HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » beam me up scottie » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

beam me up scottie

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Green Mountain State
Current location: Red state in the bible belt
Member since: Sun Oct 10, 2004, 08:05 PM
Number of posts: 57,349

About Me

Journal Archives

Agreed. Maybe it's time to repost a rant.


But as long as you asked, I think pro-life men who shame women by defining abortion as the "taking of another life" (murder) are self-righteous, judgmental, fundamentalist asses.

I also think pro-life men who opine at length about how they are "personally opposed" to abortion and expect us to be grateful because they say they'll 'allow' us to make our own decisions are condescending blowhards. They believe they're entitled to judge us even though they've never known what it's like to worry that a pregnancy might ruin their health or kill them. They're completely clueless and incapable of understanding how terrifying the thought of having a child can be when you're alone and poor.

Pro-life men never attack other men who destroy fertilized embryos because as we all know it's not about the sanctity of life, it's about controlling women's bodies.

I don't think pro-life men have the right to lecture us about our opinions or our decisions. I really don't care about their moral objection to certain medical procedures and I wish they would shut the hell up about it.

Lastly I think it's none of these pro-life men's damned business what we do with our bodies and they should focus on their own reproductive organs. If pro-life men have an overwhelming urge to lecture others about morality they can go after legislators who oppose sex education, easy access to birth control and funding for family planning. Because women who need abortions aren't the ones who are behaving immorally.

I say this as a woman who's had an abortion and refused to allow anyone to shame me for making that decision.

I hope this clears up any confusion about what I think of pro-life men who shame women for having abortions.

Posted by beam me up scottie | Wed Aug 2, 2017, 05:30 PM (0 replies)

Let's change one word in your post and see what happens.

Why civil rights CANNOT be a litmus test in EVERY * SINGLE * DISTRICT!

There are many districts, mostly on the South, ripe for the picking that are redder than red and if you ran a Democrat who constantly said they do not personally support civil rights in answer to the civil rights question, they might actually win.

The key is, if a Democrat won the redder than red fucking district by paying such lip service on the civil rights issue, that's one more vote for Nancy Pelosi for majority leader. Tell me, how many votes that limit civil rights are going to come up in Nancy Pelosi's House? Precisely ZERO, so those two or three ant-civil rights Democrats from red districts mean FUCK ALL to that particular issue.

The main thing purists on every issue MUST remember is this, ALL POLITICS IN CONGRESS IS A NUMBERS GAME!!!

If we don't have 50% +1 in a House of the Congress, we CANNOT control the agenda in that House.

Keep in mind, Bob Casey (D-PA) is NOT pro-civil rights and his views on rights have yet to mean SHIT when it comes to civil rights.

218 Democratic members of the House and 51 Democratic Senators.

That's the goal.

Everything else is BULLSHIT!



If someone posted that I would check my calendar to see what century it was. Would anyone here actually expect us to support a white supremacist? Because that's what it's like, anti-choice politicians think women are second class citizens. They want to deny us bodily autonomy.

Reproductive rights are civil rights. Women understand what's at stake better than anyone and we don't need to be lectured about the process. We get it. We understand that politicians aren't perfect, we don't want perfection, we don't expect perfection. What we want is for party leaders to state unequivocally that reproductive rights are non-negotiable and for our allies to understand why we are angry when they don't.

We get it. We want to win too. We know how the game is played. We know sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. But we are tired of always being asked to put our civil rights on the block for the good of the party.

Lgbt people have also been asked repeatedly to wait patiently for their civil rights, they were called purists and accused of being single issue voters who wanted a 'pony'. But they sucked it up and did the right thing. Because they get it.

Those of us who stand to lose our civil rights get it. And we will probably do the right thing again. But we are angry right now and we need to vent.

We get it.

Do you?
Posted by beam me up scottie | Tue Aug 1, 2017, 07:18 PM (5 replies)

Thank you. I actually saw someone call him a Bolshevik.

Jewish Bolshevism, also known as Judeo-Bolshevism, is an antisemitic and anti-communist canard which alleges that the Jews were at the origin of the Russian Revolution and held the primary power among Bolsheviks. Similarly, the Jewish Communism theory implies that Jews have been dominating the Communist movements in the world. It is similar to the ZOG conspiracy theory, which asserts that Jews control world politics. The expressions have been used as a catchword for the assertion that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy.

In Poland, "Judeo-Bolshevism" was known as "Żydokomuna" and was used as an antisemitic stereotype.

The expression was the title of a pamphlet, The Jewish Bolshevism, and became current after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, featuring prominently in the propaganda of the anti-communist "White" forces during the Russian Civil War.

The theory was later propagated by the Nazi Party and their American sympathizers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union



American Jews have had their loyalty questioned since they started immigrating here, and they've been accused of being disloyal for far longer than that in other countries. Calling a Jew a communist or a Bolshevik is an anti-Semitic slur, it's disappointing to see those terms still being used.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Mon Jul 31, 2017, 05:56 AM (1 replies)

Stephen Fry: A force for good ... or not







*Disclaimer: posted in the Atheists and Agnostics group: A place where atheists and agnostics can engage in frank discussions about the effects of religion and its effects on politics and society
Posted by beam me up scottie | Mon Jul 31, 2017, 05:10 AM (8 replies)

Yes it's all very concerning. I'm concerned that more people aren't properly concerned.

They should really show more concern. But not too much.

Kind of like the three bears, not too much concern or too little.

No, what we need here is just the right amount of concern.

Otherwise people will be concerned.

How's that? Did I pass the test? Am I concerned enough?

Let me know, because I can act more concerned if necessary.

Posted by beam me up scottie | Mon Jul 31, 2017, 01:13 AM (0 replies)

The Activist Mommy Has a Lot of Advice on How to Beat Your Children Properly

The “Activist Mommy” Has a Lot of Advice on How to Beat Your Children Properly
July 29, 2017
by: Hemant Mehta

Elizabeth Johnston is the homeschooling Christian mother of 10 who goes by the name “The Activist Mommy” online and went viral with her multiple rants against Teen Vogue for daring to publish an article about anal sex.

She may be gaining popularity right now, but she’s been in conservative Christian circles for a long time, and she was writing about how to raise children in a Jesus-approved way more than a decade ago. Her old website was called Why the Truth Hurts. She and her husband posted on it back in the day when they only had four children. The site is no longer accessible.

But that’s why Satan invented the Internet Archives. It turns out we can look through several of the articles they wrote and get a sense of just how warped their idea of parenting really is.

***

What do we learn from the Johnstons’ Big Book of Advice?

1) Don’t let anyone find out you’re beating your children

Almost all spankings will cause a brief red mark on the skin, especially on fair skinned children. Be sensitive to this, and don’t let your child out in public in shorts if there are red marks on the child’s legs.

2) Beat your children at home

… don’t spank publicly if at all possible… the proper training at home will prevent the need for corporal punishment in public. Don’t presume that nobody’s looking — there are video cameras in the shadows.

3) Always use the right tools

Hands, surprisingly, can cause bruising very easily. The aim is not injury but a temporary sting, and a paddle or a switch can do this much better than a hand. The pain of a pop on the forearm with a switch, or on the buttocks with a belt, or on the thigh with a wooden spoon should never cause lasting pain or dysfunction, but only a temporary sting that should pass in a few seconds to moments. If the child is wearing a diaper, be especially careful not to swing your hand at the child’s padded buttocks. Because of the padding, parents are inclined to swing harder, and they can dislocate the child’s hip or hurt his back with a heavy swing on a diaper. It’s much safer to use a wooden spoon on the open thigh than to risk injury by spanking a padded bottom with your palm.

4) Don’t let anyone find out you’re beating your children (again)

… insist that your children cry quietly. Strong, loud, uncontrolled crying is a manifestation of rebellion, and should not be tolerated. A spanked child should cry quietly and not excessively. Excessive screaming might also prompt a concerned neighbor to call the HRS on you.

5) Always get a lawyer for when you’ve gone too far

The HRS has zero tolerance for spanking, and if they learn that you “hit” your children, they will not hesitate to take your children, and then you will be at the mercy of a liberal court… If the social worker at your door asks you if you have guns in the home, or if you believe in the Bible, or if you homeschool your kids, or what church you attend, you do not have to answer. Tell her that you love your children and that you’re uncomfortable with the spontaneous interview, and that she can ask her questions in the presence of your attorney at a later date.


***

If you’re offering advice about which household utensils are best to hit your kids with, maybe you’re a horrible parent.

If you’re beating your child so hard that neighbors might call a social worker on you, maybe you’re a horrible parent.

If you’re trying to cover up the physical marks left on your child after you beat them, maybe you’re a horrible parent.

If your parenting style involves making sure there’s a lawyer present for when you’re questioned about the child abuse, maybe you’re a horrible parent.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/07/29/the-activist-mommy-has-a-lot-of-advice-on-how-to-beat-your-children-properly/


Her meltdown over anal sex was just the latest in a long line of bizzare meltdowns, like her recent epic freakout over the rainbow reaction on Facebook. Still you would be amazed by how many people follow this Holier-than-thou Hypocrite on social media and even more amazed by the lengths they go to in order to defend her from critics.

The myth that somehow bigotry that's based on religious beliefs isn't really bigotry is alive and well so they get to spout their homophobia and misogyny and still act morally superior, and it appears they also get to beat their children in private while lecturing others about parenting.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Sun Jul 30, 2017, 04:29 PM (37 replies)

Good. He's introduced several Medicare for All bills and amendments in the Senate.

And here's Bernie in 1991 advocating a national health care system - just one month after being elected to Congress :



He's been working to save the ACA behind the scene and also by generating support for it publicly.

You go, Bernie! We need more tireless senators like him.

Posted by beam me up scottie | Sun Jul 30, 2017, 02:26 PM (2 replies)

That's a good idea, I think all options should be on the table.

Now is the time to hold Republicans' feet to the fire, while people are still pissed and the images of disabled people being thrown out of wheelchairs and arrested is fresh in our minds.

I still prefer Medicare for All but let's put it ALL out there and have the debate. No more stalling and allowing them to stifle us. Town halls, rallies, marches, television interviews and Internet webcasts with our guys - let's make our voices heard.
Posted by beam me up scottie | Sat Jul 29, 2017, 07:59 PM (1 replies)

Read the bill for yourself and see who consigned it, that's why I provided a link.

Here's a helpful article that may clear up what I meant when I said a majority of Dems in Congress support it:

Why So Many Democrats Are Embracing Single-Payer Health Care
Vocal support for universal coverage is on the rise among Democrats in Congress, though the party is far from united on the issue.

Since losing the White House last year, a growing number of Democrats in Congress have embraced the idea of universal, single-payer health care, setting up an inevitable confrontation between the liberal and centrist wings of the party over its future.

Emboldened by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, and the Republican effort to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law, progressive lawmakers and activists are trying to move single payer into the party mainstream. There are signs the idea is winning traction: For the first time ever, a majority of House Democrats have signed up to support “Medicare for all” single-payer legislation, a threshold crossed in the aftermath of the presidential election. A number of influential Senate Democrats have also expressed support for single payer in the midst of the current Republican health-care push, which is now in doubt as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushes for an Obamacare repeal vote.

“If you’re serious about real health-care reform, it has got to be on the agenda, and I would hope that as many Democrats as possible support it,” Senator Bernie Sanders said in a recent interview after a rally against the GOP health-care bill in Kentucky, where he promised that “as soon as we defeat this terrible Republican proposal,” he would introduce his own Medicare-for-all legislation. “It’s going to be a tough fight,” Sanders said, “but it is a fight that has to be waged, because it is the only rational solution to the health-care crisis that we face.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/healthcare-congress-bernie-sanders-single-payer-obamacare/533595/


Note the bolded and underlined text.

And what?

whose jobs don't depend on pleasing constituents


It's interesting that you're able to casually dismiss John Conyers' efforts to introduce single payer as simply "pleasing constituents" but I give him much more credit than that.

He's only human of course so you could be right about his motivation but I've never seen any indication that it's a publicity stunt to curry favour. I tend to think when a congressman fights for something year after year against all odds it's a good indication that he's doing it for a reason other than getting reelected.

And as usual, your mileage may vary.

So unless you can come up with a more compelling reason why I shouldn't support this bill and our Democrats in Congress who sponsored it I'm done. I've proven that this is no longer a pipe dream by fringe leftists. It's not perfect but it deserves to be debated in the House and Senate, not dismissed as a stunt. I've got horses to feed and I've spent way too much time defending single payer. Some people will never get behind it for whatever reason, there will always be an excuse to keep the profit in health care and I remain optimistic that we can get it passed anyway.

People who oppose abortion will never support my right to choose and those who oppose civil rights will never get behind any civil rights legislation. Conservatives and libertarians can't be reached but we don't need them to agree with us in order to make progress and give everyone health care. Let them whine.

Posted by beam me up scottie | Sat Jul 29, 2017, 07:34 PM (2 replies)

Actually he explained and SURPRISE! It has nothing to do with being "friendly" to Putin.

It's the same reason he voted against it the first time, he's concerned the Iran sanctions will be used as an excuse to back out of the Iran deal - something Republicans and hardliners in Iran have been trying to do since it was signed.

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/890703532973862912

I don't know where people get their information about Bernie being a Russian agent. Maybe McCarthyism is becoming fashionable again?

There's a red under my bed ... 🎶




Posted by beam me up scottie | Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:10 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »