dljen wrote:
My preoccupation with females is disturbing?????? I AM a female, I will always stand up for what's right for my g****r. ALWAYS. Democratic women have had to fight for us, women who went before me, only to have Republican men take away our rights. Ignorant Republican men, men who don't know the first thing about a woman's reproduction system. Look at the comments they make. Republican women aren't much better, they stay in the shadows, getting their a******ns quietly while we fight for our freedoms.
My preoccupation with females is disturbing?????? ... (
show quote)
You're also allegedly a human being, with morals, with an understanding of the constitution and of our laws, a citizen, a daughter, etc., etc., etc.
If you are only defining yourself by your g****r than you have my utmost pity. Apparently, the single most important issue in your mind is being female, followed closely by an assertion that you can have a child ripped out of your womb at, say, 36 weeks ------ as a whim, because you had a bad day, because it's Wednesday.
Your assertion that men know nothing about the female reproduction system highlights your arrogance AND ignorance. I suspect most, if not all, had at least h.s. Biology.
As most progressives, since someone disagrees with you your reaction is to attack them, marginalized them, assume their are somehow less intelligent than you, etc. your attack on republican women is indicative of the intolerant, narrow mind of the progressive movement.
So, yes...........your singular preoccupation with g****r is both disturbing and sad.
dljen wrote:
Isn't it funny how all of a sudden you want to regulate women's reproduction rights after arguing for days that your gun rights shouldn't be touched? Repeat, not your business. Many times women will have a******ns and not tell their SO when they're radical. And if you think because you're a christian, your SO would never have an a******n, think again.
If you're responding to me you're just plain wrong.
As I said, if it's late term/partial birth without a special circumstance, it is the taking of a life. In that case, IDGAF if you're female, male, questioning, or somewhere in between. If you want to use your lame gun analogy, it would compare to these guys with guns walking up to a cop and shooting him "because they're male and wanted target practice".
Your preoccupation with females is disturbing. The argument I am making has nothing to do with g****r.
dljen wrote:
No, I'm not for late term a******ns but I repeat, not your business, not any man's business. The woman decides whether she wants to carry the fetus or not. This is why women want guns regulated.
Actually, as a law abiding citizen of the U.S. Late term a******ns ARE my business..........if it is the legal taking of a life than you are just plain wrong.
Your fixation on g****r is somewhat disturbing, but pretty much what I experience from progressives.
dljen wrote:
Republican lawmakers are very confused with women's reproduction rights. No a******ns are not murder, of course not. Why do you feel you should regulate women's bodies? Isn't your party against regulation?
Well, let's start with the fact I'm not a republican.
Now, I repeat..... Donna, are you on of those psychos that believes a person has a right to a******n at any time they deem they want one, even partial birth a******ns, for any reason? Do you actually think these type of a******ns are NOT murdr? All just because they/you are a woman???????
I wil be clear on the issue......the country overwhelmingly is against these type a******ns, and yes, under almost any definition they are murder.
Per your post, I have to ask.......are you one if those who supports late term and partial birth a******ns? If so, I find it very sad that you are blinded by a baseless, needless dogma and can't think through the medical issues involved.
rmalarz wrote:
Excellent advice, Jerry. At work, they had us attend an active shooter lecture. It was presented by, none other, than one of the town's SWAT team members. We were informed of the "safe rooms" within our office building. We were also told that once secured inside a safe room, don't open the door for anyone. The police will open the door when it's safe to do so. They have keys that will either unlock the door, or remove the lock from the door.
After the lecture, we were invited to pose questions, most of which dealt with clarification of our instructions. Then I asked a question, "What do you suggest we do to keep you from shooting us?" The officer responded with, "Great question". He proceeded to give us very rudimentary things that will keep us safe. Don't move and keep your hands visible. If you do move, do it very slowly and at the request of an officer.
As you pointed out, a group of people running around with guns is a great way to up the victim count, and at the expense of the LEOs who are trying to put a stop to the carnage.
The only way I can see being armed as a benefit is prior to any attack. If the attacker knows a confrontation with armed individuals is going to be the result of any actions the attacker takes, it might require second thoughts about going through with an attack. Keep in mind, the attacks in recent times, back, at least, to Columbine, the attackers knew the victims would be unarmed. This includes Ft. Hood, where soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons most of the time.
But then, if the attacker wants to be a martyr, it's a sure way to succeed.
--Bob
Excellent advice, Jerry. At work, they had us atte... (
show quote)
Yeah, NOT running around with guns really, really helped those folks in Paris, Brussels, San Bernandino, Orlando..........
Your advice sucks, as does most the platitudes coming from the left on this issue. Just to make it fair, why don't you or Jerry supply us with all of the examples where nuts with guns reacted to an armed attack on a large, confined crowd and ended up being them that actually killed mass quantities of innocent people?????
The quick passing is strictly a red herring to get the "folks" to believe everything is kosher. Then, they will eventually say "uh oh, we have a shortage. Without a tax increase, poor children of color will starve and be deprived of oxygen", and there will be a tax increase.
dljen wrote:
The freedom to decide what women want to do with reproductive rights. Republican men want to always regulate women...they haven't learned it's not their business.
You use such inclusive phrases that do little more than to define the narrowness of your thought. Firs, why should you give a fcuk what a republican guy thinks? Why limit it to guys? Why limit it to republicans? Have you seen the recent nationwide polls on the issue?
Having said that, there is virtually NO chance of the right to a******n going away. There IS, hopefully, a chance late term a******ns will become illegal w/ exceptions.
Now, Donna, are you on of those psychos that believes a person has a right to a******n at any time they deem they want one, even partial birth a******ns, for any reason? Do you actually think these type of a******ns are NOT murdr? All just because they/you are a woman???????
ArtzDarkroom wrote:
That is a rotten situation to be sure and it is my experience that crooked politicians get caught eventually, usually by somebody trying to take their seat.
Term limits would fix almost all Of this.
foathog wrote:
That wouldn't stop THE DONALD. If were up to him bullets would have been flying all over that bar, just like in the old Dodge City days. He's seen too many TV shows where everything works out like clockwork. Not everyone can shoot like Dirty Harry.
Really? I would like to see that quote.
[quote=ArtzDarkroom]One year, according to the article we went 105 days deadlocked. This is a great improvement. Is it perfect, no. Progress is still possible. If your state is doing better kudos to them. How do they do it?
It is no crime to celebrate progress, no matter how little it may seem to some. It encourages further grow. Are you not a parent? You should know this.[/quo
Nope.... Mine is doing much worse. We finally elected a non-profit politician, and he is refusing to approve a budget that doesn't begin to fix the problem.
From Experience here in Illinois I can tell you pretending to get along, and approving a bad budget, just means they are all getting something in their pocket!
jerryc41 wrote:
This should probably be taught in schools. You know how before an event starts, someone will point out the exits in case a fire starts? Maybe they should tell the audience what to do if shooting starts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/17/how-to-survive-an-active-shooting-like-orlando/?utm_term=.b1fcd6a3bb4e&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1
“The last thing you want to do in an active shooter event is to pull your gun out and go hunting for the shooter. If there are other concealed gun carriers in the attack location, they may shoot you. If the police show up and you are running around with a gun, they will probably shoot you. Remember that no one knows who you are. The responders are looking for someone with a gun and you match that description.”
This should probably be taught in schools. You kn... (
show quote)
Yeah, huddling and shaking in the corner works real well.
Of course, at the previous "worst" mass shooting, a citizen went of campus, got his gun (it was a guns free zone on campus), came back and stopped the shooter. Several years ago at a high schoo, out west, some members of the wrestling team attacked, instead of running away, and took the gun from the shooter.
In other words, fighting back works, period. To think otherwise makes one, at worse, a stupid victim instead of just a victim.
If I'm in a guns free zone theater, and someone starts shooting, I hope to hell Idaholover or one of the other guys on this blog is in the audience with his gun.
😄
steve03 wrote:
Why not, 50 dead and 40 wounded and your worried about vocabulary? Isn't 50 dead enough to show how effective that weapon is?
Let's see.........50 dead over three hours, while 168 dead in about 13 seconds in Oklahoma City. Hmmmmm?
Passing a budget is meaningless unless it is truly balanced.......California's is NOT!
From the California Policy Center:
"Claiming to have balanced the budget ignores the growing unfunded liabilities associated with public employee pensions and other unfunded retirement benefits, mainly health care. This also ignores the fact that the state has fallen behind in maintenance and expansion of its infrastructure."
As in the past, I suspect even this does not cover the shortfalls. Passing "A", than spending "B", is the norm out ther, yes?