10
   

CNN: Giffords to Resign from Congress

 
 
BillRM
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 11:20 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You mean like when you made this personally hostile remark to dlowan...


An you are not the queen of all queens in doing that kind of personally hostile remarks **** Firefly?

Let see both my wife and my computers are full of child porn and I am a drunk driver who need to cycle to work because of all of my many DUIs and on and on and on we go.

An of course Hawkeye is a pervert and so on.

In your case it is not just the pot calling the kettle black it is a black hole calling anything else in the universe black.



0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 11:32 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
It's possible to HAVE a reasonable debate about whether someone like Giffords ought or ought not to have resigned earlier....it's a fair enough point....but it all becomes about bloody Hawkeye because of the nonsensically inflammatory language he drags people into his world with. You don't have to be dragged people!


Bullshit, here is the full extent of the words that got me a -8 popularity rating:

Quote:
Wow, so it took about a year for her to get around to doing the the right thing. Color me impressed *sarcasm*


Where is the "inflammatory language"? Where is the nonsense? All I did was state an opinion that was not the A2K approved opinion using very common easily understood and balanced words. It is possible to have a reasonable debate about whether Giffords should have resigned, but from all appearances this can not be done on A2K. You will continue to blame me because you cant handle the truth, which is that you and a bunch of other people around here are close minded bigots who are only interested in having your already formed opinions ratified, you are not interested in either the process of debate nor the learning of where the truth is.

BTW, that this got at -8 rating is yet more proof of how idiotic the popularity rankings are, Robert should really bite the bullet and admit that he fucked up on that part of the new A2K, by getting rid of the voting.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 11:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Robert should really bite the bullet and admit that he fucked up on that part of the new A2K, by getting rid of the voting.


Robert does not seems to be the type to be willing to admit that he had make any errors in the design of this website.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 11:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Robert does not seems to be the type to be willing to admit that he had make any errors in the design of this website.


He has no choice but to admit that it failed, both in accomplishing the commercial goals that he set for A2K and for creating the type of community that he tried to engineer into existence. A2K needed a rest though, it had gone through enough abuse at his hands, but hopefully at some point he will be willing to invest more time into it. Hopefully the failure was a good lesson, and thus he will be able to do better next time.
Ceili
 
  6  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 12:29 am
@hawkeye10,
Robert didn't fail. He gave people a choice. They can ignore your constant whining or pass it by. Simple choice.
I rarely vote stuff down, but by god you've tempted me on so many occasions. Just when I think you can't get any more ugly... you never fail to go even lower or more obtuse.
Congrats!!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  7  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 12:45 am
@firefly,
I don't give a tuppenny **** when he makes personally hostile remarks.....don't make believing you're standing up for me or anyone else a reason to enable his destruction of discourse here.

I've been down that path and it's crap. You continue to engage with his personal bullshit because you and other doubtless well intentioned enablers want to.

My belief is that the best way of engaging him, if you wish to,is to ignore the crap and stick to the alleged argument. It's usually like shooting fish in a barrel but at least it keeps a thread free of his (and others of his ilk) parasitical takeover in the form of ego-stroking personal psychodramas.



If I want to I'll stand up for myself
dlowan
 
  7  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 12:49 am
@dlowan,
And robert makes mincemeat of the hawks whenever he chooses to, so fer crissakes don't think you need to stand up for him!
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 01:21 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
don't make believing you're standing up for me or anyone else a reason to enable his destruction of discourse here...
If I want to I'll stand up for myself

Actually I wasn't standing up for you. I was simply pointing out to Hawkeye the hypocrisy of what he was saying. If he'd like people to be more "civilized", and less insulting to each other, then why isn't he doing that?
Quote:
You continue to engage with his personal bullshit because you and other doubtless well intentioned enablers want to.
My belief is that the best way of engaging him, if you wish to,is to ignore the crap and stick to the alleged argument

If you look back in this thread, you'll see that, on the very first page, people got caught up with his use of "we" and that continued on the second page, so almost immediately, the actual topic was being somewhat disregarded and Hawkeye was becoming the focus. I was a little puzzled about why that was going on in this instance, and I don't know that the people involved with that were "well intentioned enablers". I came to the conclusion that, after so much exposure to it, people just have a low tolerance for Hawkeye's ability to irritate so that even his use of "we" will result in a diversion that will focus on him.

I don't actively seek to engage with his personal bullshit as much as I find it impossible to sidestep at times. I do persist in trying to focus on the topic, and on responding to the topic-related content of his posts, but when my tolerance for his personal bullshit reaches it's limit, I do react to it, as do many other people. If that gets other people upset, I'm sorry, but if I want to express myself, that's what I'm going to do.

But I'm not even sure that's what results in the destructive take-over of threads that probably bothers me as much as it does you and others. That take-over occurs with such regularity that I don't think it's ascribable to just people feeding and encouraging it. The other factor is that Hawkeye is quite adept at manipulating that take-over and focusing threads on himself and he does this by both the provocative nature of his topic comments and by engaging others more personally, generally with insults, and he persists until he has center stage.

His provocative comments are fine when they stimulate the topic discussion, but they are generally followed, on his part, by his veering off-topic to begin ranting/preaching about his general anti-government feelings, or something of that nature, and that alone will derail a discussion because he becomes determined to commandeer a thread to use as his personal soapbox to focus on his issues. That sort of thing I find easier to ignore, but it will also cause me to leave a thread rather than listen to it, and since others often do the same thing, topic discussion ends and it leaves him using the thread for his own purposes.

His provocative personal insults are sometimes harder to ignore. For instance, I am tired of his regularly calling me "a liar" and the gratuitous nature of such an insult, since he has never actually demonstrated any instance of actual lying in my topic comments--he couldn't, since I really don't lie or intentionally distort when I'm discussing an issue--and it is something he throws out simply because he enjoys insult for the sake of insult and he can't come up with anything else. I really don't care what he personally thinks of me, but, when I get fed up with his crap, I react to it, get it off my chest, and then move on. When I can ignore the crap I do, and, at other times, I choose to react.

At this point, I'm not sure what the solution is. I do feel, as you do, that there is a destruction of discourse going on with these thread take-overs, and that does cause people, including me, to leave or avoid threads, but I'm unwilling to take any large share of the blame for that, and I don't think blame should fall on anyone but the person trying to take-over the thread. To respond to him at all is to feed him. I don't think the nature of the response to him makes any difference. He's going to take the thread, any thread, where he wants it to go because basically he has no interest in discussing anything, he's interested only in expressing his own opinions and not in incorporating or seriously considering anything anyone else says. And, as true discussion dwindles down, and it becomes all about him, people get bored or disgusted and leave the thread.

And, before I get accused of yet another post that's all about him, I am really trying to reflect my own sense of frustration about trying to have a topic discussion when he becomes involved. And I am tired of being blamed for feeding him because most of the time I am trying to work around him in order to continue discussing the topic, and I also don't see anyone else having great success in preventing the thread take-overs.

I don't know whether the situation is getting worse, but I know I avoid some threads because of it, and it detracts from the enjoyment of posting in those where I'd really like to discuss the topic. I like provocative views, but not the needless atmosphere of unpleasantness that's being generated.

Just saying, "ignore the crap and stick to the alleged argument" is sometimes easier said than done, because there are times when the crap overwhelms and obscures the discussion to such an extent it is hard to ignore, and I don't think that's the solution that will alter much. So far, I haven't seen any solutions working well and there are numerous threads with evidence of that.

BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 01:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Just saying, "ignore the crap and stick to the alleged argument" is sometimes easier said than done, because there are times when the crap overwhelms and obscures the discussion to such an extent it is hard to ignore, and I don't think that's the solution that will alter much. So far, I haven't seen any solutions working well and there are numerous threads with evidence


Once more this is the case of the black hole <firefly> calling the kettle<hawkeye> black and is highly amusing to say the least.

No truth of any kind ever escape the event horizon of a posting of Firefly.

The only thing that seems to be able to tunnel out of Firefly postings are insults and personal attacks.

LOL.................
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 02:39 pm
There are certainly precedents for members of Congress remaining in office when they have been incapacitated in some way, and considerably more incapacitated than Giffords has been.
Quote:
What happens in Congress when a member becomes incapacitated?

They keep their seat until they decide—or their family decides—that it's time to step down. There are no rules in the House or the Senate that say a member of Congress must ever resign due to health reasons. In theory, a total vegetable could sit in Congress as long as their family refused to pull the political plug. Likewise, party leaders rarely pressure a member to step down—at least not publicly. That said, incapacitated members of Congress aren't very effective. Their staffers may continue to write legislation and advocate for their constituents' interests, but the members have little sway if they're not physically able to show up for votes.

Only once has Congress ever vacated a member's seat for medical reasons, and that was with her family's permission after she was unable to take the oath of office. Gladys Spellman, a congresswoman representing Maryland, went into a coma after suffering a heart attack just before Election Day in 1980. * She won re-election anyway, but after a few months, doctors said she remained in a sleeplike state and was unlikely to recover. Her family initially resisted vacating her seat, but finally, with their permission, the House voted on a resolution in February 1981 directing the state of Maryland to fill her seat. Spellman's husband ran for her seat and lost; Spellman never came out of the coma.

If Spellman had been able to take her oath of office—and thus get her staff to work in the Capitol—her seat might not have been vacated. Other members of Congress have continued to serve long after being incapacitated. In the 1940s, Carter Glass, a senator from Virginia, was absent for four years due to ailing health. He refused to step down despite numerous pleas from the editorial boards of Virginia newspapers, and his staff continued to work during that time. (Glass was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.) He kept his seat until his death in 1946. When Sen. Karl Mundt, a Republican from South Dakota suffered a stroke in 1969, his wife took over running his office. Mundt would resign, she said, only if the governor of South Dakota agreed to appoint her as his successor. The governor refused. Mundt didn't seek re-election in 1972 and was replaced by a Democrat. Sen. James Murray of Montana was so senile in the 1950s that his son ran his office and told him how to vote. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized for long stretches in his final years, but he remained in office until his death at 92 in 2010. Despite suffering a stroke in 2006, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota won re-election in 2008 and continues to serve.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/01/fit_to_serve.html

So, the fact that Giffords remained in office for a year following her injuries really isn't that unusual at all. And, since every elected office holder knows they might be a potential target of an assassination attempt, and could imagine him/herself in her shoes, her situation was rather unique in it's ability to generate the support and compassion of her colleagues, and to encourage their patience in allowing her the time to arrive at her own decision.

I think Giffords was quite entitled to take that year in deciding what to do. She needed to evaluate her recovery, and her capacities, in the context of the improvements which were occurring, as well as the demands she would face by returning to Washington. She needed time to evaluate the rate of progress in improvement of her speech and her ability to express herself, and when it was clear that there might not be substantial improvement prior to the next election, she resigned in order to allow others ample time to raise resources and prepare for their own candidacies.

I really do not see Giffords as having held on to her seat any longer than necessary, nor do I think her constituents were significantly disadvantaged by not having her actually on the floor of Congress for that year. Her Congressional office continued to serve constituent needs, and that office apparently handles 4X the number of inquiries and requests than the average, so it is a significant resource for those constituents and the assistance to them continued uninterrupted during the past year. I do not think her absence from her Congressional committees, or her failure to vote on issues, besides the debt ceiling, had any significant impact on her Congressional district, although she doubtlessly would have been more effective had she been able to function more fully. If my Congressional representative had been similarly disabled, it would not bother me if they took a year to appraise the situation and their ability to function in their office. There would still be 434 other members of Congress to hold down the fort for a year and those from my neighboring Congressional districts would still represent the interests of the area.

Giffords seat can only be filled by a special election scheduled by the governor of her state. So, even if Giffords had resigned a few months earlier, her district would have been left without any representation for several months, and without any Congressional office to handle constituent needs.There just isn't a fast way of replacing a member of Congress--they must be elected.
Quote:
Article I Section 2 Clause 4 of the Constitution requires that any vacancies in the House be filled by election:

"When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies."

Gov. Brewer of Arizona must first schedule a primary election, which is likely to take place in April, and then schedule a general election some time after that to fill the vacancy created by Giffords resignation. And, whoever wins that election, will have to run again in November if they want to retain the seat. But, no matter when Giffords resigned, her Congressional seat would have been empty for several months until the special primary and general elections could be held to fill the vacancy. Particularly when that is factored in, it is hard to see how any harm came to her constituents as the result of Giffords having taken a few extra months to arrive at what must have been a very difficult and painful decision for her.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 02:43 pm
There is a long history of people not giving up their seats after a medical problem that incapacitated them in some way. The history of Congress not removing them from their office is just as long.

Sen Carter Glass reportedly didn't attend Congress for almost 4 years from 42-46 but kept his seat.

Sen Tim Johnson suffered bleeding in the brain and was out for almost a year.

Sen Strom Thurmond commuted to the Senate from the hospital and there were questions whether he even understood his votes. (An aide may have inserted his card and pressed the vote button.)
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 02:54 pm
@parados,
And now Sen. Mark Kirk of illinois faces the same problem.
Quote:

How Much Time Off Can Sen. Kirk Afford?
By Mary Ann Ahern
Jan 25, 2012

There is no rule – federal law or constitutional authority – to determine whether a senator or congressman is “incapacitated” and unable to serve. In Rep. Gabby Giffords' case, she determined after basically a year away that she prefers to focus on her recovery and she resigned Wednesday.

Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.-R) likely will be given plenty of time to recover from the stroke he suffered over the weekend. And history shows that a hiatus isn't necessarily a career-changer.

In 2007 Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered a stroke and took nearly nine months off. He even won re-election after returning. Ted Kennedy suffered a brain tumor and was out for months, and Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms and was away for eight months in 1988. Seven years ago Sen. Harry Reid suffered a mild stroke and was able to use the summer recess to rest.

None of the senators or congressmen who fell ill was at risk of losing their jobs even though they couldn’t get to their offices or perform their duties. While representative staffers continue to answer constituent requests, the one thing they cannot do is vote for a member.

It is far too early to know how much time Sen. Kirk will be away, but tradition shows one year may well be the benchmark before there are questions about a resignation.

And Kirk's doctor said in a statement released Wednesday the senator is "progressing as expected."

"We continue to be hopeful about his long term prognosis," said Dr. Richard Fessler of Northwestern Memorial Hospital in a statement. "He remains in serious condition and is being monitored closely.”
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/How-Much-Time-Off-Can-Sen-Kirk-Afford--138049008.html

So, Giffords taking a year to focus on her rehabilitation and to decide what to do, wasn't out of line with precedent at all.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  5  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 02:57 pm
@firefly,
I agree that he and his ilk are skilled at entrapping people...I already said so. I was not just pointing at you. I do blame the real offender.....but they can't take over threads without help.

And that's my last comment on the matter here. I've already enabled more than enough!
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 02:59 pm
by god, don't **** with the bunny...
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  8  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 03:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

All I did was state an opinion that was not the A2K approved opinion using very common easily understood and balanced words. It is possible to have a reasonable debate about whether Giffords should have resigned, but from all appearances this can not be done on A2K. You will continue to blame me because you cant handle the truth, which is that you and a bunch of other people around here are close minded bigots who are only interested in having your already formed opinions ratified, you are not interested in either the process of debate nor the learning of where the truth is.

But we did have that debate several months ago. You stated your position (she is not representing her constituents, she should resign or be forced out) and others stated theirs (it's her constituents' business, not yours, her constituents are still be ably served by Gifford's staff, people are willing to let her have time to see if she recovers if only to not let violence automatically win, etc.) No one convinced you and you didn't convince anyone else but at least all the positions were stated. The reason you are getting flamed today is that you are being a sore winner which is the only think people dislike more than a sore loser. Giffords resigned, you got your wish. It would have been simple for you to write "I applaud Giffords for finally doing right by her constituents even though I think she should have done so months ago." I think that is 100% in line with your position and also represents a gracious victory speech. While Giffords' resignation is indeed the best thing for her constituents, it is also a victory for violence over the democratic process and for many that is something to rail against. Many here are also sympathetic to Giffords, a public servant cut down for no other reason that she chose to step out in front of her neighbors to represent them. To feel empathy for a true victim is not to buy into some "culture of victimhood". Your standing on the victory podium and hurling down insults and misrepresenations of everyone else's opinion is what earns you that -8, not some flaw in the voting system.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 04:49 pm
@engineer,
My -8 rated post did not in any way mention anyone at a2k, there for it could not be insulting or misrepresenting anyone at a2k.......come now, this is first grade logic here.

BTW: the hostility to the view that I give voice to was here months ago as well.....we have never been able to have a quality debate about this on a2k, it is not currently an open minded enough place for this level of questioning of the victim culture.
Ceili
 
  6  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 05:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
While I agree with every word engineer wrote, it's also missing that one key ingredient that turns most Hawkeye centric posts to utter bile.. That is, this topic is about a woman. He can't let any opportunity go when a woman can possibly be bashed.
As a woman, I sense your hostility and it comes right back at ya. So stop whining. You reap what you sow.
Let me know when you truly want a quality debate. You can start with the men who have routinely taken far more time off than Giffords, be it for illness or a whatever. Till then, shut yer yap. You've already said more than most people are willing to read. Obviously.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 07:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
BTW: the hostility to the view that I give voice to was here months ago as well.....we have never been able to have a quality debate about this on a2k, it is not currently an open minded enough place for this level of questioning of the victim culture

That's because you are choosing to cast the situation with Giffords as representing "the victim culture" and, as far as I can see, you are alone in that characterization. This has nothing to do with the "victim culture".

Furthermore, I have seen no evidence on your part to indicate that a significant number of people in her Congressional district were calling for her to resign or were voicing dissatisfaction with her absence from Congress. Those were the people who elected her, and those were the people to whom she would be answerable.

You think she should have resigned earlier based on your notions of "duty" and "honor"--but, in fact, such ostensibly lofty notions are not a formal obligation of any member of Congress, particularly in the case of a medical condition interfering with their service. And, as was pointed out in my two previous posts, other members of Congress have taken similar leaves to deal with medical conditions without being pressured to resign. And Sen. Mark Kirk will now also face a likely extended absence from the Senate due to his recent rather serious stroke. So, in terms of precedent, the fact that Giffords took a year before reaching a final decision, is not at all out of line with the way such medical problems have been handled in the past. And, had Giffords chosen to serve out the balance of her term, she would have been entitled to do so. In the end, her decision was based on her choice to focus on her rehabilitation and her recovery.

So, for you to single Giffords out, and to demand that she should have resigned 11 months ago, fails to take into account that this is not the way other members of Congress act in similar situations. Your insistence that she should have resigned 11 months ago singles her out, and holds her to a different standard than anyone else, and you completely failed to justify why that should be the case

Similarly, you chose to brand Giffords as "dishonorable" for wanting to remain in the office she was elected to, and wanting to continue serving her country, and her Congressional district, even if only through offering her constituents the assistance of her Congressional offices, which hardly strikes me as dishonorable in any sense. The woman clearly wanted to be able to return to her job, and, in many respects, her recovery was remarkable and a reflection of the determination and effort she put into it. So, to assail her as being "dishonorable" was an uncalled for insult, and undeserved assault on her character, and that may have accounted for some of the negative reaction you received, including from me.

So, as far as I am concerned, you simply failed to make an adequate case for your position that she should have resigned 11 months ago.

In addition, you implied that Congress should have ousted her, which they would have no authority at all to do in such circumstances
Quote:
There is no specific protocol, procedure, or authority set out in the United States Constitution, federal law, or congressional rule for the Senate (or the House) to recognize "incapacity" of a sitting Member and thereby declare a "vacancy" in such office.

Under the general practice and operations in the Senate (as well as in the House), personal "incapacity" of a sitting Member has not generated proceedings to declare the seat vacant, and sitting Members of the Senate (and the House) who have become incapacitated, and who have not resigned, have generally served out their terms of office.

and a vacancy with respect to such a sitting Member would generally exist only by virtue of resignation, death, acceptance of an incompatible office, or expulsion.

. . . it would be the particular House of Congress that would have to either declare or, at the least, recognize any such "vacancy" because of any "incapacity" before giving the oath of office and seating anyone presenting himself or herself as having been chosen to fill that seat.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dpq-nFX--ScJ:opencrs.com/document/RS22556/2006-12-15/download/1002/+incapacity&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh0axhFQjFBU-v_rJOoP9jwq0Psl2BI9RDdXJeTKv_ezR0CXuL7uG37m41cfMUrYIxXHR85JSCy-pauBQTGPc6cdj3bLpXNqDJRjTUsGg8stI8axb8sTu-ZMItVWCyqtIA-jhd_&sig=AHIEtbQ2_qAyULwfhctrdEu7iVxIFmUdew&pli=1


Nor did the state of Arizona have the authority to remove her from office.
Quote:
A statute buried in state law says that if a public officeholder ceases to "discharge the duties of office for the period of three consecutive months," the office shall be deemed vacant and that at such time, a special election could be called to fill the opening.

But in Washington, lawyers quickly concluded that the statute does not apply to members of Congress. The U.S. Constitution provides the qualifications for service in Congress and makes the House the sole judge of those qualifications.

Courts have consistently held that states cannot add qualifications to those in the Constitution and have rejected efforts to remove members of Congress, even through term limits and recalls.

"Legally, it's not a close call," said Brian Svoboda, a lawyer for the Democratic Party. "You have a history of interpreting these constitutional decisions and the courts have consistently struck down state laws that have tried to impose additional qualifications beyond those that are set forth in the Constitution."

Paul Bender, a constitutional scholar and a former dean of the Arizona State University College of Law, said that any determination of a vacancy would have to be made by Congress.

"The state has no right to say what the duties of a congresswoman are," he said. "The state has no right to say when the office becomes vacant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/17/AR2011011702542.html?sid=ST2011011702561

You also kept implying that Giffords should have resigned much sooner so that her seat could have been immediately filled by someone else, something which could never have come about immediately under any circumstances. You are simply not knowledgable regarding how vacancies in the House are filled.

As I noted in a previous post, such vacancies in the House, after a resignation, can be filled only by special elections called for by the governor of the state--both special primary elections, which are then followed by special general elections, a process that takes several months to complete, and during that several month time interval, I believe the Congressional district would have no representative, and no Congressional district office to serve constituents needs. So, Giffords remaining in office as long as she did, also kept her Congressional district offices open. And, no matter when she resigned during that year following the shooting, her district would have lacked any representation at all for the several month period required to hold the special primary and general elections to fill the vacancy. The primary election to fill her seat now probably won't take place until April, and then there will be another interval before the special general election. Giffords could not have been immediately replaced no matter when she resigned during the past year.

I don't feel hostile to your view that she should have resigned 11 months ago, I simply feel you failed to provide adequate support for your argument. But don't complain you didn't have a chance to debate the issue, because you certainly did. I think you just didn't make a very good case for your position.



0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 08:34 pm
@Ceili,
Quote:
While I agree with every word engineer wrote, it's also missing that one key ingredient that turns most Hawkeye centric posts to utter bile.. That is, this topic is about a woman. He can't let any opportunity go when a woman can possibly be bashed


Sorry he does indeed hold and rightly so in my opinion hold contempt for one class of women but that said nothing at all of the whole class of womankind.

Just the Fireflies of the world and their females fellow travelers.
hawkeye10
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2012 10:24 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
While I agree with every word engineer wrote, it's also missing that one key ingredient that turns most Hawkeye centric posts to utter bile.. That is, this topic is about a woman. He can't let any opportunity go when a woman can possibly be bashed


Sorry he does indeed hold and rightly so in my opinion hold contempt for one class of women but that said nothing at all of the whole class of womankind.

Just the Fireflies of the world and their females fellow travelers.



It just seems tthat way because I argue consistantly that women are unfairly advantaged in this collective, which is most certainly not an approved opinion. This divience from dogma is too much for some to deal with....they fall to the vapors....
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/22/2024 at 02:00:15