Arvoitus 1 #26 December 12, 2012 Quote Well, I suppose if you are ignorant of the concept of evolution this viewpoint makes sense. I don't see the connection to evolution where I have to work to pay for the consequences of other people's choices. Quote The 'lazy cunt' is also the 'lazy prick' that was too lazy to stick a rubber on it. It case you missed basic 8th grade biology, it takes two people to make a baby, it only takes one of them to fuck it up and the other to end up in poverty and on welfare (potentially) To bad you cannot see ..... The thread was about the idiotic concept of using stupid hyperbole like 'War on Women' to disguise simple entitlement attitude and unwillingness to take responsibility for your own behavior, not about basic biology. Quote Its moments like this where I thank god that I live in a modern metropolitan area. I'm sure you're willfully ignorant of this, but it actually saves tax payers money when we end up with less people like you when "lazy cunts" have access to birth control. You really prove my point in the most fantastically ironic way, bravo sir. If it were up to me, there'd be a global one child policy and a license to breed. Unfortunately its not up to me.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CygnusX-1 43 #27 December 12, 2012 Quote "God Bless America" and "my country is the best" are different things altogether. Maybe you should change your signature line to "God bless my wife" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #28 December 12, 2012 >If it were up to me, there'd be a global one child policy and a license to breed. Administered by a beneficent global government that would NEVER make the license to breed a method of control? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 December 12, 2012 Actually, I need a little more insight on how living in a higher density area conveys wisdom, moral high ground, and amazing sophisticated insight. I have to assume, that having, say, over 1 million people, within a 60 miles radius or so must stimulate the endocrine system, or the brain stem. I assume it's a gravitational, or electro-magnetic effect due to the constantly moving population mass in such close proximity. so if F = (n)G.M1.M2/Rsq with n being the number of people, and R being relatively small compared to those living in, say, Montana. Well, it's perfectly clear where the super-intellectual effect being claimed can be proven here I am, consistently taking individuals by what they do and how they act on a one at a time basis before deciding if they are decent or not. What a SAP, all I really needed to ever know is where they live. Clearly, growing up on a farm has hamstrung me despite my time in Phoenix, Pittsburgh, DC, and Minneapolis. I really need to move to Tokyo ASAP or risk being culturally deficient. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #30 December 13, 2012 Its also funny how conservatives are outraged over the phrase "war on women" but are perfectly supportive of the "war on christmas". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 December 13, 2012 QuoteIts also funny how conservatives are outraged over the phrase "war on women" but are perfectly supportive of the "war on christmas". Of course! There's all kinds of war on everything. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Terror! War on Obesity. "War on" has become as abused as putting "-gate" to the end of any piss ant scandal. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #32 December 13, 2012 QuoteIts also funny how conservatives are outraged over the phrase "war on women" but are perfectly supportive of the "war on christmas". How do I wage war on christmas? I seriously need to know. Fucking hate this crap, hate those stupid fucking jingles that play in super markets, hate all those old farts who're constantly trying to cut the long ass line at the post office, cause they just need a few christmas cards, ignoring the fact that've already spent 15 mins idling in the fucking queue, thinking their needs are more important then mine. I should just move to asia every december to avoid all this shit.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #33 December 14, 2012 Quote How do I wage war on christmas? I seriously need to know. Fucking hate this crap, hate those stupid fucking jingles that play in super markets, hate all those old farts who're constantly trying to cut the long ass line at the post office, cause they just need a few christmas cards, ignoring the fact that've already spent 15 mins idling in the fucking queue, thinking their needs are more important then mine. I should just move to asia every december to avoid all this shit. Grinch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 December 14, 2012 More from the "Real War on Women" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/13/andrea_mitchell_women_in_administration_are_angry_with_obama_for_susan_rice.html Quote ANDREA MITCHELL: A lot of Democrats are saying that the president did not show enough loyalty. A lot of women in the administration are very angry tonight, and I'm saying this at a very high level. Angry because they feel that she was not treated with respect, she was not given the support she needed and she was left to twist in the wind. RACHEL MADDOW: They're angry, with whom though? MITCHELL: Angry with the White House. And with the boss, with the president, for not be willing to fight this out. That he's backed down in the face of a challenge from the Republican minority, after having won a reelection victory. And most people in the foreign policy community understand that as qualified as John Kerry is, and he's superbly qualified, he was trained -- he lived for this post -- a son of a diplomat, and clearly wanted this job and will get this job. But the anger is that she was not responsible for Benghazi. And that what was said on those Sunday talk shows -- if you were to deny a promotion to everyone who misspeaks or gets something wrong on Sunday television, including all of us, there would be no one left in Washington. So, for her to be punished for Benghazi, which was not even her responsibility. If there were failures -- and this independent review board is coming with its report next week, or its going to be presented to Congress next week. Hillary Clinton, we're told, from the House and the Senate, is scheduled to testify next Thursday. That is likely to conclude that the State Department was largely at fault for failure, security failures prior to Benghazi. So to blame Susan Rice, whose over at the U.N., mostly in New York City, for Benghazi is really a stretch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 December 14, 2012 I doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #36 December 14, 2012 An eerily similar echo of some recent politician's statements, but this one is from someone who's opinion actually matters. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/14/judge-derek-johnson-rape-sex_n_2298832.html?utm_hp_ref=uk Wow.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 December 14, 2012 Sounds like he's being admonished for it, as well. And yes, that is also no different than executing a woman. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #38 December 15, 2012 QuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though.[/reply} I gather that's the conversation Obama had with Rice right before she withdrew herself. You see people talk a lot different in private than they do before the camera: "Susan, you fu ked up. You got to go. I'll make you Ambassador to x if you want it.. la de da... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #39 December 15, 2012 QuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. They will not fight for Rice, I think she might have actually made a decent SoS. Just watch them nominate a rich white male who's a member of the 'good ole boys' club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites headoverheels 333 #40 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. They will not fight for Rice, I think she might have actually made a decent SoS. Just watch them nominate a rich white male who's a member of the 'good ole boys' club. Yes, but if it isn't John Kerrey, look for the Republicans to pitch a fit. They want it to be him, so there will be some hope of Scott Brown getting the vacated seat in the next election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #41 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. They will not fight for Rice, I think she might have actually made a decent SoS. Just watch them nominate a rich white male who's a member of the 'good ole boys' club. Yes, but if it isn't John Kerrey, look for the Republicans to pitch a fit. They want it to be him, so there will be some hope of Scott Brown getting the vacated seat in the next election. Yup, and Obama fell right into the political trap. BTW, did you know John Kerry was in Vietnam? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #42 December 16, 2012 Quote Quote Quote ...the idea that tax payers need to pick up the tab for some lazy cunts morning after pills? Well, I suppose if you are ignorant of the concept of evolution this viewpoint makes sense. I don't see the connection to evolution where I have to work to pay for the consequences of other people's choices. If a person holds an individual or group of people in such low regard, I would think it would be an easy sell if that individual or group of people offered to limit how frequently they were reproducing (spreading their lowly-regarded genes) if the tab was picked up for them. From an evolutionary standpoint that's always going to be money well spent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #43 January 3, 2013 GOP blocks reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Nice one, Cantor. And Republicans wonder why they didn't win the womens' vote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #44 January 3, 2013 Both houses passed versions of it last year. The Senate passed theirs and the House passed its. This is another partisan ploy to blame a failure of the Senate and House to markup the bills on the House. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #45 January 3, 2013 QuoteBoth houses passed versions of it last year. The Senate passed theirs and the House passed its. This is another partisan ploy to blame a failure of the Senate and House to markup the bills on the House. Another reminder of kallends autobiographical work"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #46 January 3, 2013 QuoteThe White House’s Flickr account recently released a photo of President Barack Obama and his top advisers. The complete absence of women in the image is another reminder that females are underrepresented in Obama’s staff. Additionally, the president still pays his female employees significantly less than their male counterparts. The Obama White House in 2011 paid female staffers 18 percent less than their male colleagues: According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000). The Obama reelection campaign, though better, was also a bastion of inequality: The Obama reelection campaign’s female employees earned an average of $6,872 during that period, compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of $363, or 5.3 percent. The annualized pay difference is more than $2,100 per year. It is unclear when Obama and the Democrats will call off the war on women. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #47 January 3, 2013 Facts are a crutch for the right wing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #48 January 3, 2013 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #49 January 3, 2013 > The complete absence of women in the image is another reminder that females are > underrepresented in Obama’s staff. Let it be known to all that RushMC has just become a supporter of affirmative action and quotas! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #39 December 15, 2012 QuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. They will not fight for Rice, I think she might have actually made a decent SoS. Just watch them nominate a rich white male who's a member of the 'good ole boys' club. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #40 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. They will not fight for Rice, I think she might have actually made a decent SoS. Just watch them nominate a rich white male who's a member of the 'good ole boys' club. Yes, but if it isn't John Kerrey, look for the Republicans to pitch a fit. They want it to be him, so there will be some hope of Scott Brown getting the vacated seat in the next election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 December 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI doubt Susan Rice withdrew herself. Rather, I think that the administration told Susan Rice to withdraw herself so they wouldn't have to withdraw her. This wasn't a "woman" issue, though. They will not fight for Rice, I think she might have actually made a decent SoS. Just watch them nominate a rich white male who's a member of the 'good ole boys' club. Yes, but if it isn't John Kerrey, look for the Republicans to pitch a fit. They want it to be him, so there will be some hope of Scott Brown getting the vacated seat in the next election. Yup, and Obama fell right into the political trap. BTW, did you know John Kerry was in Vietnam? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #42 December 16, 2012 Quote Quote Quote ...the idea that tax payers need to pick up the tab for some lazy cunts morning after pills? Well, I suppose if you are ignorant of the concept of evolution this viewpoint makes sense. I don't see the connection to evolution where I have to work to pay for the consequences of other people's choices. If a person holds an individual or group of people in such low regard, I would think it would be an easy sell if that individual or group of people offered to limit how frequently they were reproducing (spreading their lowly-regarded genes) if the tab was picked up for them. From an evolutionary standpoint that's always going to be money well spent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #43 January 3, 2013 GOP blocks reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Nice one, Cantor. And Republicans wonder why they didn't win the womens' vote.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 January 3, 2013 Both houses passed versions of it last year. The Senate passed theirs and the House passed its. This is another partisan ploy to blame a failure of the Senate and House to markup the bills on the House. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #45 January 3, 2013 QuoteBoth houses passed versions of it last year. The Senate passed theirs and the House passed its. This is another partisan ploy to blame a failure of the Senate and House to markup the bills on the House. Another reminder of kallends autobiographical work"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 January 3, 2013 QuoteThe White House’s Flickr account recently released a photo of President Barack Obama and his top advisers. The complete absence of women in the image is another reminder that females are underrepresented in Obama’s staff. Additionally, the president still pays his female employees significantly less than their male counterparts. The Obama White House in 2011 paid female staffers 18 percent less than their male colleagues: According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000). The Obama reelection campaign, though better, was also a bastion of inequality: The Obama reelection campaign’s female employees earned an average of $6,872 during that period, compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of $363, or 5.3 percent. The annualized pay difference is more than $2,100 per year. It is unclear when Obama and the Democrats will call off the war on women. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #47 January 3, 2013 Facts are a crutch for the right wing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #49 January 3, 2013 > The complete absence of women in the image is another reminder that females are > underrepresented in Obama’s staff. Let it be known to all that RushMC has just become a supporter of affirmative action and quotas! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
