Liberal Women are Unhappy

[HisArpy]

You can legally get an abortion in all 50 states.
Those states can legally make it almost impossible for you to have an abortion.

Fixed for you.

 

[ll74]

Fixed for you.

Yes, because that shows how you don't understand why an abortion would be needed at all and instead play the role of full ignorant lawyer who understands CYA well.

"You can get an urgent life saving procedure by finding transportation to drive six hours to a center that may not be open, so make sure you call ahead!"

 

[HisArpy]

After reading a lot of good posts I'm pretty sure I have an idea why he doesn't like abortion.

I absolutely support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Right down the line, if you want one, go get one. Even if you live in Texas, Idaho, Georgia, or Mississippi you can still get one in another State if you go there. California will even pay your travel costs.

Why do I support abortion?

Because it's the law. And of course, eventually you will get beyond child bearing years and your fucked up genetics won't be part of the gene pool any longer. So, not only does the law win, so does Nature and I'm all for supporting Nature along with supporting the law.

 

[Hel_Books]

You need to get a clue. I'm one of the very few conservatives on this board who is outspoken about supporting abortion and individual choice. So it's not about "me treating my woman like shit." It's about YOU deciding that you don't like what I say so you point at me and loudly scream that I'm the problem. It's not me, it's you. It's always been you and always will be you no matter what forum you're using because you can't see/think beyond the daily narrative. If, that is, you think at all instead of just parroting what you're told like a good little numbskull. So yes, it's you.



Roe was a horrible decision. Not for the decision itself, which it was from a logic standpoint, but because women ceded the power to control their own procreation to the government by allowing the government to get involved in the first place. And now you're fighting to get it back, which won't ever happen.

It's like the gay marriage thing. Marriage is a religious rite. As such the government should have NO VOICE regarding who can/can't be married. But, by asking the government to decide if gays can be married, the door was opened for government to control the issue, not the people or their religious leaders/churches. Conservatives GAVE AWAY the power to determine this themselves and they're still trying to get it back, which they never will.

Government never gives up what it takes unless it's forced to do so. Even a court decision on the issue is still the government deciding if you have freedom/liberty or not.

You did write, "What next generation? There is no next generation after abortion," which gave the impression you didn't like abortion.

Glad to hear you're OK with it!

As for women ceding "the power to control their own procreation to the government by allowing the government to get involved in the first place" what on earth are you talking about? Before Roe, government were already "involved"! Otherwise, why would the case about abortion laws (the laws were the way state governments were "involved") ever come to court!

Same thing about marriage equality. Maybe marriage shouldn't be regulated by government. But in the USA, as in many other countries, government are deeply involved in marriage. So you got Obergefell.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Perhaps. On the other hand, perhaps it's just you who feels uncomfortable at the thought of being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you do, or a woman who asks you to shoulder your part of the burden of raising kids.

Maybe you're just reaching for straws and have no clue.

Perhaps. On the other hand, as with President Trump, you're offering no evidence to support your statement.

 

[HisArpy]

You did write, "What next generation? There is no next generation after abortion," which gave the impression you didn't like abortion.

This is what YOU read into what I said. The error is yours.

Glad to hear you're OK with it!

As for women ceding "the power to control their own procreation to the government by allowing the government to get involved in the first place" what on earth are you talking about? Before Roe, government were already "involved"! Otherwise, why would the case about abortion laws (the laws were the way state governments were "involved") ever come to court!

Before Roe there were State laws against Abortion. Why wasn't the fight against those when they were enacted in the 50's?

The answer is simple and I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

Same thing about marriage equality. Maybe marriage shouldn't be regulated by government. But in the USA, as in many other countries, government are deeply involved in marriage. So you got Obergefell.

Here's what you don't understand, Government doesn't regulate marriage. It can't.

Instead what government does is recognize marriage for purposes of taxation and property ownership/familial rights/inheritance.

This is why, when you went to your local Justice of the Peace you didn't get "married" you got "wedded." Government CANNOT conduct a religious rite such as marriage because to do so is prohibited by the Constitution. All it has the power to do is equate being "wed" with being "married" before the law and deem them to be equal in all civil rights and privileges.

And I'm good with that because equality is a good thing.

Unfortunately, what happened was that a bunch of simpleton lawmakers and ignorant lawyers without vision didn't think about marriage being a religious rite and argued some other heretofore unstated whack job theory about marriage being only between a man and a woman. And they lost that argument because it was fucking stupid from the get-go.

Had anyone been able to ask Socrates or Plato their thoughts, I'm sure their responses would have been quite different than the airheaded ideology put forward by most people on this issue.

 

[AlexBailey]

This is what YOU read into what I said. The error is yours.



Before Roe there were State laws against Abortion. Why wasn't the fight against those when they were enacted in the 50's?

The answer is simple and I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.



Here's what you don't understand, Government doesn't regulate marriage. It can't.

Instead what government does is recognize marriage for purposes of taxation and property ownership/familial rights/inheritance.

This is why, when you went to your local Justice of the Peace you didn't get "married" you got "wedded." Government CANNOT conduct a religious rite such as marriage because to do so is prohibited by the Constitution. All it has the power to do is equate being "wed" with being "married" before the law and deem them to be equal in all civil rights and privileges.

And I'm good with that because equality is a good thing.

Unfortunately, what happened was that a bunch of simpleton lawmakers and ignorant lawyers without vision didn't think about marriage being a religious rite and argued some other heretofore unstated whack job theory about marriage being only between a man and a woman. And they lost that argument because it was fucking stupid from the get-go.

Had anyone been able to ask Socrates or Plato their thoughts, I'm sure their responses would have been quite different than the airheaded ideology put forward by most people on this issue.

Cool.

You obviously have a good understanding of the difference between being wed and being married.

Now explain the difference between sex and gender.

 

[HisArpy]

Cool.

You obviously have a good understanding of the difference between being wed and being married.

Now explain the difference between sex and gender.

One is real, the other is fake.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
You did write, "What next generation? There is no next generation after abortion," which gave the impression you didn't like abortion.

This is what YOU read into what I said.

Hey, if you sound like Charlie Kirk, don't blame me!

 

[Hel_Books]

Before Roe there were State laws against Abortion. Why wasn't the fight against those when they were enacted in the 50's?

The answer is simple and I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

There was a fight. In fact, some USA states legalized abortion before 1973.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Same thing about marriage equality. Maybe marriage shouldn't be regulated by government. But in the USA, as in many other countries, government are deeply involved in marriage. So you got Obergefell.

Here's what you don't understand, Government doesn't regulate marriage. It can't.

Instead what government does is recognize marriage for purposes of taxation and property ownership/familial rights/inheritance.

This is why, when you went to your local Justice of the Peace you didn't get "married" you got "wedded." Government CANNOT conduct a religious rite such as marriage because to do so is prohibited by the Constitution. All it has the power to do is equate being "wed" with being "married" before the law and deem them to be equal in all civil rights and privileges.

And I'm good with that because equality is a good thing.

Unfortunately, what happened was that a bunch of simpleton lawmakers and ignorant lawyers without vision didn't think about marriage being a religious rite and argued some other heretofore unstated whack job theory about marriage being only between a man and a woman.

If you're going to claim civil marriage isn't what you want to call "marriage," fine, go ahead and do that.

 

[AlexBailey]

One is real, the other is fake.

Sex is real and gender is fake?

Or is it the other way around?

 

[HisArpy]

Hey, if you sound like Charlie Kirk, don't blame me!

Charlie Kirk believed in the guy with the Vatican sponsored book sales program.

I fly a desk for the guy who runs The Hotel Of Eternia.




Welcome to The Hotel Of Eternia,
It's warmer here,
Every time of year.

Plenty of room at The Hotel Of Eternia,
We have lava pools,
They're all filled with fools...

 

[HisArpy]

Sex is real and gender is fake?

Or is it the other way around?

I'm sure you're dum enough to fuck it up and get it wrong way around no matter which way you put it.

 

[AlexBailey]

I'm sure you're dum enough to fuck it up and get it wrong way around no matter which way you put it.

I’m just surprised to hear you acknowledge there is a difference between gender and sex.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Sex is real and gender is fake?

Or is it the other way around?

I've been told sex with me is an unreal experience. Just saying.
Apart from that he's a moron. Only his own arguments and twisted logic counts. It can't be if he doesn't want to be it. There isn't even internal logic in his arguments.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

And Charlie Kirk was the same. A stupid prick.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m just surprised to hear you acknowledge there is a difference between gender and sex.

I've always said there's a difference. It's you dipshits who insist that there isn't and that changing gender means changing sex too.

However, sex is an undeniable biological reality. Even if you surgically alter the body, the genetic sex is still there because you can't change biology.

Then there's the fact that gender is a role play construct. To say otherwise is to also say that every actor who played a part in theater or cinema, BECAME the person whose role they were playing. Which is patently ridiculous.

And if you want to get even more absurd and try to say it's different, then saying that changing gender also makes the person's sex change from one to the other begs the question of how do you square that with a character, say a wizard, in D&D or other role play games? Does playing the role of a wizard also convey REAL magical powers? The answer is no it doesn't. It can't because gender, like the magical powers of a wizard, is only a ROLE people play as part of societal relationships. It doesn't change who you are, just like acting a role in either a theater/cinema production or role playing game doesn't mean you change into that person.

 

[HisArpy]

I've been told sex with me is an unreal experience. Just saying.
Apart from that he's a moron. Only his own arguments and twisted logic counts. It can't be if he doesn't want to be it. There isn't even internal logic in his arguments.

I've heard that having sex with someone who resembles a dead log tends to evoke that kind of response. You might want to look into your proclivities and see if there's a problem that needs addressed with a sex therapist.

 

[HisArpy]

And Charlie Kirk was the same. A stupid prick.

Easy to insult the dead when they can't defend themselves. Which is why most people follow the rule against speaking ill of the dead.

Those who are gauche however...

 

[OralAllOver]

October 29, 2025

Liberal Women are Unhappy

By Sloan Oliver

On October 18, Democrats and other leftist groups held hundreds of “We hate Trump; we hate his supporters” protests that they called the “No Kings” march. The largest demographic group of protesters was older, antagonized white women accompanied by their reluctant, “do-I-have-to-participate” husbands (the second largest group). In contrast to the Democrats’ younger protesters, these elderly (70s and 80s) men and women were civil and even displayed patriotism by waving (not burning) U.S. flags. Surprisingly, they didn’t carry many Palestinian or Mexican flags often seen when Dems protest. Obviously, they received the memo to tone down their hatred of America.

The protesters claimed to be against “kings and monarchs.” That’s not true. Dems and their protesters love authoritarian regimes. They embrace communism, socialism, dictators, kings, and oppressive regimes provided the authoritarian is one of their own. How else does one explain their support of Islam (a completely repressive ideology) over Christianity and their overwhelming support for the soon-to-be-elected communist mayor of NYC? Trump is the exact opposite of a dictator or king, which is why Dems protest so vigorously against him. They’re against Trump because he’s open and honest, and those who support authoritarians hate transparency and honesty.

The demographics of the protests got me to wondering, why do so many 3Ws (Wealthy White Women) participate in all these “hate Trump” protests and rallies? It makes no sense. Trump has negotiated numerous peace treaties around the globe, completely closed the border to illegals, is making us all safer by deporting illegals, has reduced crime in cities controlled by Dems, greatly reduced Biden’s inflation, is eliminating drug cartels by blowing up their boats, is ending race-based discrimination (He’s getting rid of DEI.), eliminating boys playing girls’ sports, negotiating new trade deals that will bring tens of thousands of jobs to the USA, and these “educated” elites are against it all. Why?

more
https:/

/www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/10/liberal_women_are_unhappy.html

Do you kno what evidence is? Are you aware that others often do?

Fact: Grab them by the pussy
Fact: Close friend of Epstein
Fact: Cheated on wives including when pregnant
Fact: Jury found Trump committed sexual assault (He did not even testify)


Add his glee in cruelty... why any American supports him is the riddle

 

[HisArpy]

Do you kno what evidence is? Are you aware that others often do?

Fact: Grab them by the pussy
Fact: Close friend of Epstein
Fact: Cheated on wives including when pregnant
Fact: Jury found Trump committed sexual assault (He did not even testify)


Add his glee in cruelty... why any American supports him is the riddle

I'm actually not surprised that you left out all the other facts, called exculpatory evidence, from your little list.

I wonder what the conclusion would be if you included those items...

 

[LeahWill]

"You might want to look into your proclivities..."

"Those who are gauche however..."

God help us.

The Fake Lawyer now thinks he is Noël Coward.

 

[stxjimmy]

"You might want to look into your proclivities..."

"Those who are gauche however..."

God help us.

The Fake Lawyer now thinks he is Noël Coward.

He probably still thinks trump is a good man too, he is a coward just not Noël.

 

[stxjimmy]

October 29, 2025

Liberal Women are Unhappy

By Sloan Oliver

On October 18, Democrats and other leftist groups held hundreds of “We hate Trump; we hate his supporters” protests that they called the “No Kings” march. The largest demographic group of protesters was older, antagonized white women accompanied by their reluctant, “do-I-have-to-participate” husbands (the second largest group). In contrast to the Democrats’ younger protesters, these elderly (70s and 80s) men and women were civil and even displayed patriotism by waving (not burning) U.S. flags. Surprisingly, they didn’t carry many Palestinian or Mexican flags often seen when Dems protest. Obviously, they received the memo to tone down their hatred of America.

The protesters claimed to be against “kings and monarchs.” That’s not true. Dems and their protesters love authoritarian regimes. They embrace communism, socialism, dictators, kings, and oppressive regimes provided the authoritarian is one of their own. How else does one explain their support of Islam (a completely repressive ideology) over Christianity and their overwhelming support for the soon-to-be-elected communist mayor of NYC? Trump is the exact opposite of a dictator or king, which is why Dems protest so vigorously against him. They’re against Trump because he’s open and honest, and those who support authoritarians hate transparency and honesty.

The demographics of the protests got me to wondering, why do so many 3Ws (Wealthy White Women) participate in all these “hate Trump” protests and rallies? It makes no sense. Trump has negotiated numerous peace treaties around the globe, completely closed the border to illegals, is making us all safer by deporting illegals, has reduced crime in cities controlled by Dems, greatly reduced Biden’s inflation, is eliminating drug cartels by blowing up their boats, is ending race-based discrimination (He’s getting rid of DEI.), eliminating boys playing girls’ sports, negotiating new trade deals that will bring tens of thousands of jobs to the USA, and these “educated” elites are against it.liberal women are certainly unhappy about having a pedo president

Liberal women are certainly unhappy about having a pedo president.

What a dumb time to make such a dumb thread.