Might as well misogynyFollow

oops

Edited, Jun 13th 2014 12:16am by Kelvyquayo

@#%^ING CLAM STACKERS!


Oops, wrong forum...

Edited, Jun 12th 2014 10:24pm by someproteinguy

Is that where we're starting the list? I feel hypocrite should be at the top.

Exactly.

When you gotta go you gotta go. Whether it's behind a tree, off the back end of a boat, in a patch of poison ivy, or in the mens room because the line for the womens is wrapped twice around the building.

So, wait. Smash is pro gender equality because he's @#%^ whipped?

I do let Nexa wear pants sometimes. Fortunately I have a .50 cal pistol so my man cards is intact.

Joke all you want about it, but now I can defend my home in Queens from Jersey.

Off the coast of Normandy, France.

What if a stray tyrannosaur were to aggress against his person or property? A man has to be prepared.

Did you hit on her?

Should have just winked and gave a thumbs up.

I was momentarily perplexed by what appeared to be a woman, in a very sparkly dress, with a *****. Not that the concept of drag is unknown to me, but I felt my brain trying to put two and two together and failing miserably at it. I'd had a lot to drink, and there were a number of variables to account for in the calculation. Was I in the right bathroom? Was I in the right bar? Was I dreaming or even still alive?

I just remember thinking "what sparkly outfit" and then "wait, that's not..." and then "damn, she's packing serious heat... oh, sh*t, pretend to not look" ... the conversation, to my ears, went something along the lines of "Hi there. That's a very nice outfit you've got on. Pretty crazy tonight, huh?" I'm fairly certain I pronounced it "Why hell-hic-oo tscher, preschy lass, whascha doin' in such a naschty place wisch such a nische... hic... sucsch a nische dress? "

Edited, Jun 14th 2014 12:21am by Mazra

What makes it the best for me is that this is a school teacher. Which really says that this scenario sounds pedestrian in all scenarios to me except when happening to a teacher.

Define 'poor people". Define "rich". Define exactly what constitutes going "without medical help"? The devil is in the details. Do I think we should deny people immediate medical attention if they require it? Absolutely not. And we don't. Do I think that people should be required to pay for whatever they consume (including medical costs) to whatever degree they are capable of doing? Absolutely.

The problem is that there's an emotion laden bait and switch going on here. You talk about whether someone should "do without medical care", but that's not really the issue because no one was going "without medical care" before Obamacare. The question is whether or not a wide range of people should have "health insurance" (which is not synonymous with "medical care") subsidized or even completely paid for by foisting that cost onto another wide range of people (most of whom do not qualify as "rich" by any sane definition). To that, my answer is absolutely NO. There are vastly better ways to ensure people receive medical care if/when they need it, which require less government regulation, lower overall costs, and don't require people to align themselves in some bizarre "pro-rich" vs "pro-poor" narrative.

By simplifying this into a "medical help for the poor" versus "taxes on the rich" you are participating in a gross simplification of the issue which only result in polarizing people when we could actually be concentrating on working together to solve common problems. It's not about helping the poor. It's about creating that division and convincing people on one "side" to despise anyone on the other. There should not be sides here. The whole "we're helping the poor!" is complete BS invented to get you on board and to use you to demonize anyone who doesn't join up.