Women are like uncovered meat to a cat...

You did use the word "radical" in your post. I'm interested in why you have the urge to side step that fact. And I really didn't lecture you. I merely made an observation.

Are you on drugs or something? How the hell did I "side step" something by using the word? I'm interested in why you have the urge to intentionally not hear what I say, and deliberately presume I am saying the opposite?

There are over 6 billion Muslims, if we were at war with ALL Muslims, we'd be in some deep doo doo! If ALL Muslims had the extreme views of the radicals, we'd be discussing the new line of hijabs our women would be wearing in their rooms this fall!

And you have also mistaken disgust and outrage for "joy". There is no hypocrisy here, I believe in standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves, and my posting this thread, is about an issue I feel strongly about.

I don't know what the source of your resentment toward me is, but you need to stop attacking me and trying to twist my comments into the opposite of what I've said. If you agree with me, that radical fanatic Muslim views on women are wrong, then say so... it's not that hard to type, "You're right Dixie!" You don't have to misinterpret and misrepresent what I've said, if you just don't feel compelled to publicly agree with my point, you can choose to pass on the thread and move along.
 
it is utterly ridiculous for men to try to take credit for this movement...

Did men change the laws of the land or have a movement to change the laws of the land beofre the women above assembled and fought for these rights for themselves....? I think NOT.....

and of course men passed the laws that the women wanted, because ONLY MEN were in power to do such and they were SHAMED in to doing such by the women's sufferage movements....NOT BY THEIR OWN VOLITION....or else they would have changed the laws without this women's movement, no?
 
Care4all said:
it is utterly ridiculous for men to try to take credit for this movement...

Did men change the laws of the land or have a movement to change the laws of the land beofre the women above assembled and fought for these rights for themselves....? I think NOT.....

and of course men passed the laws that the women wanted, because ONLY MEN were in power to do such and they were SHAMED in to doing such by the women's sufferage movements....NOT BY THEIR OWN VOLITION....or else they would have changed the laws without this women's movement, no?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that they should take credit, I said that they contributed. There is a difference. Much like the kicker before, he kicked the ball and scored the points but without the team he'd never get there.

Other contributions were made and they should not be ignored.
 
and of course men passed the laws that the women wanted, because ONLY MEN were in power to do such

Which was the whole point! Darla claimed that men had nothing to do with it, and women did this all by themselves. It is quite impossible for women to have ratified a Constitutional Amendment without the right to vote. The same argument applies to the slaves and civil rights, had it not been for white people who faced adversity and ridicule and stood with the victims, change would have never occurred.

When I hear people say... "They need to fight this battle on their own, we need to mind our own business, this is their struggle, not ours.." I have to wonder where these people would've stood on the issue of slavery, suffrage, and civil rights, in the era it was being debated.
 
Dixie said:
and of course men passed the laws that the women wanted, because ONLY MEN were in power to do such

Which was the whole point! Darla claimed that men had nothing to do with it, and women did this all by themselves. It is quite impossible for women to have ratified a Constitutional Amendment without the right to vote. The same argument applies to the slaves and civil rights, had it not been for white people who faced adversity and ridicule and stood with the victims, change would have never occurred.

When I hear people say... "They need to fight this battle on their own, we need to mind our own business, this is their struggle, not ours.." I have to wonder where these people would've stood on the issue of slavery, suffrage, and civil rights, in the era it was being debated.
Click to expand...

It's good to see all the white men who are still fighting to control women's bodies and what they do with them though, it would be a real tragedy if at this late date in the country's history women finally got control over their own bodies. No matter what else transpires we must never let that happen. The control of women's bodies must rest with the government.
 
Why do you bring up race? Why do you infer that something I stated, is equivalent to trying to control a woman's body? Are you suffering from Beefitus? Do you just have to twist and mangle my arguments in order to find some fault? Are you too much of a coward to agree with me on the point I correctly make here? Why is it, every response from a liberal here, is filled with resent and hatred, and a total unwillingness to acknowledge the statement I made? Is this how you people "reach out" to the other side? Because, if so, you are not going to get very much accomplished.
 
you really have no business castigating liberals for their unwillingness to reach out to the other side.

that is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
 
Dixie said:
Why do you bring up race? Why do you infer that something I stated, is equivalent to trying to control a woman's body? Are you suffering from Beefitus? Do you just have to twist and mangle my arguments in order to find some fault? Are you too much of a coward to agree with me on the point I correctly make here? Why is it, every response from a liberal here, is filled with resent and hatred, and a total unwillingness to acknowledge the statement I made? Is this how you people "reach out" to the other side? Because, if so, you are not going to get very much accomplished.
Click to expand...

Why did you bring up race in the previous post?

Dixie said:
...had it not been for white people...
Click to expand...

Or does mentioning "white people" only count as bringing up race when I do it, and not when you do it? Well, let's see an answer to that question?

And while we are at it can you tell me how an an issue cannot be about race when it is about civil rights for Black people?
 
Last edited:
Prakosh said:
Why did you bring up race in the previous post?



Or does mentioning "white people" only count as bringing up race when I do it, and not when you do it? Well, let's see an answer to that question?

And while we are at it can you tell me how an an issue cannot be about race when it is about civil rights for Black people?
Click to expand...

Well the answer is simple, "white people" are the opposite of "black people" who were struggling for abolition and civil rights. It was relevant to the point made, that white people stood with black people, and black people didn't accomplish abolition and civil rights on their own.

Being white has nothing to do with control of a woman's body, or whatever idiotic point you were making.
 
Dixie said:
Well the answer is simple, "white people" are the opposite of "black people" who were struggling for abolition and civil rights. It was relevant to the point made, that white people stood with black people, and black people didn't accomplish abolition and civil rights on their own.

Being white has nothing to do with control of a woman's body, or whatever idiotic point you were making.
Click to expand...

So it is only about race when I bring it up, but not when you do. Thanks for clearing that up. As far as I can tell it is mostly white men and their "stand by your man" women folk who are still harping about women's bodies and who should control them. Do you want me to find some of your recent posts on this topic?? Funny you want to claim some kind of credit for all this freedom that you claim women now have, but wouldn't have had it not been for men, but you don't want to claim any credit for your own resistence to giving women full freedom over their own bodies. Why are you trying to have it both ways here, mr. feminist? Why are you only supporting half measures? Why not go all the way?
 
So it is only about race when I bring it up, but not when you do.

No, it's only about race when race pertains to the subject, otherwise it's "race-baiting" and using race to bash someone unfairly, as in the comment you made.

With regard to controlling a woman's body, I have never indicated that I wanted to control anyones body, I only want women (and men) to be responsible for their actions, and not kill innocent human life to avoid responsibilty.
 
Dixie said:
So it is only about race when I bring it up, but not when you do.

No, it's only about race when race pertains to the subject, otherwise it's "race-baiting" and using race to bash someone unfairly, as in the comment you made.

With regard to controlling a woman's body, I have never indicated that I wanted to control anyones body, I only want women (and men) to be responsible for their actions, and not kill innocent human life to avoid responsibilty.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, O'Reilly, it is about control of the woman's body. Ask nearly any but the most cowed and degraded right wing woman she will tell you that. It is only white men who like to claim that they helped women get their incomplete freedom and their "stand by your man" women folk who would make the insipid argument you make here. Most others, even the Supreme Court agreed that the debate was about the "right to privacy" and that is all about freedom isn't it, would say it is about control of the woman's body? Why did you stop using the word "pinhead" when I started calling you O'Reilly??? Is it because you really are O'Reilly and this is how you get warmed up for your show???
 
Last edited:
Wrong again, O'Reilly, it is about control of the woman's body

Anti-abortion views have NOTHING to do with controlling someones body, you fucking moron. I'm sorry that concept doesn't make it through your brick-like head, but it doesn't mean you are right. I don't give a shit what you call me, you can sit there and lob your shit bombs all day for all I care, you've not made any sort of credible point in this debate.
 
Dixie said:
Wrong again, O'Reilly, it is about control of the woman's body

Anti-abortion views have NOTHING to do with controlling someones body, you fucking moron. I'm sorry that concept doesn't make it through your brick-like head, but it doesn't mean you are right. I don't give a shit what you call me, you can sit there and lob your shit bombs all day for all I care, you've not made any sort of credible point in this debate.
Click to expand...



Sure it has everything to do with controling what goes on inside a womans body. The entire Row v. Wade decision was about at what point can the government control what a woman does to her own body...
 
Jarod said:
Sure it has everything to do with controling what goes on inside a womans body. The entire Row v. Wade decision was about at what point can the government control what a woman does to her own body...
Click to expand...

O'Reilly not only lives in the South; he lives in his own little hermetically sealed world in the South.

Hey, have you all noticed that Dixie stopped referring in his posts to liberals or anyone who didn't agree with him as a "pinheads" right after I pointed out that "pinhead" was also Bill O'Reilly's favorite word for liberals. Is it possible Dixie is actually Billo, the luffa sponge king...??????????
 
Prakosh said:
O'Reilly not only lives in the South; he lives in his own little hermetically sealed world in the South.

Hey, have you all noticed that Dixie stopped referring in his posts to liberals or anyone who didn't agree with him as a "pinheads" right after I pointed out that "pinhead" was also Bill O'Reilly's favorite word for liberals. Is it possible Dixie is actually Billo, the luffa sponge king...??????????
Click to expand...

LMFAO!

Yep, you caught me! Damn, you are so clever! I thought I could take time out from my TV and radio career, as well as the book-signings for my third #1 best-seller, to come to this obscure political message board and smack around a few pinheads, and no one would be the wiser, but you are so brilliant, you caught me! Damn it all! I haven't used "pinhead" in the past 48 hrs or so, just because I knew you were on to me, and I didn't want to blow my cover! Since I have no life, I really did need to be able to come here daily and post my comments and opinions, because it's important for me to argue with complete idiot pinheads before I do the show. Oh well, I guess the jig is up, and I'll have to go back to sexually harassing women again. Thanks a lot, PINHEAD!
 
Sure it has everything to do with controling what goes on inside a womans body. The entire Row v. Wade decision was about at what point can the government control what a woman does to her own body...

No, read the words this thread starts with, from the Sheik... THAT is "control over a woman's body" as you say. My opinion on abortion, is not. As long as women aren't using their body to produce human life for extermination, I couldn't care less what they do with them. My complaint isn't what they do with their body, it's what they do with the unborn human life they produced inside their body. I think there is a big difference, and isn't it ironic that I started a thread condemning a man for blatantly telling women what they should do with their bodies, (namely, to cover them head to toe and stay in their rooms), and you morons have managed to twist it into a condemnation of me for my position on abortion? Let me enlighten you, if the Sheik has his way, women will not be wearing anything provocative, they will stay in their rooms, they will not engage in premarital sex, and there will be no abortions for ANY reason, at any time. Any woman who doesn't like this system, will be stoned to death. So, tell me... which of our viewpoints wants to "tell women what to do with their body" again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top