Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march

[Green Arrow]

When you walk that walk with your left leaning buddies and the threads they start. Then you can be taken for your word. Until then....your just talking to be talking.

Most of the left-wingers on this forum think I'm a conservative Republican because of how often I criticize them.

I don't blame you for not knowing that, you tend to disappear from the forum for long stretches between elections. I'm just always here.

[FindersKeepers]

Okay, let's try a different track.

What, specifically, do you think is insidious about their goals?

Why am I getting the feeling that you haven't been reading all that I posted in this thread?

Here we go:

"We demand free abortion without conditions..."

"All women, irrespective of citizenship status, sexuality or race, must have equal pay for equal work, $15 minimum wage, including for caregivers, free universal child care, paid maternity leave, sick leave, paid family leave and the freedom to organize a fighting union in the workplace."

"... we demand an expansiverestructuring of the American welfare system to serve the needs of the majority, such as universal healthcare, robust unemployment and social security benefits, and free education for all."

"...the demand for open borders and for immigrant rights and for the decolonization of Palestine are for us the beating heart of this new feminist movement. "

https://www.womenstrikeus.org/

Fair enough.

Looking at the motives of the organizers is fine, if done rationally. The article that was supplied in the OP was not rational, it just relied on a lot of hot button labels and fearmongering.

It's not just "fine" it's essential in a thinking society. We could, I suppose, hide those little nitpicking things, such as the ones I just posted, and pretend they don't exist. But, who does that help?

I was referring to the historic practice of labeling anyone that disagreed with the incumbent administration communists or communist sympathizers, which led to firings, blacklists, imprisonment, torture, and forced many to flee the country. It was done to innocent Americans that dared to see good in a minority philosophy.

Then, don't label the women. It makes no difference. It won't moderate or change their agenda. Their agenda is still insidious, whether you cover in chocolate and marshmallow topping, or whether you expose it as it appears in their own words.

You could, however, continue to try and suppress it by leaning on those who bring it up.

[nic34]

Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march


The day without women is being organized by a convicted terrorist. That should get little to no coverage by the MSM.



Other organizers are no less ambitious:

God, I'm shaking in my boots...

[Green Arrow]

Why am I getting the feeling that you haven't been reading all that I posted in this thread?

You listed their goals, you did not explain why those goals are insidious. That was my question.

It's not just "fine" it's essential in a thinking society. We could, I suppose, hide those little nitpicking things, such as the ones I just posted, and pretend they don't exist. But, who does that help?

I've never argued they should be hidden. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Then, don't label the women. It makes no difference. It won't moderate or change their agenda. Their agenda is still insidious, whether you cover in chocolate and marshmallow topping, or whether you expose it as it appears in their own words.

You could, however, continue to try and suppress it by leaning on those who bring it up.

Label the women all you like. Just present an argument against their ideas.

[FindersKeepers]

You listed their goals, you did not explain why those goals are insidious. That was my question.

Actually, that was not your question, your first concern was that mentioning the womens' agenda would somehow create a Red Scare, but, I'll humor you.

Insidious means to have a hidden agenda, one that someone hopes or attempts to inject into a situation that appears to be something different. That's exactly what is happening here. The organizers' agenda is not well known to the average woman protester, who thinks the March 8 event is solely anti-Trump.

I've never argued they should be hidden. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You just tried to silence anyone who mentioned what was occurring. Perhaps I should not use the word, "hidden," but rather the word "censorship," by intimidation. And, while I love you dearly, I'm not easily intimidated.

Label the women all you like. Just present an argument against their ideas.

The argument against their goals is off-topic in this specific thread, which focuses more on some of their histories, and how the average woman is not aware of the goals, but it would be a good topic for another thread.

[Peter1469]

And personally, I find it fascinating, although I may be the only one here who thinks so.

It has piqued my interest and I now intend to watch more carefully to pick up signs of these women's involvement and influence.

Let's revisit this after the march.

I will update the thread after the march.

[Peter1469]

God, I'm shaking in my boots...

You will be fine.

[Green Arrow]

I apologize for the delay, @FindersKeepers. As my wife keeps reminding me, we're technically on vacation, so I've been trying to relax.

Actually, that was not your question, your first concern was that mentioning the womens' agenda would somehow create a Red Scare, but, I'll humor you.

That was not what I said. My question in the post just before this one you quoted did ask that question. The bit about the Red Scare was specifically in regards to your attempt to slap the communist label on their beliefs (using the derisive term "commies") and intimating that their choice of the color red was more evidence of "insidious" intent. It sounded eerily similar to me to the Red Scare rhetoric of the Cold War, where loyal Americans like Charlie Chaplin were blacklisted and forced to flee the country for daring to question the powers that be and advocate policies different from the status quo.

Insidious means to have a hidden agenda, one that someone hopes or attempts to inject into a situation that appears to be something different. That's exactly what is happening here. The organizers' agenda is not well known to the average woman protester, who thinks the March 8 event is solely anti-Trump.

Except their agenda can't be considered hidden when they've made it very clear even on the movement's website (among other sources), they've done literally nothing to hide it. If the women that take part in the March 8 marches don't know that's because they didn't bother to inform themselves, not because the organizers are mustache-twirling villains.

You just tried to silence anyone who mentioned what was occurring. Perhaps I should not use the word, "hidden," but rather the word "censorship," by intimidation. And, while I love you dearly, I'm not easily intimidated.

I keep forgetting that criticism now qualifies as "censorship."

The argument against their goals is off-topic in this specific thread, which focuses more on some of their histories, and how the average woman is not aware of the goals, but it would be a good topic for another thread.

It really isn't. The goals are part of the topic, if y'all want to actually persuade anyone to take your side you should be offering counter-arguments against their goals.