September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Parks and Rec | Main | Hartzman's allegations »

Jun 15, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

polifrog

What she said was:

"I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,' " said Brown, D-West Bloomfield.

Not only is that an accusation of rape when there was none, it was quite off topic as Brown's Va-Jay-Jay, despite what she might otherwise believe does not deserve center attention on the Michigan floor and clearly was not on the agenda.

In essence, Brown sexually assaulted every individual she directed her words toward ... and when one has the Michigan house floor that would be every resident of Michigan.

Ged

What the frack are you smoking frog? She did no such thing. Would you PLEASE get off your right-minded conservative high horse for just one minute and try and see these things through the light of common sense? No, I guess that's impossible for you. She was highly upset, and rightfully so, about a male, Republican house forcing one of the most restrictive reproductive rights mesa sure through the house she had ever seen. Quite frankly I'm surprised she didn't go postal on everyone in there.

Give us a fucking break, would you PLEASE?

polifrog

Ged:

Quite frankly I'm surprised she didn't go postal on everyone in there.


I suppose she'd get pass on that as well?

Ged

Why should she need a "pass" to speak freely about the legislation that was under discussion? Is this America or communist China? She didn't use any obscenities, she observed the rules of the house and yet she was banned. It wasn't what she said as it was WHY she was saying it. She opposed the measure and the conservative controlled house didn't want to hear it. Couching her dismissal as "offensive" is simply moving the goal posts.

polifrog

Nothing in her statement referenced the "legislation that was under discussion".

She referenced her personal genitalia as though it were of interest to others. Then she said ""no" means "no"", a phrase most often associated with a woman's right to reject sexual advances and frequently used as a line demarcating courtship from rape.

Not only was her reference to her personal genitalia as much sexual assault as when a male does the the same, but her accusation of rape on the Michigan house floor was uncalled for.

Reread her statement:

I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,' " said Brown, D-West Bloomfield.

Lex

Willful obtuseness stopped being charming when my kids reached school age. It is even less charming in a purported adult.

polifrog

Lex:

Willful obtuseness stopped being charming when my kids reached school age. It is even less charming in a purported adult.

Clearly you are not aware that I am defining why those who were offended were offended. Perhaps you are confounded by a acuteness of perspective or perhaps you are feigning acuteness in a reach for showmanship; I don't know.

But it would be useful to read the reactions and the statements of the offended and not just the offensive words of Brown:

Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh, R-Livonia, gaveled Brown out of order for saying "no means no" — because it suggested Brown was comparing the abortion legislation to rape, House GOP spokesman Ari Adler said.

and:

"My concern was the decorum of the House, not of anything she said," Stamas told The Detroit News.

"I ask all members to maintain a decorum of the House, and I felt it went too far yesterday," he said.

and:

"It has nothing to do with the word vagina," Adler said.

and:

Some male Republican representatives, however, said Brown's comments were vulgar, "inappropriate" and "offensive."

and:

"What she said was offensive," said state Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville.

Ignore the offended if you wish, but such narrowness of mind paradoxically leads to your obtuseness.

bubba

"Perhaps you are confounded by a acuteness of perspective or perhaps you are feigning acuteness in a reach for showmanship; I don't know."

From past history, it's likely both are the case.

Ged

Being offended, even it was real, and I don't believe it was, doesn't give the house the right to bar the representative from speaking. There is nothing in the constitution saying that offending you prohibits others from speaking their mind, especially on legistatlive matters that decide the fate of so many women.

Frog, have you ever thought that to some women, the state dictating to them what they can and cannot do with their vaginas is tantamount to rape? A forced consent of certian proceedures that violate their personal rights and beliefs? Extreme yes, but no more than barring this woman from speaking on the floor of the house to which she was dutitfully elected.

bubba

The key to the hysteria and the over-reaction is buried in the guts of the story, Frog. This whole thing is an attempt to promote the phony "War On Women" meme that's so absurdly being played out politically, in conjunction with their flailing around to cover up the ongoing "progressive" economic disaster spearheaded by the Resident of White House and his fellow "progressive" incompetents and enablers everywhere.

Spag

There's nothing like phony outrage over phony outrage.

sittinginthemiddle.

GED: "Extreme yes, but no more than barring this woman from speaking on the floor of the house to which she was dutitfully elected."


You mean the same way the Democrats barred the Republicans from speaking when they were in charge? Where was your outrage then?

Or is this just typical liberal hypocrisy? Never mind, we all know the answer to that question.

polifrog

I don't doubt that you are right, Bubba, that "this whole thing is an attempt to promote the phony "War On Women" meme..."

But, really, has worked well for them so far?

Play it up...

sittinginthemiddle.

Ged: "Frog, have you ever thought that to some women, the state dictating to them what they can and cannot do with their vaginas is tantamount to rape? A forced consent of certian proceedures that violate their personal rights and beliefs"


So, if these women decided to slit their wrists because it is their body and they have the right? I believe we have all kinds of laws to prevent the mentally and morally challenged from destroying standard ethics of our civilization. Murder is murder no matter how pretty you paint the picture.

Ged

Wow, no less than four of you here now to gang up huh? Impressive.

Sittin, we're not talking about the past. This thread isn't what about democrats did. It's about what happened HERE. NOW. Do you agree with it? Do you approve of it? If so, WHY? Don't change the subject.

Sam, not phony outrage. It's genuine and pure. If you can't see that you're a fool. The women of many states are PISSED and rightfully so and so are people like myself. This attempt by the right to impose their religious and ethical beliefs on others, especially those of whom they CANNOT POSSIBLY RELATE to because they are men is disgusting. Do NOT put words in my mouth.

sittinginthemiddle.

Amazeing how it's always the people that were not aborted who are in favor of abortion. I personally believe if a woman wants to kill her baby she should be willing to die with it, that would give the child she is murdering a little justice. It would be shocking how quickly the abortion rate would drop to zero.

justcorbly

Seen from here, Frog, your comments typically vary between the almost impenetrably weird to the risibly predictable. But, this jibe is without peer.

Brown's statement -- a woman's condemnation of male efforts to legislate restrictions on female behavior -- was concise, accurate, and entirely justified. Male Michigan legislators who feign offense at hearing the word "vagina" spoken in the hallowed committee rooms of Lansing are transparently pathetic.

Ged

yes, that makes *perfect* sense sitting. Especially in times when the mother's life was already in danger, or she was raped or molested. Your logic is utterly profound. She should be willing to die with her unborn fetus, perhaps her collection of cells just to prove your moral high ground. Gotcha!

sittinginthemiddle.

GED: "Do you agree with it? Do you approve of it? If so, WHY? Don't change the subject."

I agree with it and I approve it. Because they were being disrespectful on the floor of the house they swore to honor and because they were feigning outrage for political points.

sittinginthemiddle.

Ged, did you ever wonder how you would have become so intellectually superior if your mother had decided to abort you?

polifrog

Frog, have you ever thought that to some women, the state dictating to them what they can and cannot do with their vaginas is tantamount to rape? A forced consent of certian proceedures that violate their personal rights and beliefs.

There is nothing forced on any woman that isn't predicated on the "right to choose".

sittinginthemiddle.

GED: "perfect* sense sitting. Especially in times when the mother's life was already in danger, or she was raped or molested"

Nice try with the typical liberal hysteria but I believe the bill in question had provisions for those.

Andrew Brod

"Amazeing how it's always the people that were not aborted who are in favor of abortion."

It's also true that it's always people who were not aborted who oppose abortion.

cheripickr

Ged, if you are going to defend your genuine outrage simply by heaping upon on it feigned outrage and incredulity that anyone could possibly disagree with your black and white views on "reproductive rights" ,as if oblivious to the entrenched controversy (at least to some) over taking an unborn life, it is you who are being obtuse.
Are you really surprised that this is a hot-button topic and guaranteed 50+ comment thread with opinions on both sides? Caps and exclamation points and "I'm pissed" doth not swayeth. Calm down and make a point other than "I REALLLY disagree!"

cheripickr

Question: I am strongly disturbed by the deliberate aborting of both male and female lives. Am I still that fancy word Fec uses for woman-hater?

polifrog

Brod:

It's also true that it's always people who were not aborted who oppose abortion.

Yes. One wonders what the life span of Auschwitz and and past purges in general would have been had the aborted been able to voice opposition. They couldn't.

Death is convenient that way, I suppose.

Ged

No Sitting the bill does not allow for exception in the case of rape or incest. And ONLY for the life of the mother in a very small and specific circumstance.

Cheri, my *point* is that the woman representative has *every right* to say what she said in defense of her position and in defense of her constituents. This was not the fifth grade school yard. She didn't say "hootch" or "vijay jay" or even "cunt", she said vagina. The ones who are *feigning* outrage are ones like you, sitting' and bubba and those who barred her *and another female represnetative* from speaking, from making counterpoints and more. Sittin and the others here who support the notion that she *deserved* to be barred are flat out wrong. She did not. It's disgusting and disrespectful to our country to block free and open discussion of the topic at hand, especially by those who will never themselves know what it is to have an unwanted pregnancy, be raped or other. moreover since the bill put undue and overly restrictive limits on abortion.

Are you clear now?

bubba

"The ones who are *feigning* outrage are ones like you, sitting' and bubba and those who barred her *and another female represnetative* from speaking, from making counterpoints and more."

Any further doubt about Ged, and his "progressive" agenda hysteria?

Has anyone actually seen that moral high ground where he's planted his Righteous Indignation flag?

polifrog

Bubba:

Has anyone actually seen that moral high ground where he's planted his Righteous Indignation flag?

In a position repeated throughout history, I believe it is clear that Ged stands with those who gleam convenience from the death of others while refusing to stand with the voiceless dead. A moral low ground.

polifrog

Or an immoral high ground...

Spag

Ged, you are the one who misses the point. At least mine anyway. The first phony outrage is from those in the legislature who are upset about the statement. The second phony outrage is from those claiming that the the first phony outrage is outrageous.

This is one of those cases where the context of the word is actually more problematic than the word itself. "Vagina" isn't a bad or offensive word. For what it's worth, any other synonym wouldn't make the statement any less hyperbolic and misguided, but so was the reaction.

The article makes it clear that the objection was to the context and usage claiming that others had an interest in her vagina and equating abortion to rape.

But if you just read Ed's comments in the post, you would think the controversy was about the word "vagina" when it wasn't. That's the second phony outrage- stirring up the spin that those sexually insecure Republican's were so easily offended by a word related to female anatomy because they don't like women.

bubba

Likely both

SAL LEONE

I do not know why the big deal. I am sure that all have heard the word before hand. They are all adults and I think some are making to much out of it. The word did not bother me at all.

Now the word vagina is scared by politics, whats next, lol.

The abortion issue is a hot one. I dont agree with it but its a women right. The key to abortion is to respect sex, you don't play then you don't pay.

justcorbly

Well, I see the Usual Suspects are Respinning all this as usual, ignoring what people actually said and conjuring various confabulations that accord with their own point of view. It must be nice to always win arguments, in your own minds at least, by rewriting what everyone else says.

As far as the politics of those poor Michigan males who took offense at a single word, someone should remind them that while they may have a legitimate interest in female reproductive issues insofar as their personal lives go, they have no right to legislate on the matter. Neither do women, for that matter.

sean coon

Btw, "no means no" is not owned by the context of rape; It's what women emphasize when men aren't listening. "Would you like a drink?" No. It actually works in many situations, including when a state Rep wants men to stop intruding on her reproductive rights.

prell

Why do any of you reply to poli? Swing by his blog. He's an Asperberger's sociopath. He talks to himself all day long. No one cares about his netrag. Smart? Probably. Capable of handling society? Lulz.

bubba

"I see the Usual Suspects are Respinning all this as usual, ignoring what people actually said and conjuring various confabulations that accord with their own point of view."

No, sorry.....we would never use any of your tactics, corbs.

bubba

".... stop intruding on her reproductive rights."

I just marvel at the ease with which "progressives" are able to frame the discussion in their special Agenda language!

polifrog

prell

He's an Asperberger's sociopath.

Love ya, man...

cheripickr


Ged, what have I expressed outrage about, feigned or otherwise?

polifrog

Spag:

The first phony outrage is from those in the legislature who are upset about the statement. The second phony outrage is from those claiming that the the first phony outrage is outrageous.

... and the rest of it.

Don't be a Spaggydowner by making too much sense.

Ged

I see Sam.

And was it being offended at the implied meaning of "no means no" that blocked women who had to terminate wanted pregnancies after 20 weeks because of severe fetal abnormalities from testifying in Michigan too? No, that was the republican controlled House.

Just to be clear here, *implied* meaning that can be interpreted in many ways > what was *actually* said. Never mind the fact that initially, the GOP members admitted it was because she used the word vagina. And did that second female rep that was banned use the phrase "no means no"? No, she did not.

So remind me again who's feigning the outrage here again?

bubba

"So remind me again who's feigning the outrage here again?"

Obviously not you, given how easily damaged your delicate and carefully constructed fantasies about the way things ought to be sensibilities get when you comment on an item like this.

Spag

"Never mind the fact that initially, the GOP members admitted it was because she used the word vagina."

Not according to the article:

"My concern was the decorum of the House, not of anything she said," Stamas told The Detroit News.

"It has nothing to do with the word vagina," Adler said.

So there is a point right here and you are way over there Ged, nowhere close to it.

Also worth noting that the king of drive-by shootings has done just that once again.

Anne Glenn

I'm glad that all you men are having a discussion about whether or not a woman should be allowed to say vagina in public. Be sure to send the ladies a memo when you decide if it's ok or not. Or if we're allowed to speak at all when men are talking.

Maude Lebowski: Does the female form make you uncomfortable, Mr. Lebowski?
The Dude: Uh, is that what this is a picture of?
Maude Lebowski: In a sense, yes. My art has been commended as being strongly vaginal which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.
The Dude: Oh yeah?
Maude Lebowski: Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
The Dude: Johnson?

bubba

"I'm glad that all you men are having a discussion about whether or not a woman should be allowed to say vagina in public."

(sigh)

Read the thread again for comprehension, Ms Glenn.

Sean

for the record, i like the term "vagina," "the vagina" itself and the concept that people with vaginas should control their own vaginas.

Ged

Sam,

I suggest you go back and re-read the initial reports of the incident. Stamas originally admitted it was because of a "word" that was said, and had nothing to do with "no means no". It was only afterwards when it became apparent that "vagina" wasn't as bad as he had perceived did he walked back his statement and basically lied to say that it was the reference to rape that caused her to be barred.

You also didn't explain how this reference could prohibit a second female representative from speaking who never uttered the phrase "no means no", or over 20 pro-choice experts that were lined up to testify OR the additional women I mentioned regarding mal-formed fetuses.

So I'm *here* and the version of the events the Republicans would like all of us to believe are WAAAAAAYYY over there. Not the other way around.

It's clear that they did this to stop debate on the bill. It had little or nothing to do with being offended. I wish just once you would wake up and smell the facts of a situation instead of leading with your ideology. You're smarter than that.

Dianne R.

To put things in context here - women were absent from the debate around this bill that seeks to govern their bodies from Day 1. During committee, no pro-choice women were allowed to speak. Planned Parenthood was barred from testifying. And now the barring of the two female reps has been made *indefinite*. Even in this right-slanted corner of the universe, 2 + 2 = 4.

Spag

Ged, it wasn't about the word. It appears that the GOP leaders simply weren't going to allow some Democrats from histrionics. If I'm not mistaken, there was an earlier debate that the GOP also put an end to because it was more like a protest than a floor speech. Democrats have done the same thing to Republicans for decades so this is nothing new. What is new is the attempt to spin this as part of the phony "w ar on women" implying that the GOP is so opposed to women that they freak out over the word "vagina". That isn't even what happened.

Perhaps the person perpetuating this spin will come out of hiding and address the disparity between the facts and his commentary.

The comments to this entry are closed.