Pelosi, Who Pushed Through 'Non-Gendered Language' Calls Herself Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter

My "CLAIMED country?"

 

er, you know that's not how dictionaries work don't you? they provide a defintion of what IS pandering. from there you are supposed to be able to infer what is not.

Oh right of course you are completely unaware of the mountain range of false claims made by Donnie Peachs and his capos.
Stolen Credit? How exactly did he rebuild the military besides throw a lot more money at it and ban transgenders? What exactly did he do for the VA again?

Oh no, I am well aware that he was refering to those protesting the statues being removed and he was correct that there were some very nice people there according to him because being a racist slavery apologist is more than patriotic in Trump's america. That disgusting 1776 commission piece of putrid partisan apolgisim for slavery and jim crow is evidence.

Charlottesville was the first concrete evidence of the merger of the republican party, MAGA and the far right racist fascist white nationalist scumbags.

The rioters were fascist nazi white nationalists, batcrap crazy Qanoners, and truly gullible angry angst ridden white folk, some of whom just got caught up in the whole you know MOB MENTALITY.

The extreme left are as odious as the extreme right. I hate commies as much as I hate nazis. And ANYONE who riots is committing a criminal act that deserves prosecution. I doubt you'll find many on the left that thinks otherwise.

A summer of racial unrest with an undercurrent of violence and sporadic rioting is nothing new in America.

A riot at the Capitol, motivated by POTUS claims of a lost election being stolen from him and his adoring MAGA Mob, resulting in the deaths of 5 people and the desecration of the heart of American Democracy is perhaps a considerably different kettle of fish. Especially since those "racist fascist white nationalist pin heads" that "came out" with MAGA in charlottesville planned the attack in cooperation with at least two GOP congressmembers.

No but the racist white nationalists that vote republican and are MAGA adherents would jump at the friggin' chance. And they don't get no love at all. And anyone who defends them gets no love at all. And I expect the haters to whine and point fingers at the people who hate them back.

 

And from the dictionary, we can see that what IS pandering is "an extreme nationalist party trying to entice minority support with false claims and stolen credit?"

False claims specifically relating to minorities?

Are you saying that he took credit for rebuilding the military? If so, then yeah I don't understand that, because I wasn't aware that the military had been demolished and needed rebuilding. And again, does this specifically relate to minorities?

I'm guessing precisely NOTHING, which would be an absolute DISGRACE, but is that any different to Obama's first four years?

Okay, so someone is a "racist slavery apologist" if they don't want statues removed? Come on, get real.

Oh and I suppose you think that the '1619 Project' is a totally non-partisan, factual, historically accurate piece of work!

And how does the 1776 commission apologise for slavery?

Merger? The leading white nationalist in the country DESPISES Trump and voted for Biden! So I guess that's "concrete evidence" of the merger of the Democratic Party, MAGA and the far right racist fascist white nationalist scumbags!

Yes, you are correct. Just out of interest, do you suppose that Alex Jones is part of all of that?

Good stuff. You clearly don't know how rare that is. You think that the majority on your side would say that they hate antifa as much as they hate nazis? VERY unlikely! You clearly don't know your side very well at all! Biden couldn't even specifically condemn antifa by name! Trump on the other hand has condemned white supremacy about ONE MILLION times! Even though he did ROYALLY screw things up at the first debate when he had the opportunity to condemn them for the one million and first time! But there were those one million PRIOR times which the left and the media (but I repeat myself) dishonestly disregarded!

CNN's Chris Cuomo certainly thinks otherwise. He supported the violence.

"Motivated by POTUS." Interesting. I haven't heard it termed in that way. That's certainly nowhere near as strong as Trump INCITED the riot which is the majority position on the left. Do you not accept that position?

Oh WOW, so now you're promoting a conspiracy theory?

Sorry, aren't all 74 millions Trump voters "MAGA adherents?" That is literally the same as saying 'TRUMP adherents.'

 

Yes, they can never be pleased.

 

Exactly. That's what I was thinking. The rule could have originally simply stated that it applies to any RELATIVE of a congress person, and changing it to "relative" could
surely have been the amendment in this case. This assumes that the one million different relative titles in that list included every possible relative, which it surely must have.

I don't see why it couldn't have been the case that this move in the House was a guideline for members of the House to use non-gendered language in their speech. The left LOVES its speech codes! We've seen speech codes in places like New York!

 

that was not what the law said, the law was genderized, had it been gender-neutral from the get go, women would not of had to fight for the right to vote

why do people from the au care if America uses gender-neutral wording in our laws or not?

 

Oh it's been done alright! https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/22/story-one-mans-pregnancy-trans-jason-barker

 

Yes, just as if the law was "men and women can vote", which is NOT gender-neutral, women would not have had to fight for the right to vote.

We don't.

 

could have fooled me

 

Yes, just as if the law was "men and women can vote", which is NOT gender-neutral, women would not have had to fight for the right to vote.

 

What she wanted was that the rules themselves would be gender neutral. But that doesn't mean individual members can't refer to themselves by their own gender.

 

But it wasn't. It was a single change to an existing rule that has literally nothing to do with speech in any way. The change could have passed with minimal impact and hardly anyone knowing or caring. The only reason we're talking about it at all is because people like you spun up lies about the change for partisan political purposes to attack the idea of accounting for different gender identities or to attack perceived political opponents you've chosen to hate. Like this mess;

 

You would go to war because gays are allowed to be gay?
Trans people are allowed to be trans?

Do you not see how petty that Is?

How do those groups of people offend you so much you are willing to kill over them?

 

So people are upset a 80 yr old woman calls herself grandmother, mother, wife?

Isn't there actual life to live?
Instead of being upset because a woman calls herself woman titles.

 

Sure. As long as both parties sign consent.

 

Yes. Your claimed country. England I believe is the country you claim as your home.

No politics in your country that concerns you?
Pelosi live in your head?

 

You can say that some people were people of their time. It's easy to judge people to current norms. Than again. Winston Churchill was regarded as a racist back in the day. He caused a massive famine in India due party his own policies, and did not care how many died, as long as white Brittan survived.

And them anti-fascists got a point. It were fascists GOP supporters who stormed the capitol. Same people who support the blue, beat up the blue, and the blue did not dare to shoot back at the predominantly white crowed when they were beat into the hospital at a dozen an hour. (The person who got shot, was trying to break in). It is what it is. While the same cops show no restraint when confronted with black people.

 

I feel it's one thing to do what you want, no matter how ridiculous it is, and another to proselytize and try to impose it on others. As an example: If I like to dance naked, does it mean I have the right to do so in public even though it causes offense? Wouldn't it be an imposition on the rights of others?

Besides, if you keep removing moral boundaries and pulling away from God's humanity and His order of things, people's hearts will begin to harden - and that's when you really have to worry. We saw it in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and you're seeing the beginning of it today with the Democratic Party and the way they threaten and persecute anyone who doesn't go along with their agendas. This is a definite affront on people's rights - if not downright criminal, and something that no political Party in the US has ever done before.

It's going to get worse as more and more moral boundaries are removed, and as we turn from a highly humane society into a pagan self indulgent and 'anything goes' one. Well, where does it end? Will it be the Gulag, an arena with the lions or in a world war?


Darkness reigns without the light,
with souls a-wandering in the night,
of pagan lusts, barbarity,
of malice, harm and cruelty.

And should there ever come a day,
when evils such will fade away,
then madness such as these can cease
and hearts can grow with a heavenly peace - Jeannette

 

If the condition is not detected, as is often the case with intersexed, then the external genitalia is used to determine at birth the supposed sex.

RvW provided that medical decisions were between a patient and her doctor and not subject to outsiders. While the case had been about abortion, the decision did not limit that relationship between patient and doctor to abortion cases.

 

Any who have gotten married before have listed themselves as either male or female on the paperwork. Now in some states they have moved to including things like "do not want to to disclose" or "NB" or other things, but not all have. If the person is asked, "do you identify as male or female?" and responded, "I'm non-binary" then they could be answered, "we don't have the option, you don't get a certificate/license".

 

The inclusion of something on a Wiki page has nothing to do with the effect the ruling had on the law.

 

Can you please give some reference for what you said, because from the videos that I saw, the police removed the barriers on their own volition after Sullivan spoke to them - who according to his brother James is a member of Antifa with a police record. I did not see or hear of any police being wounded. Also the girl did not break the window in the Capital Building. John Sullivan admitted he broke it and seemed enthusiastic about somebody being shot.

Of course one has to wonder why the officer shot the girl and not Sullivan. Is it because she was white, or did the officer know Sullivan and directed the fire towards her. As of yet, the officers name has not been disclosed, nor have we heard anything about him.

 

The Indians should be the last people to talk of racism, considering they had a caste system based on racism. Let's not forget the untouchables (Dalits).

Anyway I think the term 'race' should be eliminated, because it separates people by their skin color, when it's really a comfort factor and a means of identity. People want to be with their own kind. (What a boring world it would be if everyone looked and acted the same). The only word the ancient Greeks had was 'phili' which means ethnicity and has nothing to do with race, although in English it is translated as race.

This doesn't mean the Greeks didn't have their own colorful terms to distinguish tribes such as; slope heads, lizard eyes or burnt skin, but that's neither here or there.

As for feeling superior, of course they felt superior to the 'barbarians', which was anyone who didn't speak Greek. They'd be abnormal if they didn't, I mean everyone likes to think their standards and culture is above that of others.

That the Western Europeans believe they are culturally and ethnically superiority, well it's normal. They felt that way even when they were bashing people's heads. If it bothers you, then that's your problem. It really shouldn't!

 

Are you saying you have no idea that he's been running around since day one crowing about rebuilding the Military? In one out the other?

You seem remarkably uninformed about Trump's continued "greatest hits", one of which was saving the VA.

Hmm a statue erected during the ugly jim crow era to glorify a traitorous slavery defending confederate who killed fellow americans to defend the right for a white guy to own a black guy and the person objecting is not a racist slavery apologist?

Apparently you've drunk the koolaid. You might want to read 1619 project since your outright dismissal appears to be lifted from some meme you must've seen. What wan't accurate in it?

As for 1776 report, that piece of white apologist right wing garbage, by attempting to justify it as merely an aspect of then contemporary society (everybody was doing it) and therefore in context of the times was nothing for slaver owner ancestors and jim crow implementers and Klansmen to feel at all guilty about, in fact they should be loud and proud of their heritage.

You appear to live in a world where such idiotic arguments make sense.

part of the information bubble and generator of his own steaming piles of bullshit.

The most violent anti fascists in history was the American Armed Forces. Why on earth would ANYONE condemn a group who's sole purpose in life is to stomp on racist fascist nazi scumbags when they slither out from their rocks?

Are you saying you support fascists and get upset that the world doesn't condemn anti fascists like they do your guys?

Its a chronic problem that nuanced argument seeking to understand motivations behind social violence and the environment that sparked it is too much for some.

Get a thesaurus.

no directly quoting an organizer.

Nope not even remotely close. The MAJORITY of those 74 million are not adherents, didn't buy the hat, didn't wear the t shirt, but voted for Donnie Peachs for a number of other strongly held single issue policy beliefs and/or deep seated angsts.

 

You failed to say how you are offended and why you want to kill people over it.
Is that what Jesus would do?