Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Noted political wizard Ted Nugent lays out his list of 5 groups who should not be able to vote. Before you snicker, wait until you see the asploding heads of farkers upset that they agree with three of them   (salon.com) divider line 298
    More: Interesting, Ted Nugent, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, vote, paycheck to paycheck, tax exemption  
•       •       •

13041 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2013 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-06 04:13:35 PM  

Hickory-smoked: shamanwest: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.

Look, I hate defending Republicans as much as anyone, but if you want to stop putting people in that position, don't start your argument with unimaginative hyperbole.

/... And why the fark are "Italians and Chinese" a single item?


Because they belong to the $ to $$ class of restaurants, with just a small few in the $$$ category.
 
2013-07-06 04:19:30 PM  
My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.
 
2013-07-06 04:39:31 PM  
Dead people shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Once you die you should give up your right to vote.
 
2013-07-06 04:45:06 PM  

MJMaloney187: My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.


Umm... that's what TFA was doing... addressing his idea... and pointing out how farking stupid it was.  It is so shocking that someone could express a thought such as what he did without recognizing the most glaring logical holes in it that having to 'address his idea' is a painful exercise in pointing out the obvious and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed for being an adoptive spokesperson for the mental midget of which you appear to be one judging by your apparent acceptance of the idea that you run governments and people's rights in a society the same way you run your household.
 
2013-07-06 04:46:51 PM  

theknuckler_33: MJMaloney187: My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.

Umm... that's what TFA was doing... addressing his idea... and pointing out how farking stupid it was.  It is so shocking that someone could express a thought such as what he did without recognizing the most glaring logical holes in it that having to 'address his idea' is a painful exercise in pointing out the obvious and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed for being an adoptive spokesperson for the mental midget of which you appear to be one judging by your apparent acceptance of the idea that you run governments and people's rights in a society the same way you run your household.


Libtard social engineer!!!!!

/He actually used the word "libtard"
 
2013-07-06 04:50:59 PM  
dead or in jail yet, nuge?
 
2013-07-06 04:53:05 PM  

Aarontology: Also, let's point out that tea party darling Ted Nugent is literally advocating taxation without representation.


So do farkers, when they whine about citizens united.
 
2013-07-06 04:54:57 PM  
It's weird that Fark filters the present-tense "shiat", but not the past-tense version of the same word: "shat"

That's all I've got.
 
2013-07-06 04:55:16 PM  

cman: HighOnCraic: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

I guess William F. Buckley didn't get the memo.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
   National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to ass ...


Yes, you've finally understood how the Republican Party works.  Bowing down to rich assholes is what they do best.
 
2013-07-06 05:03:26 PM  
Let's not forget hunters as welfare recipients. The hunting industry is highly subsidized by the government in government-owned land, CRP, special law enforcement, etc.
 
2013-07-06 05:09:49 PM  
I'd say this thread needed more boobs, but it's actually full of them.
 
2013-07-06 05:38:43 PM  

bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something


I like the assumption of all value is through actual production. My job involves processing title and insurance work for car sales. Without me filling in all the stupid little forms like an OCD-maniac, the big piles of metal on the lot don't get turned into cash, because the state and the banks would reject contracts that aren't notarized or certified.
 
2013-07-06 05:45:37 PM  

bindlestiff2600: cman: bindlestiff2600: makers vs takers huh

ok
so anyone that actually produces something whether it be food, logs, ore, or a bike would be makers

anyone that produces nothing for thier pay which would be politicians, cops, teachers, would be takers

You think that Teachers do nothing productive for their pay? Or even cops?


you may want what they do
but you cant eat it wear it or take it home with you
they produce nothing
you might want thier service but a hooker provides service too
thats not a product
cops might reduce loss of a product so they might claim a share of that
teachers might (sometimes somewhere) train people to be able to be productive (but ill leave it open how often that happens)
thats not a product either
side issue   how many non productive people (cops, teachers, hair-dressers, politicians, et al ) can be supported by those who produce something


There is a fundamental misunderstanding of something, happening here.
 
2013-07-06 05:53:37 PM  
I have to agree with Ted Nugget on this one.  All people living in states who are leaches on the federal budget should not be allowed to votes.  That pretty much takes care of all red states.

They are lazy, complaining un-American sack of s**t anyway.
 
2013-07-06 06:22:49 PM  

theknuckler_33: MJMaloney187: My children don't get a vote in my house. People who are on welfare are no different than children. They are dependents of the State.

Salon.com calls Ted Nugent a washed up, draft dodging extremist instead of addressing his ideas. Typical. That's the kind of low brow, hyper hysteria you always get from the libtard social engineers.

Umm... that's what TFA was doing... addressing his idea... and pointing out how farking stupid it was.  It is so shocking that someone could express a thought such as what he did without recognizing the most glaring logical holes in it that having to 'address his idea' is a painful exercise in pointing out the obvious and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed for being an adoptive spokesperson for the mental midget of which you appear to be one judging by your apparent acceptance of the idea that you run governments and people's rights in a society the same way you run your household.


That's the longest sentence I've ever read. Go change your tampon, Hoss.

So I went back and re-read the article, then I re-read Nugent's Washington Times piece. Both are pretty full of stupid, but it was clear in Nugent's original piece that he meant welfare in the form of food stamps and housing vouchers. Welfare is commonly defined this way. Salon's article semantically tosses out a homeowner's mortgage deduction as a form of welfare. The article reads like a toddler babbles.

And, yes, the world would be a better place if governments were run like my household.
 
2013-07-06 06:23:08 PM  

Jabberwookiee: 6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.


You're going to have to put some sort of an "after the age of" time limit on that one. And then some form of certification of compliance, and a confidential method of maintaining those records. Unintended consequences can be a biatch.
 
2013-07-06 06:31:46 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Jabberwookiee: 6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.

You're going to have to put some sort of an "after the age of" time limit on that one. And then some form of certification of compliance, and a confidential method of maintaining those records. Unintended consequences can be a biatch.


How can pants-shiatting be on purpose and the result of unintended consequences at the same time?

Did you just divide by 0?
 
2013-07-06 06:37:58 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Jabberwookiee: 6. People who shiat their pants on purpose.

You're going to have to put some sort of an "after the age of" time limit on that one. And then some form of certification of compliance, and a confidential method of maintaining those records. Unintended consequences can be a biatch.


I usually don't put that much thought into poop jokes. Sorry.
 
2013-07-06 06:41:20 PM  
"Anyone on welfare" was all Ted said.

The article writer extended the logical fallacy as a slippery slope. As far as people who Ted would recognize as being on welfare already don't vote much.

I personally would like ballots to be blank. No names, no offices. If you wish to vote you need to spell the name of the person and the office. That'll get some focus back on the fundamentals of education.
 
2013-07-06 06:44:45 PM  

cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music


Actually, one can.
 
2013-07-06 07:08:10 PM  

Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.


He's not required to take care of the woman. He is required to take care of the child, for reasons that are blatantly obvious. (So is she.)

You may get a vasectomy. You should ask the advice and opinion of your partner, but that's only a courtesy. The decision is yours. Your body, your reproductive rights.
 
2013-07-06 07:18:28 PM  

MJMaloney187: People who are on welfare are no different than children.


There are quite a few differences, actually.
 
2013-07-06 07:26:27 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: shamanwest: Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.

... back?


There was that day last week when all of the trolls started to make me think we had some how divided by 0.
 
2013-07-06 07:26:52 PM  

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.


Well, and dead people and cats.

Is smitty thinking that anyone on Fark would ever agree to restrict the rights of ANYONE to vote? Hell, if Hitler was alive today, he could vote if he was a US citizen. I wouldn't like it much, but I'd never say he couldn't vote.
 
2013-07-06 07:27:02 PM  

Without Fail: cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music

Actually, one can.


This is one of my biggest gripes about Wikipedia.

All those lower standards for notability could confuse the hell out of people.

Cat Scratch Fever has an entry, but so does every shiatty song Linkin Park has made.
 
2013-07-06 07:32:16 PM  

Without Fail: cman: Fart_Machine: How about we just stop pretending that Ted Nugent is relevant.

In the world of politics of course

But one cannot deny his relevancy in the history of music

Actually, one can.


Yeah, I'm hard pressed to think of anything from that man that's worth while. I mean, I hate the Stones, but their influence on and contribution to the world of music is at least readily apparent and obvious. You can hear it in most songs. Not as bad as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM" target="_blank">Pachelbel</a>, but close. Nugent, not so much.
 
2013-07-06 07:46:30 PM  

cman: shamanwest: cman: Delay: Same list of designated non-voters as ever Republicans have wanted.

1) Negroes
2) American Indians and Mexicans
3) Italians and Chinese
4) Women
5) Children

Seems legit.

You do realize that the Republican party was the driving factor for universal suffrage, do you not?

Republicans have never been the party that denies women the vote.

Ahhh....good to see you're back to being a shill.

Are you serious?

You cherry-picked what I said to fit your preconceived notions.

I was saying that the GOP has NEVER been anti-women voting. Look at the full context of my post. You only cared about my first statement.


Someone else pointed this out more eloquently, but I was on my phone earlier, so snark was all I had time for. You're doing what you troll shills always do. Rather than actually discuss  why a statement is being made, in this case one of satire, you deflect going "We'll we're the party of X". I'm sorry, but there is nothing in today's Republican party that would make me want to connect them to Universal Suffrage. But, hey, if you want to pretend that the Republican party today is  really like the Republican party then (and insult them, fwiw), then sure, I'll bite. If I'm going to look at how the Republican party today treats women, then I'm going to guess that the motivation behind those earlier Republicans supporting women voting wasn't because they thought that women should be treated equal, but because they figured that the women married to Republican men would do what they're told, vote Republican, thus doubling their vote.

Feel better now? I didn't farking cherry-pick your words.
 
2013-07-06 08:11:16 PM  

shamanwest: f I'm going to look at how the Republican party today treats women, then I'm going to guess that the motivation behind those earlier Republicans supporting women voting wasn't because they thought that women should be treated equal, but because they figured that the women married to Republican men would do what they're told, vote Republican, thus doubling their vote.


My grandfather told me that his father heard this exact argument when women's suffrage was in discussion.  The argument was "Why should I, an unmarried man, only get one vote while a married man gets two?"
 
2013-07-06 08:18:33 PM  
People who should not be allowed to vote:
1. People under age 18
2. People who are not US citizens
3. Ted Nugent
4. People who believe that Ted Nugent has ever had anything resembling a useful idea.
 
2013-07-06 08:32:17 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.

It seems many Republicans want to go back to a day where only white wealthy land owners have a right to vote.

Well, and dead people and cats.

Is smitty thinking that anyone on Fark would ever agree to restrict the rights of ANYONE to vote? Hell, if Hitler was alive today, he could vote if he was a US citizen. I wouldn't like it much, but I'd never say he couldn't vote.


Depends, some states restrict the right to vote by convicts.
 
2013-07-06 08:41:25 PM  

clambam: However, I believe that Item 2 will permanently clear the welfare rolls of people over 30 within ten years.


Yeah, cause no one who decided to go to school over 30 was EVER unemployed ::rolls eyes::

School doesn't do sh*t for you unless there's a decent (i.e. not minimum wage where one can support themselves like adults or a family) job at the other end. Those are lacking even for the people who HAVE completed post-secondary education right now. There would also be issues with class sizes and facilities, both of which would have to be vastly increased at a time when states are doing all they can to screw over public colleges, and the fact that there are some people who do not thrive in such a system, and never will.

Your "Item 2" is totally unfeasible, and will probably end up costing more than the public assistance it is supposed to replace. In a capitalist/socialist hybrid society such as the one we have, there will always be those people who cannot function within that society, mostly through circumstances not of their own making. We choose to take care of them regardless, because deep down we hope (though some would hate to admit it with all their rugged individualism) that if we were in the same unfortunate circumstance there would be someone to help us.

It's the human thing to do.
 
A7
2013-07-06 08:45:57 PM  
He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If 47% of Duhmerikan citizens are not paying taxes, they have no skin in the game, and therefore should have zero say in matters of taxes or welfare benefits. Don't like it? get a farkin' job.

I'd go further and demand that unless you can pass a reading comprehension test at 5th grade level (like they had in Louisiana before the voting rights act) AND pass a test assuring your understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you should be barred from getting anywhere near a polling place.
 
2013-07-06 08:48:38 PM  
I'm sure it's been said already, but the problem isn't the various subsets of people who vote, it's the buying of our politicians through all the money that is needed to win federal office.

I can't understand why the conservatives don't want to get the dirty money out of politics unless they are single issue idiots who don't care if the nation burns down to the ground as long as they get the one thing they want (which is very similar to how the Taliban think).
 
2013-07-06 08:57:20 PM  

A7: no skin in the game


0/10  Too obvious.  You fouled out on that one.
 
2013-07-06 09:04:12 PM  

PsiChick: So what exactly was the bolded part, if not saying 'women shouldn't have the right to choose without male input because men stand to lose something too'?


An overly acidic response to a comment in which someone says a man should just shut up and pay if he sticks his dick in.

Responses to my comment have been:

Abstinence. Vasectomy. Shut up and Pay. There was also one sensible "bag it up".

Women want their cake and they want to eat it too when it comes to "their choice". I don't know what else to say other than that. If it's your body, your choice - then it is your responsibility. Sorry. If you go to a sperm clinic should you be entitled to sue the donor? (I'm sure there are waivers to sign and all that just for this reason)

If you don't think there are a number of women who use their reproductive functions like an investment portfolio, then I think you may have too high a regard for women. And men are just as shiatty. Don't mistake me on that part. I know men suck just as much as women suck. We all suck, I got that. I just think that, for the good of society as a whole, making it so women who chose to have a child had to shoulder the burden would be a good idea. You would see a lot less unwanted pregnancies. Or at least a lot more abortions.

Bottom line, I believe that women look at the issue from one standpoint. And that standpoint is "my body". But you choose to have the baby. That's your choice. Not mine. Deal with your choice. You can opt to put the kid up for adoption and have nothing to do with him/her. Why can't I have that option just because the birth mother keeps him/her?
 
2013-07-06 09:10:47 PM  

Befuddled: I'm sure it's been said already, but the problem isn't the various subsets of people who vote, it's the buying of our politicians through all the money that is needed to win federal office.

I can't understand why the conservatives don't want to get the dirty money out of politics unless they are single issue idiots who don't care if the nation burns down to the ground as long as they get the one thing they want (which is very similar to how the Taliban think).



The money needed for elections is the sympton, not the problem - the more money and power you concentrate in one place like Washington, the more valuable each vote in Congress (and the White House) becomes.

And then treating the symptoms (with campaign finance reform upon reform upon reform) becomes a process that can be ever more easily bent back against its stated purpose.

Assuming term limits are a nonstarter, there's only two ways out: 1) public financing...my own spin on it makes campaign money part of an office-holder's budget, and they can spend as much or as little of their office budget as they wish on campaigns, knowing that their opponent(s) will also get the amount they spend. Or 2) unlimited donations, but ONLY from individuals, with disclosure requirements increasing with the amount donated.
 
2013-07-06 09:17:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: shamanwest: f I'm going to look at how the Republican party today treats women, then I'm going to guess that the motivation behind those earlier Republicans supporting women voting wasn't because they thought that women should be treated equal, but because they figured that the women married to Republican men would do what they're told, vote Republican, thus doubling their vote.

My grandfather told me that his father heard this exact argument when women's suffrage was in discussion.  The argument was "Why should I, an unmarried man, only get one vote while a married man gets two?"


I remember hearing the same thing too, though I don't remember the source. Some anecdote or other. Of course, we are talking very-pre-southern strategy Republicans. To state that Republicans today support the women's right to vote because those Republicans did would be like saying that Shana should still piss in the men's room after the operation because she was born "Shane".
 
2013-07-06 09:17:52 PM  

Mangoose: PsiChick: So what exactly was the bolded part, if not saying 'women shouldn't have the right to choose without male input because men stand to lose something too'?

An overly acidic response to a comment in which someone says a man should just shut up and pay if he sticks his dick in.

Responses to my comment have been:

Abstinence. Vasectomy. Shut up and Pay. There was also one sensible "bag it up".

Women want their cake and they want to eat it too when it comes to "their choice". I don't know what else to say other than that. If it's your body, your choice - then it is your responsibility. Sorry. If you go to a sperm clinic should you be entitled to sue the donor? (I'm sure there are waivers to sign and all that just for this reason)

If you don't think there are a number of women who use their reproductive functions like an investment portfolio, then I think you may have too high a regard for women. And men are just as shiatty. Don't mistake me on that part. I know men suck just as much as women suck. We all suck, I got that. I just think that, for the good of society as a whole, making it so women who chose to have a child had to shoulder the burden would be a good idea. You would see a lot less unwanted pregnancies. Or at least a lot more abortions.

Bottom line, I believe that women look at the issue from one standpoint. And that standpoint is "my body". But you choose to have the baby. That's your choice. Not mine. Deal with your choice. You can opt to put the kid up for adoption and have nothing to do with him/her. Why can't I have that option just because the birth mother keeps him/her?


Again: Because you  can physically walk away.

A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.
 
2013-07-06 09:26:05 PM  

Gulper Eel: The money needed for elections is the sympton, not the problem - the more money and power you concentrate in one place like Washington, the more valuable each vote in Congress (and the White House) becomes.And then treating the symptoms (with campaign finance reform upon reform upon reform) becomes a process that can be ever more easily bent back against its stated purpose.Assuming term limits are a nonstarter, there's only two ways out: 1) public financing...my own spin on it makes campaign money part of an office-holder's budget, and they can spend as much or as little of their office budget as they wish on campaigns, knowing that their opponent(s) will also get the amount they spend. Or 2) unlimited donations, but ONLY from individuals, with disclosure requirements increasing with the amount donated.


The only way I could see having unlimited donations be allowable is have a tax on donations above a few thousand dollars. If the Cock(sic) Brothers want to give millions of dollars to skew elections in their favor, then they should pay a pretty steep percentage of that money as tax. The reality is that would never happen as the ultra-rich control our politics and they can already give near-unlimited amounts of money. IMO, about the only way to get control back is to eliminate all private funding and replace it with public funding.

Term limits won't make anything better. Term limits would only increase the power wielded by lobbyists and the staffers as the elected representatives would be deferring to their judgment more often as the elected representatives would never gain experience at their jobs.
 
2013-07-06 09:28:13 PM  

PsiChick: A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.


A woman can walk away by aborting, giving up for adoption or simply walking away and leaving others to deal with it. That may not seem like the case to you, but believe me - it is. Leaving it to the grandparents, sisters/brothers, fathers. Whatever it is. You can just walk away, too. And plenty do.
 
2013-07-06 09:35:20 PM  

PsiChick: Mangoose: PsiChick: (snipped for brevity)

Again: Because you  can physically walk away.

A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.


You're not going to convince him in this argument because the basis of the argument is flawed. The basis of the argument assumes that the same women who want the right to an abortion if they feel they need it are the same women who will get pregnant and make a man be responsible for the child, whether he wants the kid or not. It is a terrible and insipid argument, and it is also one of the arguments in the "pro-life" arsenal. If you break the argument down, it is saying that women who want the right to an abortion are only wanting that right because they are immoral and irresponsible. It is a way to weaken the image of the pro-choice woman, turning her desire to have control over her own body and make her own reproductive choices back into the discussion of morality and slut-shaming.

Mangoose: I'm going to call you out on your bullshiat now. Quote:   there are a number of women who use their reproductive functions like an investment portfolio.Something you may or may not realize about your statement... it is passive voice. In an argument, passive voice is used to either deflect responsibility or to make shiat up. So which is it. Are you deflecting something, or are you pulling "facts" out of your ass? How about you put up some hard figures or shut up and take your slut-shaming argument somewhere else?

KTHXBAI!
 
2013-07-06 09:38:42 PM  

Lady Indica: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

He's not required to take care of the woman. He is required to take care of the child, for reasons that are blatantly obvious. (So is she.)

You may get a vasectomy. You should ask the advice and opinion of your partner, but that's only a courtesy. The decision is yours. Your body, your reproductive rights.


Does anyone else have the feeling the Republicans next step is parental rights for rapists. After all, it's about the baby. Shouldn't they get to know their father? The mother has no right to birth control, to say "NO!", to equal pay. To hell with her. Children need their rapist dads.
 
2013-07-06 09:42:19 PM  

Mangoose: PsiChick: A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.

A woman can walk away by aborting, giving up for adoption or simply walking away and leaving others to deal with it. That may not seem like the case to you, but believe me - it is. Leaving it to the grandparents, sisters/brothers, fathers. Whatever it is. You can just walk away, too. And plenty do.


Erm, no. A woman can walk away...after RISKING HER FARKING LIFE. Seriously, I'm well aware women can walk away after birth. It's the BIRTH AND PREGNANCY THAT ARE STILL FARKING LETHAL that men do not have any say in whatsoever--and complaining that women have it easy when they  risk their lives is downright idiotic.

shamanwest: You're not going to convince him in this argument because the basis of the argument is flawed. The basis of the argument assumes that the same women who want the right to an abortion if they feel they need it are the same women who will get pregnant and make a man be responsible for the child, whether he wants the kid or not. It is a terrible and insipid argument, and it is also one of the arguments in the "pro-life" arsenal. If you break the argument down, it is saying that women who want the right to an abortion are only wanting that right because they are immoral and irresponsible. It is a way to weaken the image of the pro-choice woman, turning her desire to have control over her own body and make her own reproductive choices back into the discussion of morality and slut-shaming


His argument was that women should not have the right to an abortion because (implied) they have it 'so easy' compared to men, who 'can't' walk away from it. The obvious counter to that is that women don't have it easy (in his scenario), because while a man loses money, the woman may well LOSE HER FARKING LIFE. I support forcing either parent to pay child support, but that's a different conversation--I'm pointing out that what he said is total bullshiat, not commenting on the child-support aspect (though I do believe, because of the life-threatening bit, women should damn well be able to have abortion on demand).
 
2013-07-06 09:46:54 PM  

bgilmore5: Lady Indica: Mangoose: If we banned everyone who voted in their own sense of self-interest from voting, then no one should be left allowed to vote.

Peki: But that's a courtesy. Not a requirement.

Provided that a man who wants an abortion doesn't have to pay for care of a woman and child that only the woman wants. I mean he could. But that should be a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your body, your baby, your problem.

He's not required to take care of the woman. He is required to take care of the child, for reasons that are blatantly obvious. (So is she.)

You may get a vasectomy. You should ask the advice and opinion of your partner, but that's only a courtesy. The decision is yours. Your body, your reproductive rights.

Does anyone else have the feeling the Republicans next step is parental rights for rapists. After all, it's about the baby. Shouldn't they get to know their father? The mother has no right to birth control, to say "NO!", to equal pay. To hell with her. Children need their rapist dads.


They've tried it a few times. No TotalFark, but I remember reading the headlines and being like 'OH FOR FARK SAKE'.
 
2013-07-06 10:04:19 PM  
Veterans? But service was supposed to guarantee citizenship!
 
2013-07-06 10:09:45 PM  
1) As previously pointed out, the list is not Nugent
2) No one should be denied the right to vote no matter their affiliation. Please note that for the purpose of this list corporations are NOT people.
 
2013-07-06 10:19:30 PM  

Lando Lincoln: 1) Corporations
2) People under 18

And that's it. That's the only people (or "people") that should not be allowed to vote.



Correct.
 
2013-07-06 10:22:54 PM  

A7: He who pays the piper calls the tune.

If 47% of Duhmerikan citizens are not paying taxes, they have no skin in the game, and therefore should have zero say in matters of taxes or welfare benefits. Don't like it? get a farkin' job.

I'd go further and demand that unless you can pass a reading comprehension test at 5th grade level (like they had in Louisiana before the voting rights act) AND pass a test assuring your understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you should be barred from getting anywhere near a polling place.


I'll bite.

Bam!  You've been in an accident and have lost the use of your legs.  You're no longer able to be a truck driver and your income has taken a nose-dive such that you no longer are liable (i.e. "can afford") to pay taxes.  Do you think you should be allowed to vote?  You don't have any skin in the game after all.
 
2013-07-06 10:23:25 PM  
 Mangoose: PsiChick: A woman cannot do that, because the  act of pregnancy and childbirth are potentially lethal even in the United States.

A woman can walk away by aborting, giving up for adoption or simply walking away and leaving others to deal with it. That may not seem like the case to you, but believe me - it is. Leaving it to the grandparents, sisters/brothers, fathers. Whatever it is. You can just walk away, too. And plenty do.

Erm, no. A woman can walk away...after RISKING HER FARKING LIFE. Seriously, I'm well aware women can walk away after birth. It's the BIRTH AND PREGNANCY THAT ARE STILL FARKING LETHAL that men do not have any say in whatsoever--and complaining that women have it easy when they  risk their lives is downright idiotic.

shamanwest: You're not going to convince him in this argument because the basis of the argument is flawed. The basis of the argument assumes that the same women who want the right to an abortion if they feel they need it are the same women who will get pregnant and make a man be responsible for the child, whether he wants the kid or not. It is a terrible and insipid argument, and it is also one of the arguments in the "pro-life" arsenal. If you break the argument down, it is saying that women who want the right to an abortion are only wanting that right because they are immoral and irresponsible. It is a way to weaken the image of the pro-choice woman, turning her desire to have control over her own body and make her own reproductive choices back into the discussion of morality and slut-shaming

His argument was that women should not have the right to an abortion because (implied) they have it 'so easy' compared to men, who 'can't' walk away from it. The obvious counter to that is that women don't have it easy (in his scenario), because while a man loses money, the woman may well LOSE HER FARKING LIFE. I support forcing either parent to pay child support, but that's a different conversation--I'm pointing out that what he ...


Ok for enders.

1) Not pro-life. I really am not. I apologize for thinking I'm more bitingly clever or funny than I am in my original comment. I really don't, but I feel like I've been misread. So that's my attempt at it.
2) Lethal? Honestly, in the rare occurence of that case we are both talking about (she dies, he doesn't want the baby), that's the end of story. Kid goes to adoption and that's the end of it. That's the lottery for guys in the position.
3) My point is that if you remove paternal consent from the issue, why do you not fully release the paternal parent from his legal and financial obligation when his wishes are counter to the mother? Because she might die? That's your answer? This isn't about stopping women from having abortions, it's about stopping them from having babies.
4) I'm not the one slut shaming here. I never told anyone to keep his or her pants on. (my responses to the men should abstain were tongue in cheek).
5) You can support "both parents paying child support" all you want, but see that happen is a different thing.
I support peace on earth and goodwill to all. But I don't do anything about it.

Nighty night.
 
2013-07-06 10:31:16 PM  
If only a projectile would ricochet into his face.
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report