"Don't Tread On Me, but Imma Tread on Your Head" say Rand Paul Supporters

Virote_Considon said:

Oh, well. Then I'm a misogynist. Bugger it.

Click to expand...

Hey! I'm just as good a misogynist as you are, and, if I'm in a situation were I would have hit a man, I would also hit a woman who demands to be treated like a man! Not that I'm very likely to use violence of course - I've even taken unprovoked elbows in my face and not escalated the conflict. But violence is never actually off the table unless I'm dealing with a woman who acts like an actual woman.

Misguided chivalry is just stupid. There are several women in this world who can and will fight just as well - or better - than you. Trying to "restrain" them is simply silly.

Cheetah said:

Hey! I'm just as misogynistic as you, and, if I'm in a situation were I would have hit a man, I would also hit a woman who demands to be treated like a man!

Click to expand...

"Person". It's "treated like a person".

Mr. Dictator said:

Well as far as I know, lynch mobs weren't as popular in the North.

Click to expand...

Totaly side note, but some of the border states were just as bad. See the history of the KKK in Indiana for example.

---
---
@ Virote, can we make an exception for Foxy Boxing?

Spoofs don't work when they are exactly and entirely accurate.

Click to expand...

Who says its a spoof? (Other than the spelling of "womyn")

Better chivalry than open misogyny.

spryllino said:

Better chivalry than open misogyny.

Click to expand...

They both rest on the same assumptions of female inferiority.

Traitorfish said:

"Person". It's "treated like a person".

Click to expand...

Sorry, TF. All individuals are a person, but that doesn't mean I treat every individual equally.

How I treat people depend on how well I know them, how they're dressed, what I'm doing, how I'm dressed, where I am, how they're acting, what age they are, who else is there, and - of course - whether they're male or female.

Karalysia said:

They both rest on the same assumptions of female inferiority.

Click to expand...

I prefer 'the assumptions of sexual dimorphism'.

We're different. Not generally inferior or superior, but different.

Mr. Dictator said:

This post right here highlights many problems I see in people around these forums.

1. There is no real comparison in Kara's post. Just because two things are mentioned in the post, doesn't mean that its a comparison. I, and your fellow forumgoers, would all appreciate if people could understand how to read a post and tell if they are actually comparing two things, or merely going off the first into the second.

2. The Olbermann and Maddow references are obviously venting frustrations about things that they say onto Kara. There's no purpose for this in a debate and it only divides us more. Politics isn't gang warfare. We're not all on two opposing sides.

Now, carry on. I think you had something productive to add?

Click to expand...

1.
Kara called the Tea party white, right-wing extremists (an untrue and politically-motivated labeling) and so yes there is a comparison there to the black extremist group.

2. I love to use the two MSNBC idiots in derogatory ways the same way other people here love to use FOX, Beck and O'Reilly. When people use the same kind of terms I hear on those shows, I suspect them of watching those shows like they agree with what they say.

What reason is there for me to post on a forum where I guess 90% of the posters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum for me, if not to argue and make fun of MSNBC and their talking heads the way they do with FOX, Beck and O'Reilly?

You want something productive? That curbstomping was terrible, not reflective of the Tea Party at all, but will be used to further the image of the Tea Party as extremists by those who disapprove (IE democrats, liberals, progressives and the trifecta of idiocy that is Olbermann, Maddow and Shultz).

Yes politics is gang warfare now, and that started with all the anti-Bush rhetoric years ago (funny how Obama and the dems love to point out how divisive FOX is but nobody used to say a word about MSNBC). The Tea Party now are being called extremists, racists, you name it, because they represent a large part of the population that does not approve of Obama, the democrats, or really anything the government has done. The country is headed in bad direction and it's about damned time people are doing something about it, and that's voting these incumbents out of office and wanting to repeal Obamacare until a proper bill is introduced that won't stomp all over our basic freedoms.

You will always get a few bad apples in a party.

Karalysia said:

Who says its a spoof? (Other than the spelling of "womyn")

Click to expand...

Well, you have to admit, it's hard to tell right now.

spryllino said:

Better chivalry than open misogyny.

Click to expand...

Chivalry can quite easily be a expression of misogyny, and, traditionally, is an expression of just that. "Misogyny" isn't limited to wife-beating.

Also! It sucks for men too, as does most of traditional sexism. It just gets us punched in the face.

Cheetah said:

Sorry, TF. All individuals are a person, but that doesn't mean I treat every individual equally.

How I treat people depend on how well I know them, how they're dressed, what I'm doing, how I'm dressed, where I am, how they're acting, what age they are, who else is there, and - of course - whether they're male or female.

Click to expand...

"Equally", in this case, doesn't mean "the same". Obviously, you take into account the particular experience of the individual in question, you simply have to do so with a bit of tact, decent and informedness, which chivalry explicitly denies by reducing all women to a homogeneous bloc in need of perpetual male assistance.

Cheetah said:

I prefer 'the assumptions of sexual dimorphism'.

We're different. Not generally inferior or superior, but different.

Click to expand...

Sure we are. As are most men from most men, and most women from most women. I am, in fact, closer to some women than to many men, in not only mental but physical respects, even those with female reproductive organs (assuming we're not going to get all transphobic about this). People, it turns out, are individuals, and should be treated as such.

Indeed chivalry is bad too, and it rests on the same foolish assumptions of female inferiority, and is an expression of misogyny.

However, I would rather be condescended to than beaten. Normally speaking, at least. Wouldn't you?

spryllino said:

Indeed chivalry is bad too, and it rests on the same foolish assumptions of female inferiority, and is an expression of misogyny.

However, I would rather be condescended to than beaten. Normally speaking, at least. Wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

False choice. Why accept either? It's not one or the other.

spryllino said:

Indeed chivalry is bad too, and it rests on the same foolish assumptions of female inferiority, and is an expression of misogyny.

However, I would rather be condescended to than beaten. Normally speaking, at least. Wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

Of course, but I have no idea why such an arbitrary dichotomy should be presented.

Karalysia said:

It wasn't I who made the comparison it was Mobboss. And its not a valid comparison because the Black Panthers were justified in their actions unlike the tea party.

Click to expand...

Justified? Seriously?

Wow. Perhaps we are not referring to the same event. I am talking about the two guys with nightsticks intimidating voters during the 2008 election in Chicago. That the Justice Department declined to press charges on, allegedly by pressure to not do so from the White House.

Is that what you are referring to? Because I dont see how what they said could be in any way justified as it was so completely racist.

Virote_Considon said:

No. Not at all. Just because they want to be treated like men, doesn't mean a man should hit them. Ever. Even when being attacked by a woman (even one who "insists on acting like men!), a man should only act to restrain, and go at all no further.

Click to expand...

Although I was brought up that way, my time in the military has convinced me otherwise. I dont mind treating ladies like ladies, but a woman coming at me to do me bodily harm will be dealt with accordingly and expeditiously. Getting a sharp knife into your kidney will kill you just as quick whether its a man doing it or a woman.

Traitorfish said:

"Equally", in this case, doesn't mean "the same". Obviously, you take into account the particular experience of the individual in question, you simply have to do so with a bit of tact, decent and informedness, which chivalry explicitly denies by reducing all women to a homogeneous bloc in need of perpetual male assistance.

Click to expand...

Well, I do take into account individual experiences as well.

Perhaps I'm better served on OT by describing what I do as "chivalry light" or some such?

Anyway, I think we're thread-jacking, so I'll stop this now.

MobBoss said:

Justified? Seriously?

Wow. Perhaps we are not referring to the same event. I am talking about the two guys with nightsticks intimidating voters during the 2008 election in Chicago. That the Justice Department declined to press charges on, allegedly by pressure to not do so from the White House.

Is that what you are referring to? Because I dont see how what they said could be in any way justified as it was so completely racist.

Click to expand...

In comparison to the various white attempts to intimidate, defraud, lie and flat out prevent minority voters voting, this is but a single occurance.

useless said:

In comparison to the various white attempts to intimidate, defraud, lie and flat out prevent minority voters voting, this is but a single occurance.

Click to expand...

That doesnt justify it. At all.

MobBoss said:

That doesnt justify it. At all.

Click to expand...

Got a point there. Two wrongs don't make a right.

MobBoss said:

That doesnt justify it. At all.

Click to expand...

I never justified it, but you seem to be preoccupied with the BLACK panthers, whilst ignoring the longer, and lets be honest, much more serious problems of denial, intimidation, cheating and other forms of fiddling with the minority vote, something which you seem reluctant to touch. I wonder why.

MobBoss said:

Justified? Seriously?

Wow. Perhaps we are not referring to the same event. I am talking about the two guys with nightsticks intimidating voters during the 2008 election in Chicago. That the Justice Department declined to press charges on, allegedly by pressure to not do so from the White House.

Is that what you are referring to? Because I dont see how what they said could be in any way justified as it was so completely racist.

Click to expand...

What does that even have to do with the Black Panthers?