argument. Resorting to grammatical and spelling errors instead of discussing your own horseshit.

Resorting to shit no one cares about instead of discussing the original post. I'm winning this argument, anyone could tell you that.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Don't claim to give a shit about Women when it is clear that you don't.

Now you resort to personal insults? Man you are a lost cause.

Lol now you're talking about MY personal insults? Read your attacks on me, hypocrite.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Your assumptions will be your downfall. Mooching has nothing to do with being a cow. Your childish games of animal noises have gotten you into a deep pit.

[KC]

Resorting to shit no one cares about instead of discussing the original post. I'm winning this argument, anyone could tell you that.

An argument is only won when you manage to have the other person re-examine their position. As far as I can tell you two are mostly trading insults.

[WalterSobchak]

I care a lot more about women than any Liberal. I think your argument sucks and it's not even relevant to this thread. Read the OP and respond to that, if you can, child.


Oh yes, your previous posts in other threads proves this quite well. Tell me something GRC, Is "Fat fuck lesbian libtard ****" a term of endearment?

[GrassrootsConservative]

An argument is only won when you manage to have the other person re-examine their position. As far as I can tell you two are mostly trading insults.

His argument started with the assumption that "Moochow Odumba" had something to do with me calling Michelle Obama a cow.
That was wrong and I have proven it.
Everything he does from that point on doesn't matter because his whole foundation is lost.

[WalterSobchak]

His argument started with the assumption that "Moochow Odumba" had something to do with me calling Michelle Obama a cow.
That was wrong and I have proven it.
Everything he does from that point on doesn't matter because his whole foundation is lost.


Fine, lets say you actually meant Mooch. I apologize.

Care to elaborate what you meant by "Fat fuck lesbian libtard ****?"

[GrassrootsConservative]

Fine, lets say you actually meant Mooch. I apologize.

Care to elaborate what you meant by "Fat fuck lesbian libtard ****?"

Why don't you go take that discussion to that thread?
Different thread here, different discussion. Discuss the OP and drop your pathetic strawman.
The war on women is the left and only the left.

[WalterSobchak]

Why don't you go take that discussion to that thread?
Different thread here, different discussion. Discuss the OP and drop your pathetic strawman.
The war on women is the left and only the left.

There is no bullshit war on women. Period.

So I guess you don't want to elaborate on your comment of "Fat fuck lesbian libtard ****." Figures.

Oh well, I have no more time for you with your faux concern for women. I need to go pick up my wife and enjoy my evening with her.

[GrassrootsConservative]

There is no bullshit war on women. Period.

So I guess you don't want to elaborate on your comment of "Fat fuck lesbian libtard ****." Figures.

Oh well, I have no more time for you with your faux concern for women. I need to go pick up my wife and enjoy my evening with her.

Do you care to elaborate on your comment about keeping threads on topic in that other thread while you come here and attack me with posts from another one of my threads, hypocrite?

[KC]

The war on women is the left and only the left.

Since it's my opinion that the war on women is a fiction created by politicians to gain support, I don't give credence to the idea that the right or left are waging political wars on women. My general belief is that most political "wars" are fought mostly between varying degrees of freedom and control. By this statement it seems that you do think that a war on women exists, and that it is fought in general by people on the left. What about American left ideology/policy makes you think that?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Since it's my opinion that the war on women is a fiction created by politicians to gain support, I don't give credence to the idea that the right or left are waging political wars on women. My general belief is that most political "wars are fought mostly between varying degrees of freedom and control. By this statement it seems that you do think that a war on women exists, and that it is fought in general by people on the left. What about American left ideology/policy makes you think that?

They seem to think women are stupid. As I said on the first page (possibly the first post) they are creating abortion as a tactic to make every election featuring a republican and a democrat (read: every election) into a whole election based solely around the fact that "republicans hate women and want to own their bodies."

This happens all the time, and I'm sick of it. Elections need to be based around EVERY issue, not just 1 issue.

Am I wrong about this?

[KC]

They seem to think women are stupid. As I said on the first page (possibly the first post) they are creating abortion as a tactic to make every election featuring a republican and a democrat (read: every election) into a whole election based solely around the fact that "republicans hate women and want to own their bodies."

This happens all the time, and I'm sick of it. Elections need to be based around EVERY issue, not just 1 issue.

Am I wrong about this?

No, and I see how you could think of it that way. Left-leaning politicians and people in the media do seem to want to manipulate women for political or financial gain, the way that politicians and media often do manipulate their constituents or viewers. But I would like to argue that politicians or media figures on the left do not actually represent the voices, beliefs or philosophies of the left as a whole, so you can see why I would take issue with a broad statement like the one I quoted from you.

Since I tend to take what could historically be seen as feminist positions on many issues related to contraception, birth control or abortion, which also happen to be the positions of most Americans on the left, I'd be pretty disheartened to know that these positions actually constitute a war on women.

[Deadwood]

If you want to word it that way, fine. You're probably pro-death-penalty, so you're also pro-death. I think people should have the right to their own bodies.

That is absurd and a huge leap of logic.

How the fuck does the death penalty even come into a debate on women and the support they may or may not have for Romney?

FFS, pro death penalty?

[GrassrootsConservative]

That is absurd and a huge leap of logic.

How the fuck does the death penalty even come into a debate on women and the support they may or may not have for Romney?

FFS, pro death penalty?

Yeah... um... (uneasily shifting in my chair) you'll notice nobody responded to this uninformed bullshit.

[Deadwood]

Until the baby is born, for the mother, it's like having a parasite or a tumor growing inside you. You should have the right to have it removed.

OK, if we use your logic as it has flowed here, you have just defined an unborn baby as a "parasite".

Wow....

That's pretty extreme don't you think?

[Deadwood]

There is NO difference. Women ARE Woman. Surely your Mothers didn't bring you up saying it's ok to berate A Woman but not a group of Women. My Mom would smack the taste out of my mouth if I dare said ugly shit to ANY Woman.

Yet you say some pretty harsh things to men. Does that make you a man hater? Or are you a sexist in that you do not treat women as equals.

[KC]

OK, if we use your logic as it has flowed here, you have just defined an unborn baby as a "parasite".

Wow....

That's pretty extreme don't you think?

If a parasite is defined as an organism that relies on a host for support without giving any benefit to the host in return, then under that definition for the fetus while it remains in the womb is not only extreme but also extremely correct.

[Deadwood]

An argument is only won when you manage to have the other person re-examine their position. As far as I can tell you two are mostly trading insults.


Yes, but its still better than anything posted by rolled tobacco products...

[GrassrootsConservative]

If a parasite is defined as an organism that relies on a host for support without giving any benefit to the host in return, then under that definition for the fetus while it remains in the womb is not only extreme but also extremely correct.

This is only true if you take emotions out of it.
Babies are NOT parasites, they provide their mothers with a lot of benefits.
Maybe not physical, but I promise you there are scientific benefits to mothers from the babies inside them.

[Deadwood]

If a parasite is defined as an organism that relies on a host for support without giving any benefit to the host in return, then under that definition for the fetus while it remains in the womb is not only extreme but also extremely correct.

I think your going to have to show me that that is a scientifically based term.

Secondly, "parasite" in normal usage has a very negative connotation, like mold and mildew.

[KC]

This is only true if you take emotions out of it.
Babies are NOT parasites, they provide their mothers with a lot of benefits.
Maybe not physical, but I promise you there are scientific benefits to mothers from the babies inside them.
Babies are not fetuses. I do think that babies provide their mothers and fathers with plenty of emotional, chemical and physical benefits. While in the womb however, it seems to me that the denotation of parasite is appropriate for describing a fetus.

[Deadwood]

Babies are not fetuses. I do think that babies provide their mothers and fathers with plenty of emotional, chemical and physical benefits. While in the womb however, it seems to me that the denotation of parasite is appropriate for describing a fetus.


Try that on a mother, then duck!

[KC]

Try that on a mother, then duck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

[KC]

Try that on a mother, then duck!

So you don't disagree then? Or you just didn't feel like disputing my claim?

In any case I don't usually go up to a woman I know when she's pregnant and say "Oh, I see you've gotten yourself a parasite! Wonderful!" That's because we focus more on the beauty that the woman is going to be bringing a new life into the world, not on the fact that in order to do this she will have to endure some serious pain or that at the moment the fetus isn't doing much for her, physically.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So you don't disagree then? Or you just didn't feel like disputing my claim?

In any case I don't usually go up to a woman I know when she's pregnant and say "Oh, I see you've gotten yourself a parasite! Wonderful!" That's because we focus more on the beauty that the woman is going to be bringing a new life into the world, not on the fact that in order to do this she will have to endure some serious pain or that at the moment the fetus isn't doing much for her, physically.

That's why we're making the point that him calling it a parasite is really ridiculous and extreme.

[KC]

That's why we're making the point that him calling it a parasite is really ridiculous and extreme.

In a social context you're right, but this in the context of a political/philosophical debate on an anonymous internet forum, I think it's excusable. This is one of the few places we don't have to be politically correct, isn't it?

[Deadwood]

Babies are not fetuses. I do think that babies provide their mothers and fathers with plenty of emotional, chemical and physical benefits. While in the womb however, it seems to me that the denotation of parasite is appropriate for describing a fetus.

Of course, when you invent your own definition then you can make anything happen. By your definition hair and fingernails would be parasites.

However, and I realize it's only Wiki...please see the following



Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism) of different species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_%28biology%29). Traditionally parasite referred to organisms with lifestages that needed more than one host (e.g. Taenia solium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taenia_solium)). These are now called macroparasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroparasite) (typically protozoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protozoan_infection) and helminths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminths)). Parasite now also refers to microparasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microparasite), which are typically smaller, such as viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses) and bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_infection), and can be directly transmitted between hosts of the same species.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite#cite_note-Combes-0) Examples of parasites include the plants mistletoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistletoe) and cuscuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuscuta), and organisms such as leeches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeches).


Ah, I would say that excludes a fetus...

[GrassrootsConservative]

Wham

Bam

Thank you ma'am.

I would say that just about solves that discussion, not only is it hateful, but also factually wrong.

What to talk about now that that's done?

[Deadwood]

Wham

Bam

Thank you ma'am.

I would say that just about solves that discussion, not only is it hateful, but also factually wrong.

What talk about now that that's done?

Whether tobacco product, the single most addictive substance known to mankind, should be outlawed?

[KC]

Of course, when you invent your own definition then you can make anything happen. By your definition hair and fingernails would be parasites.


Hair and fingernails are not organisms.

I do think that your definition would exclude the fetus from being considered a parasite. However the word parasite isn't pegged to that one definition.

When I google "parasite definiton" the first result is compatible with the definition I provided.


An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

That's why in my orignal post I used the words "If a parasite is defined." I recognize that the word can be defined in multiple ways but when it is defined in this way, Kizzume's usage is correct.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Hair and fingernails are not organisms.

I do think that your definition would exclude the fetus from being considered a parasite. However the word parasite isn't pegged to that one definition.

When I google "parasite definiton" the first result is compatible with the definition I provided.



That's why in my orignal post I used the words "If a parasite is defined." I recognize that the word can be defined in multiple ways but when it is defined in this way, Kizzume's usage is correct.

Just got done googling "scientific definition of parasite", this is what I get:


An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment. Parasites are generally harmful to their hosts, although the damage they do ranges widely from minor inconvenience to debilitating or fatal disease.
♦ A parasite that lives or feeds on the outer surface of the host's body, such as a louse, tick, or leech, is called an ectoparasite (http://science.yourdictionary.com/ectoparasite) . Ectoparasites do not usually cause disease themselves although they are frequently a vector of disease, as in the case of ticks, which can transmit the organisms that cause such diseases as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease.
♦ A parasite that lives inside the body of its host is called an endoparasite (http://science.yourdictionary.com/endoparasite) . Endoparasites include organisms such as tapeworms, hookworms, and trypanosomes that live within the host's organs or tissues, as well as organisms such as sporozoans that invade the host's cells. See more at host (http://science.yourdictionary.com/host).

[Deadwood]

Hair and fingernails are not organisms.

I do think that your definition would exclude the fetus from being considered a parasite. However the word parasite isn't pegged to that one definition.

When I google "parasite definiton" the first result is compatible with the definition I provided.



That's why in my orignal post I used the words "If a parasite is defined." I recognize that the word can be defined in multiple ways but when it is defined in this way, Kizzume's usage is correct.

What source?

If you are going to use a biological word, then I suggest you stay with biological definitions...

That is lame

[Deadwood]

We have men arguing about fetuses...

Hilarious...

I'm done here.

[KC]

Just got done googling "scientific definition of parasite", this is what I get:

Under that definition the use of the word "parasite" here in this context would be inappropriate.

[GrassrootsConservative]

We have men arguing about fetuses...

Hilarious...

On a Political Forum in a thread about Sexist Leftists, no less.
:laughing4: Let me get my purse.

[Kizzume]

Of course, when you invent your own definition then you can make anything happen. By your definition hair and fingernails would be parasites.

Everyone has fingernails and hair growing their whole lives. But if you really look at it, some people DO treat hair like parasites, look how obsessed society is with clean-shaven faces. Some people cut back their nails so far that they can injure their fingers easily from everyday tasks.


However, and I realize it's only Wiki...please see the following

Ah, I would say that excludes a fetus...
It's something growing inside of someone, and some people don't WANT it growing inside them. If there was an inexpensive, tried and true and proven method to remove the fetus WELL before it grows big enough to be considered a baby, in a way that it could survive because of technology, I would be against abortion. But since that technology is not available, I side with the mother's rights over the fetus.

[Chris]

Everyone has fingernails and hair growing their whole lives. But if you really look at it, some people DO treat hair like parasites, look how obsessed society is with clean-shaven faces. Some people cut back their nails so far that they can injure their fingers easily from everyday tasks.

It's something growing inside of someone, and some people don't WANT it growing inside them. If there was an inexpensive, tried and true and proven method to remove the fetus WELL before it grows big enough to be considered a baby, in a way that it could survive because of technology, I would be against abortion. But since that technology is not available, I side with the mother's rights over the fetus.

You're still special pleading, kizzume.

It's really remarkable that a liberal who is likely all for equal rights otherwise "side[s] with the mother's rights over the fetus" and for the reason the fetus is dependent.

Each individual in dependent on society, and to some, government ("you didn't build that"). Does that then justify killing anyone? Absurd, right. Though thereby is justified redistribution of wealth, stealing from some and giving to others.

[Deadwood]

You're still special pleading, kizzume.

It's really remarkable that a liberal who is likely all for equal rights otherwise "side[s] with the mother's rights over the fetus" and for the reason the fetus is dependent.

Each individual in dependent on society, and to some, government ("you didn't build that"). Does that then justify killing anyone? Absurd, right. Though thereby is justified redistribution of wealth, stealing from some and giving to others.

Sieve logic I would call that....

[GrassrootsConservative]

I'd call it a lack of logic.

[Kizzume]

You're still special pleading, kizzume.

It's really remarkable that a liberal who is likely all for equal rights otherwise "side[s] with the mother's rights over the fetus" and for the reason the fetus is dependent.

Each individual in dependent on society, and to some, government ("you didn't build that"). Does that then justify killing anyone? Absurd, right. Though thereby is justified redistribution of wealth, stealing from some and giving to others.
Name another type of "dependent" than grows inside of someone. I'm waiting.

[Chris]

Name another type of "dependent" than grows inside of someone. I'm waiting.

One of the key attributes of life is growth.

And the dependent we speak of is human.

Declared an apodeictic truth, by natural law, we all have equal rights.