Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: beezzer

Back to the point of what is civil conversation, discourse, and debate and the not? Just because some do it (from all points on the spectrum, I will add), does that make it right? Or a better world?

Your idea of a better world would differ from mine.

On the political ideology scale, I'm in the social anarchist spectrum.

What we have to recognize is that we can't make everyone happy. Ever. Might as well just remove that option from the table.

We should just focus on our homes, our families, and ignore the likes of any political asshat.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Women, by their nature, are not as forward-thinking, moral, and rational as men are. They are influenced far more by the limbic system, social cues, emotion, and base physical urges. When a woman sees a tall, chiseled, dominant alpha male, she gets all tingly inside and completely forgoes all pretenses to being a "nice girl". That's why chastity has to be socially enforced. Without social enforcement, all women would just blindly pursue every chiseled, muscular bad boy that they see and society would degenerate into an MTV "16 and Pregnant" dystopia (actually, it basically already has).

As I said before, women mainly operate through the limbic system. Without some kind of moral guidelines, they are reduced to whatever their social groups consider normal and cool. Women are far more attuned to social trends, and therefore they are more pliable and far less individualist than men. Women also lack an innate sense of honor, they'll even betray their own families once an alpha male comes and sweeps them off their feet.

So, basically, the path we are headed on is not looking good. Eventually it's just gonna be masses of sexually ravenous females getting knocked up by 5 different alpha males, while average guys just abandon society completely, or go on spree killings because they can't compete with the chiseled bad boys.

This is sarcasm, right?

Nope.

data.archive.moe...


2.bp.blogspot.com...

Ah. Well then it's just sad. Partiicularly that anyone so inclined could counter every one of those points, most of them by simply changing the gender pronouns.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

Your misogyny is showing but I would venture to guess that you don't care.

I hope you aren't ( or haven't) indoctrinated your sons with that vitriol, its disgusting.

a reply to: beezzer

On the political ideology scale, I'm in the social anarchist spectrum.

:
Social Anarchism

the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.[2] Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.[2]

Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons while retaining respect for personal property.[3] Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism is generally considered an umbrella term that includes (but is not limited to) collectivist anarchism, anarchist communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology.

Social anarchism is often used as a term interchangeably with libertarian socialism,[1] left-libertarianism,[4] or left anarchism.[5] The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism.[6]

*gasp*
beezzer? Seriously?? Is this ^^ seriously what you believe in?

If so, then WHY do you fight us all so hard??? WHY do you suggest the only reason you'd vote for Sanders is to upset Hillary?

You could check into O'Malley, too - same sort of guy.

You baffle me. But - there it is. Oh well.

a reply to: beezzer

We actually don't disagree here. I guess to this point I would just add to that that I don't see the point in trying to control someone else's home, family, politics, choices, or opinions, particularly by humiliating them. And like you, I shudder to think about the types of people some of us elect. And little things like this example sort of speak to character. The best we can hope for in politics is that the lesser of the evils gets elected and doesn't become more evil. I don't think there's a lot of hope for our government at al, not without a total reset/do over, with firm term limits and campaign spending reform. Too bad most people just don't care or just don't realize we could actually change this if we really wanted to.

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: DiggerDogg

Your misogyny is showing but I would venture to guess that you don't care.

I hope you aren't ( or haven't) indoctrinated your sons with that vitriol, its disgusting.

Your emotionally charged irrational denial is showing. I'm not a misogynist at all, I like women a lot. A whole lot .

"Misogynist" is just a meaningless buzzword anyway, only meant to defame and discredit people who are opposed to the current status quo.

I'm sorry that you don't like the truth.

Yeah diggerdog went far out on a limbic system

Seriously folks, where too far gone to going back to 19th century Victorian morals

Forget about it... Bush is just talking trash to religious people

a reply to: DiggerDogg

I'm sorry that you don't like the truth.

That "truth" is subjective.

There aren't enough men like Sean Connery around anymore. If more men were like him, maybe we could solve a lot of the world's problems rather than being saddled with a bunch of effete, incompetent, limp-wristed hipsters.

Men like this are the ones who enact real change in the world, becuase they stand by what they believe. They still have their balls intact.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: daryllyn

All truth is subjective.

a reply to: beezzer

No.

There are objective truths.

People needing oxygen to live is an objective truth.

Subjective truths are only true to you/some, while objective truths, are true for all.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
There aren't enough men like Sean Connery around anymore. If more men were like him, maybe we could solve a lot of the world's problems rather than being saddled with a bunch of effete, incompetent, limp-wristed hipsters.

Men like this are the ones who enact real change in the world, becuase they stand by what they believe. They still have their balls intact.

www.youtube.com...

Really?

ean Connery has publicly admitted to beating women, and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. In this case, I think his words say a lot more than I ever could. He was quoted in a 1965 Playboy saying:

“I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman - although I don’t recommend doing it in the same way that you’d hit a man. An openhanded slap is justified – if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it. I think a man has to be slightly advanced, ahead of the woman. I really do – by virtue of the way a man is built, if nothing else. But I wouldn’t call myself sadistic.”

20 years later, he told Barbara Walters:

“I haven’t changed my opinion. […] No. Not at all. I don’t think it’s bad, and I think it depends entirely on the circumstances, and if it merits it. If you have tried everything else – and women are pretty good at this – when they can’t leave it alone and want to have the last word, then you give them the last word. But they’re not happy with having the last word, they want to say it again and get into a really provocative situation. Then, I think it’s absolutely right.”

Read more: www.thegloss.com...

That's a helluva role model.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

Did you seriously just use feminism to justify domestic violence?

a reply to: daryllyn

How do you define domestic violence?

I mean, I once put my wife over my knee and swatted her.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: daryllyn

How do you define domestic violence?

I mean, I once put my wife over my knee and swatted her.

Ummmm that is so not the same thing... LOL

I would define domestic violence as aggressive or violent behavior within a home, or towards a spouse/family member.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

As usual for a politician his views have evolved over time, same as most
politicians. Just as Hillary Clinton has abandoned her previous
ideologies, about marriage, about foreign policy, etc.

Bush said " "My views have evolved over time, but my views about the
importance of dads being involved in the lives of children hasn't
changed at all."

www.nbcnews.com...


So if Hillary can be given a pass, so can Jeb, that is aside the fact that a
two parent family is ideal as most think.

Unlike Clinton, who shamed a young girl as she was
on trial for being raped at a young age of 12 , yet has been
vocal that she has NO regrets, and that it takes a village to raise
a child, which is a classic socialist view.

Does a village shaming amount to more trauma?

Essentially, pointing out the hypocrisy of those who bemoan one politician, but allow another a pass.

Supporting links: Hillary on defending marriage as sacred between a man and woman.


Hillary on shaming young girl rape victim

Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.

www.cbsnews.com...
freebeacon.com...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: DiggerDogg

I can't say that I agree with everything you said, but man!

I gotta give you kudos for having the stones to say it!

lolz

I would have to agree here.

These days people are shamed for expressing unpopular opinions more than participating in unpopular activity.

Most of the Republican candidates are now starting to backtrack from their previously held far right positions to become much more centrist.

Jeb Bush is no different.

The trouble is, it was those far right positions that are like red meat to their base of far right low information or blatant false information voters. If they move too far to center, they lose a large part of that base.

Romney waited until too late to soften his positions, then made the mistake of taking a wild swing away from the values of the core TEA Party voter, that make up a large part of the GOP these days.

Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, have all softened positions lately. People like Donald Trump (I really don't think he's going to run at all) have been less vocal of late.

Ridiculous mouthpieces like Sarah Palin are being ignored more as of late, even Ann Coulter seems to have dropped out of public eye a bit, but that might change now she has a new book to drive PR for.

At election time, EVERYONE tries to appeal to more people. The trouble for Republicans is that when they appeal to more people, they move away from the base that got them to where they are.

So far, all the candidates are trying to appeal to the far right. There will be a mad rush after the first few debates to change to center right. Whomever adjusts best and quickest will probably emerge as the candidate.

So far, my money is on Rand Paul as being most able to quickly adapt to a changing situation.

Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindhal, Jeb Bush have all been way too far extreme for too long and too old school to be able to adapt quickly when the time comes.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not all unwed mothers are on welfare.

I find bushes coments abhorent


This is not about welfare and yes I agree with shameing wellfare queens, but to generalise a whole group? Not cool