Vladimir Putin proposes easing penalties for domestic violence

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 17:41
VIEWED: 17483
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

THGRRI

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:40 AM

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin's allies have passed a preliminary draft bill in Russia's parliament that would ease some penalties for domestic violence, which supporters say would keep the state from meddling in the home but critics say would encourage abuse.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vladimir-putin-proposes-easing-penaltie
s-for-domestic-violence-2017-1

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:23 AM

Is there really a question of 'meddling' when it comes to spousal abuse ?

Sounds rather Sharia-like for Putin, doesn't it ?

He's not goin' Muslim, is he ?

RIVERLOVE

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:10 AM

If anyone in Russia needs protection it's the men. Those Olgas are crazy big and strong.

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 7:03 AM

Trump's idol also hates women. Big surprise...

THGRRI

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Is there really a question of 'meddling' when it comes to spousal abuse ?

Sounds rather Sharia-like for Putin, doesn't it ?

He's not goin' Muslim, is he ?

Russia has a population of roughly 144 million and each year, about 14,000 women die in Russia at the hands of husbands or other relatives, according to a 2010 United Nations report.

The united states has 320 million and roughly 4,000 women die from domestic violence. I'd say they have a huge problem.

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 8:22 PM

Russians ditch legal booze as moonshine sales spike

The country's consumer protection agency said Tuesday that Russian adults drank an average of 10 liters of pure alcohol in 2016, 33% less than they consumed in 2009.

That compares to a global average of 6.2 liters, according to the World Health Organization.

But the decline is not necessarily good news. Analysts say that some of the drop may be attributable to increased consumption of cheap, illegal alcohol that doesn't show up in official statistics.

Illicit vodka now accounts for 30% to 50% of all alcohol sales in Russia, according to market research firm Euromonitor International.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Trump and Putin get along well because they both have an adolescent understanding of masculinity. In their world beating your wife is being a strong, proper husband.

You're an SJW cuck.

There's never even been any allegations of Trump beating any of his wives.

If Trump loved subjugating women, he'd LOVE Islam.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

There's never even been any allegations of Trump beating any of his wives.

That was easy to disprove:
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-wome
n
The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’” Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-wome
n
The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’” Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends.

Oh... Of course there was something you could find by an SJW in the highly liberal trash the New Yorker.

I see you didn't post the part later where it says "Hurt held on to his copy of Ivana’s sealed deposition for years. “It was sworn testimony,” he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, “I threw it all out.” He went on, “The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this.”"

Oopsie. I guess there is no real proof that this even happened.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-wome
n
The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’” Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends.

Oh... Of course there was something you could find by an SJW in the highly liberal trash the New Yorker.

I see you didn't post the part later where it says "Hurt held on to his copy of Ivana’s sealed deposition for years. “It was sworn testimony,” he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, “I threw it all out.” He went on, “The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this.”"

Oopsie. I guess there is no real proof that this even happened.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You need to change your signature Jack. There is far to much evidence out their proving Trump mistreats women, some in his own words. You don't have a leg to stand on and it makes you look unreasonable. Stick with what you like about Trump and stop defending all the charges against him . Far to many are true.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:46 AM

That's the whole point. All they are is charges.

Show me any proof that he actually did anything.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Oopsie. I guess there is no real proof that this even happened.

6ixStringJack, why not go all the way on your path to becoming a complete known-nothing and ne'er-do-well and simply say that because Trump's wife Ivana did not upload a youtube video of Trump pulling her hair out by the roots, it did not happen? Then you can sneer and say, "Were you there?" to anyone that says it did happen, even without the video.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:04 AM

Eye witness testimony, anecdotal accounts, and the things a person confesses to over audio recordings are all considered admissible evidence in a court of law (and in the court of public opinion).

No one can ever prove anything 100%, that's not how the law or how science works. You can however get a pretty good idea beyond probable doubt based on what established facts are - provided everyone can even agree on the facts, which nowadays seems less and less likely.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:52 AM

Again... I will just bring up the fact that there are THOUSANDS of emails, still readable by the public, that show without any doubt the criminal activities and the collusion done by the Hillary Camp, the DNC and the MSM, as well has high ranking officials in the Obama administration. All of this bullshit about Trump is just allegations, and you or I are not the Judge, the Jury or the Executioner. Show me where Trump was ever convicted of sexual assault and I will accept that as truth and shut up about it.

Women today are more independent than ever, and the legal system goes out of its way to protect them. If he actually did abuse one of his wives, she did the right thing and divorced him. No woman has to put up with any of the shit that has been alleged against Trump, or from any other man, for that matter, and that is on HER if she does.

Bringing up this crap is just the LEFT continuing their temper tantrum that Hillary didn't win. Their protests didn't keep him out. Burning cities down didn't keep him out. Recounts didn't work. The Electoral College actually took more votes away from Clinton than from Trump.

Trump is President now, and they're just throwing a fit and slinging as much mud as they can. It would be cute if it wasn't so vile.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

RIVERLOVE

Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Bringing up this crap is just the LEFT continuing their temper tantrum that Hillary didn't win. Their protests didn't keep him out. Burning cities down didn't keep him out. Recounts didn't work. The Electoral College actually took more votes away from Clinton than from Trump.

Trump is President now, and they're just throwing a fit and slinging as much mud as they can. It would be cute if it wasn't so vile.

Funny how the Left is so willing to believe a sexual assault claim by Trump's ex-wife, but so fiercely unwilling to believe the claims of rape and sexual assault made against Bill Clinton by Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and many, many others.

Here's a partial list of those women and what Clinton did to them.

Clinton’s first alleged rape was Eileen Wellstone, at age 19. In England, Clinton sexually assaulted her after they met at a bar near Oxford. Bill Clinton admitted having sex with her but “claimed it was consensual.” The victim’s family didn’t want to pursue the case, and a report filed at the time by a State Department official was ignored by superiors. Apparently, the State Department didn’t want a Rhodes Scholar to have a rape charge.

* In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident.

* In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ”came on” to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

*Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape.

* From 1978-1980, during Clinton’s first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was “who’s next?” One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor’s hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

* Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. “I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room.”

* Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

* Paula Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton afte

THGRRI

Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Bringing up this crap is just the LEFT continuing their temper tantrum that Hillary didn't win. Their protests didn't keep him out. Burning cities down didn't keep him out. Recounts didn't work. The Electoral College actually took more votes away from Clinton than from Trump.

Trump is President now, and they're just throwing a fit and slinging as much mud as they can. It would be cute if it wasn't so vile.

Funny how the Left is so willing to believe a sexual assault claim by Trump's ex-wife, but so fiercely unwilling to believe the claims of rape and sexual assault made against Bill Clinton by Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and many, many others.

Here's a partial list of those women and what Clinton did to them.

Clinton’s first alleged rape was Eileen Wellstone, at age 19. In England, Clinton sexually assaulted her after they met at a bar near Oxford. Bill Clinton admitted having sex with her but “claimed it was consensual.” The victim’s family didn’t want to pursue the case, and a report filed at the time by a State Department official was ignored by superiors. Apparently, the State Department didn’t want a Rhodes Scholar to have a rape charge.

* In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident.

* In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ”came on” to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

*Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape.

* From 1978-1980, during Clinton’s first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was “who’s next?” One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor’s hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

* Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. “I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room.”

* Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

* Paula Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
It's tough conversing with people who are either or. It's either or people that are the problem. Clintons history, we are dealing with Trump now.

Says the sore loser who voted for Hillary.

You were either aware of what Hillary and her husband had been doing for decades, or you were purposefully blind to it.

This statement right here leads me to believe that you were aware of it and that by ignoring it you were basically condoning all of their criminal actions.

I'll say it again. Vile.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
It's tough conversing with people who are either or. It's either or people that are the problem. Clintons history, we are dealing with Trump now.

Says the sore loser who voted for Hillary.

You were either aware of what Hillary and her husband had been doing for decades, or you were purposefully blind to it.

This statement right here leads me to believe that you were aware of it and that by ignoring it you were basically condoning all of their criminal actions.

I'll say it again. Vile.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

No Jack, what I believe is that two wrongs don't make a right. I won't defend Clinton as you should not be defending Trump. Especially since he is on tape saying he did the things he is accused of.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, January 26, 2017 7:39 PM

He was on tape being an idiot and saying stupid things to Jeb Bushes idiot cousin Billy Bush.

If you watch the whole video, they get off the bus and meet the woman he was talking about and not only was there no grabbing of pussy, but they were both gentleman in her presence after all that dumbassery and baseless bragging going on during the bus ride.

He never once said anything about anything non consensual. He wasn't talking about ALL women either. He was talking about the gold digging D-List celebrities and what THEY LET a powerful guy do to them. He never said anything about rape or abuse, or any of the other bullshit you guys keep bringing up here.

I'll point out that at any time you can turn on the radio and listen to a rap song that is 10 times worse as far as how they treat women than anything Trump said on that bus.

Don't tell me any bullshit about "well they're not running for President".

No. They aren't.

What they are doing is repeating those lyrics with a hypnotic beat to your kids on their iPhones everyday while they're doing their homework.

That's a lot more dangerous, IMO. They're not going to be influenced by some 70 year old white dude.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
He was on tape being an idiot and saying stupid things to Jeb Bushes idiot cousin Billy Bush.

If you watch the whole video, they get off the bus and meet the woman he was talking about and not only was there no grabbing of pussy, but they were both gentleman in her presence after all that dumbassery and baseless bragging going on during the bus ride.

He never once said anything about anything non consensual. He wasn't talking about ALL women either. He was talking about the gold digging D-List celebrities and what THEY LET a powerful guy do to them. He never said anything about rape or abuse, or any of the other bullshit you guys keep bringing up here.

I'll point out that at any time you can turn on the radio and listen to a rap song that is 10 times worse as far as how they treat women than anything Trump said on that bus.

Don't tell me any bullshit about "well they're not running for President".

No. They aren't.

What they are doing is repeating those lyrics with a hypnotic beat to your kids on their iPhones everyday while they're doing their homework.

That's a lot more dangerous, IMO. They're not going to be influenced by some 70 year old white dude.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

This whole post of your is sad at best. The guy is on tape admitting he sexually assaults women. To grope someone with out permission is by law a sexual assault.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, January 27, 2017 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

This whole post of your is sad at best. The guy is on tape admitting he sexually assaults women. To grope someone with out permission is by law a sexual assault.

I'm only going to say it ONE MORE TIME.

Watch the whole fucking thing. It's a video moron, not an audio tape. And it's a lot fucking longer than the 5 second clip your SJW MSM kept playing.

He said "THEY LET YOU DO IT".

He fucking talks about consent in the same goddamned paragraph.

Idiot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Friday, January 27, 2017 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

This whole post of your is sad at best. The guy is on tape admitting he sexually assaults women. To grope someone with out permission is by law a sexual assault.

I'm only going to say it ONE MORE TIME.

Watch the whole fucking thing. It's a video moron, not an audio tape. And it's a lot fucking longer than the 5 second clip your SJW MSM kept playing.

He said "THEY LET YOU DO IT".

He fucking talks about consent in the same goddamned paragraph.

Idiot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Because I dismiss what you say by explaining the law to you, you start losing it and imply I haven't seen the whole tape. I have. And it's sad that after seeing the tape yourself you come away with the view you do. It's the same with SIG who swears he does not say he grabs their pussies. Therefore no harm no foul.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, January 27, 2017 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Because I dismiss what you say by explaining the law to you, you start losing it and imply I haven't seen the whole tape. I have. And it's sad that after seeing the tape yourself you come away with the view you do. It's the same with SIG who swears he does not say he grabs their pussies. Therefore no harm no foul.

I did want to apologize for that outburst. For real, it has bothered me for about a day or so. Even if you are insulting me in your replies, there was no reason for me to lose it like that.

You didn't explain any law to me though, unless you are implying that you opened my eyes to the well known fact that sexual assault is against the law.

You have every right to think that what I came away with is sad and I have every right to think the same of you.

Nothing he talked about in that conversation was illegal. He never talked about doing anything that wasn't wanted. Again, I will add, that he was talking about a specific type of woman. The gold digging wannabe starlet that is drawn to money and powerful men.

I will agree that the conversation was not one of Trumps finer moments. I personally have never talked about women that way, and with my partying days behind me I don't associate with people who do. That's not to say that I haven't heard conversations like that before though. A lot of guys do talk like that, especially when there are no women around. I knew guys back in my early 20s who talked like that to them straight to their face.

If anything, the tape helped Trump because people are waking up and are tired of being manipulated by the media like that. When focus by the MSM was starting to be put on the DNC emails, and some REAL crimes being committed, they brought that tape out to divert everyone's attention. In the end, only the people who were going to vote for Hillary no matter what gave it any more than a few days consideration.

What I find particularly sad about your mindset, and people who think like you, is that you take this tape and use it to justify every bad thing you want to believe about trump. I've seen a few posts in here suggesting things as bad as Trump raping children and then using this tape to justify their comments.

Was it slimy? Sure, I'll agree with that. But it wasn't any admission to anything illegal.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

REAVERFAN

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Trump and Putin get along well because they both have an adolescent understanding of masculinity. In their world beating your wife is being a strong, proper husband.

You're an SJW cuck.

There's never even been any allegations of Trump beating any of his wives.

If Trump loved subjugating women, he'd LOVE Islam.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

"Cuck?" Really? You're one of those reichwing Nazi shiteaters, aren't you?

I got your cuck right here, bitch. Fuck you, Nazi boy.

Your kind will be wiped from the earth.

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Because I dismiss what you say by explaining the law to you, you start losing it and imply I haven't seen the whole tape. I have. And it's sad that after seeing the tape yourself you come away with the view you do. It's the same with SIG who swears he does not say he grabs their pussies. Therefore no harm no foul.

I did want to apologize for that outburst. For real, it has bothered me for about a day or so. Even if you are insulting me in your replies, there was no reason for me to lose it like that.

You didn't explain any law to me though, unless you are implying that you opened my eyes to the well known fact that sexual assault is against the law.

You have every right to think that what I came away with is sad and I have every right to think the same of you.

Nothing he talked about in that conversation was illegal. He never talked about doing anything that wasn't wanted. Again, I will add, that he was talking about a specific type of woman. The gold digging wannabe starlet that is drawn to money and powerful men.

I will agree that the conversation was not one of Trumps finer moments. I personally have never talked about women that way, and with my partying days behind me I don't associate with people who do. That's not to say that I haven't heard conversations like that before though. A lot of guys do talk like that, especially when there are no women around. I knew guys back in my early 20s who talked like that to them straight to their face.

If anything, the tape helped Trump because people are waking up and are tired of being manipulated by the media like that. When focus by the MSM was starting to be put on the DNC emails, and some REAL crimes being committed, they brought that tape out to divert everyone's attention. In the end, only the people who were going to vote for Hillary no matter what gave it any more than a few days consideration.

What I find particularly sad about your mindset, and people who think like you, is that you take this tape and use it to justify every bad thing you want to believe about trump. I've seen a few posts in here suggesting things as bad as Trump raping children and then using this tape to justify their comments.

Was it slimy? Sure, I'll agree with that. But it wasn't any admission to anything illegal.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Jack, these women are tiring to make their future and while doing so they have to deal with the Trumps and Clinton types out there. Sad you see it the other way around. Fact is, the gold digger is probably his wife. Good chance she married for money, ya think?

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:35 AM

Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:36 AM

What exactly does "substantial Bodily harm" mean. That you have to break bones or worse?

Hey maybe our resident Russian trolls can help us out here.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Jack, these women are tiring to make their future and while doing so they have to deal with the Trumps and Clinton types out there. Sad you see it the other way around. Fact is, the gold digger is probably his wife. Good chance she married for money, ya think?

Yep. There's a very good chance that his wife was a gold digger. All 3 of them, TBH. I don't know what their relationship is like, so I won't say anything more than that about it.

They all have to deal with each other THGRRI. Nobody told them to get into the business. I wouldn't for a single second swap lives with any one of them, man or woman. You want money and power, whether you're a man or woman, you're going to be doing somethings that probably wouldn't make your mother proud. And there's many different ways for both of the sexes to get it too. It's not as if a woman's only path to power and riches is sex. That's a little regressive thinking, wouldn't you agree?

And who's to say a woman like that isn't the one manipulating a guy like trump anyhow? Beautiful women have been manipulating powerful men all the way back to Cleopatra, and likely before that.

But that is all way off topic.

The bottom line is Trump said some pretty vulgar stuff and got caught on tape saying it. That part I won't deny.

But that's all it was. There was no admission of rape or anything illegal. He was speaking in hypotheticals. I'm quite sure that more than once in his day he has made advances on a woman he thought fell into that category of women who "will let you do it" and he was rebuffed. That's her right to do it, either way.

Now if he brought up in conversation a time where a woman denied him and then he forced himself on her, that would be an admission of rape.

I hope I've made myself clear here. I don't see how I can spell this out any plainer.

Again, I didn't much care for the crudeness of the conversation, but I think it was just part of some 1-upsmanship going on between him and Billy Bush. If I was Billy I would have just told him that he was full of shit. lol

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:31 AM

"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

I see 'G' has a great deal of respect for women and even thinks they should be allowed to come to their own conclusions in the privacy of their own minds! not. REALLY NOT. Because, according to 'G', women are too stupid to comprehend if they disagree with 'G'. And too adolescent. And too gullible. And masochistic.

But, aside from that, 'G' is ok with allowing women to think.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:34 AM

Amazing that the Russian 'Parliament' can do something Congress can't - pass bills.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

AURAPTOR

Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

I see 'G' has a great deal of respect for women and even thinks they should be allowed to come to their own conclusions in the privacy of their own minds! not. REALLY NOT. Because, according to 'G', women are too stupid to comprehend if they disagree with 'G'. And too adolescent. And too gullible. And masochistic.

Must really burn your noodle that Kellyanne Conway ran his campaign, and did so successfully.

Bazinga !

1KIKI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:41 AM

Is that to me? Because I didn't know, and now that I know, I still don't care either way.

I just think it's funny that someone like 'G' who claims to care so much about women viscerally despises them so much, because, as women their thinking is unapproved - by 'G' of course.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 28, 2017 5:11 PM

Quote:
"Cuck?" Really? You're one of those reichwing Nazi shiteaters, aren't you?
I got your cuck right here, bitch. Fuck you, Nazi boy.
Your kind will be wiped from the earth. REAVERASS

Oh look, a liberal spouting hate-speech.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

According to you GSTRING, if I discuss something I'm over-reacting. If I DON'T discuss something, I'm hiding.

You see? You're a troll. YOU don't want to discuss the subject, all you want to do is look for an excuse for personal attacks. So the reason why I'm NOT discussing this with you further is because (1) You've been demonstrated to be wrong about five ti

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Amazing that the Russian 'Parliament' can do something Congress can't - pass bills.

Like a good Russian troll you post nonjudgmentally towards Russia, and take a swipe against the USA. So I take it you're not bothered by the changes to the domestic violence laws in Russia.

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just think it's funny that someone like 'G' who claims to care so much about women viscerally despises them so much, because, as women their thinking is unapproved - by 'G' of course.

Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

SIG and 1kiki are attempting to defend Russia by changing the subject from Russia changing it's domestic violence laws, to one that falsely accuses you G of being disrespectful of women. Funny isn't it.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:51 PM

No reply to me THGGRI?

We've been having a 3 day discussion about this and you make 5 posts to the others who interrupted it, but you don't reply to me?

I really want to hear what you have to say about my last post.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Jack, these women are tiring to make their future and while doing so they have to deal with the Trumps and Clinton types out there. Sad you see it the other way around. Fact is, the gold digger is probably his wife. Good chance she married for money, ya think?

Yep. There's a very good chance that his wife was a gold digger. All 3 of them, TBH. I don't know what their relationship is like, so I won't say anything more than that about it.

They all have to deal with each other THGRRI. Nobody told them to get into the business. I wouldn't for a single second swap lives with any one of them, man or woman. You want money and power, whether you're a man or woman, you're going to be doing somethings that probably wouldn't make your mother proud. And there's many different ways for both of the sexes to get it too. It's not as if a woman's only path to power and riches is sex. That's a little regressive thinking, wouldn't you agree?

And who's to say a woman like that isn't the one manipulating a guy like trump anyhow? Beautiful women have been manipulating powerful men all the way back to Cleopatra, and likely before that.

But that is all way off topic.

The bottom line is Trump said some pretty vulgar stuff and got caught on tape saying it. That part I won't deny.

But that's all it was. There was no admission of rape or anything illegal. He was speaking in hypotheticals. I'm quite sure that more than once in his day he has made advances on a woman he thought fell into that category of women who "will let you do it" and he was rebuffed. That's her right to do it, either way.

Now if he brought up in conversation a time where a woman denied him and then he forced himself on her, that would be an admission of rape.

I hope I've made myself clear here. I don't see how I can spell this out any plainer.

Again, I didn't much care for the crudeness of the conversation, but I think it was just part of some 1-upsmanship going on between him and Billy Bush. If I was Billy I would have just told him that he was full of shit. lol

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Much of what you say is generalizing and you dismiss Trumps bad behavior because of the business they are in. What you do is blame the women for wanting to be in that business. That said, I feel Trump broke the law and touched women against their will and you do not.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Much of what you say is generalizing and you dismiss Trumps bad behavior because of the business they are in. What you do is blame the women for wanting to be in that business. That said, I feel Trump broke the law and touched women against their will and you do not.

Touching a woman is not against the law. You won't even get fired from a job for touching a woman unless you were being completely lecherous about it. What you would get fired for is if she told you no and you continued to do it.

Again, he said that "they let you do it". I'm sure he wasn't talking about the times he tried and they didn't let him do it. He certainly didn't say anything about continuing to do it after he was told no.

You don't give women enough credit. If they want to say no, they will say no. This isn't 1950.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Much of what you say is generalizing and you dismiss Trumps bad behavior because of the business they are in. What you do is blame the women for wanting to be in that business. That said, I feel Trump broke the law and touched women against their will and you do not.

Touching a woman is not against the law. You won't even get fired from a job for touching a woman unless you were being completely lecherous about it. What you would get fired for is if she told you no and you continued to do it.

Again, he said that "they let you do it". I'm sure he wasn't talking about the times he tried and they didn't let him do it. He certainly didn't say anything about continuing to do it after he was told no.

You don't give women enough credit. If they want to say no, they will say no. This isn't 1950.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Shit Jack, we are talking about grouping here and he admits to it on that tape. If you don't know that we're done.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:21 AM

Once again, he was talking in theoreticals, and he was bragging to an idiot Bush cousin. It was like a couple of frat bros talking smack. It wasn't any recount of an actual event. When he did bring up an actual thing that happened, it was about the woman they were going to meet. It was a story about how he took her shopping for furniture and essentially got nowhere with her.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just think it's funny that someone like 'G' who claims to care so much about women viscerally despises them so much, because, as women their thinking is unapproved - by 'G' of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they (women) have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

Because, yanno, 'G' thinks so highly of women having the freedom to think their own thoughts. So rather than ASK a women who voted for Trump what her reasons were, and rationally discuss the reasons, 'G' prefers to make assumptions about what all women who voted for Trump think, and what they value; and then demonizes those women on the basis of his assumptions. Their vote is beyond comprehension. And adolescent. And brainwashed. And masochistic.

Because, yanno, 'G' thinks so highly of women having the freedom to think their own thoughts.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:59 AM

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-bush-transcript-201610
07-snap-htmlstory.html

Donald Trump: You know and—

Unidentified voice: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.

Trump: I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Unidentified voice: That’s huge news there.

Trump: No, no. Nancy. No this was— And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.

Trump: Whoa!

Bush: Yes. Yes, the Donald has scored!

Trump: Whoa!

Bush: Whoa, my man!

Unidentified voice: Wait, wait you’ve got to look at me when you get out and be like ... will you give me the thumbs up? You’ve got to put the thumbs up.

[crosstalk]

Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.

[crosstalk]

Unidentified voice: You’ve got to get the thumbs up. You can’t be too happy, man.

Trump: Alright, you and I will walk down.

[crosstalk]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s her.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

[crosstalk and chuckling]

Unidentified voice: Yeah those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.

Unidentified voice: Come on, shorty.

Trump: Oh, nice legs, huh?

Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.

Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford. Gerald Ford, remember?

Bush: Down below. Pull the handle.

Trump: Hello. How are you? Hi.

Arianne Zucker: Hi Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

Trump: Nice seeing you. Terrific, terrific. You know Billy Bush?

Bush: Hello, nice to see you. How are you doing, Arianne?

Zucker: I’m doing very well, thank you. [To Trump] Are you ready to be a soap star?

Trump: We’re ready, let’s go. Make me a soap star.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.

Zucker: Would you like a little hug, darling?

Trump: Okay, absolutely. Melania said this was okay.

Bush: How about a little hug for the Bushy? I just got off the bus. There we go. Excellent. Well, you’ve got a nice co-star here.

Zucker: Yes. Absolutely.

Trump: Good. After you. Come on, Billy. Don’t be shy.

Bush: As soon as a beautiful woman shows up, he just, he takes off on me. This always happens.

Trump: Get over here Billy.

Zucker: I’m sorry, come here.

Bush: Let the little guy in here, come on.

Zucker: Yeah, let the little guy in. How you feel now? Better?

Bush: It’s hard to walk next to a guy like this.

Zucker: I should actually be in the middle.

Bush: Yeah, you get in the middle. There we go.

Trump: Good, that’s better.

Zucker: This is much better. This is—

Trump: That’s better.

Bush: Now, if you had to choose, honestly, between one of us: me or the Donald? Who would it be?

Trump: I don’t know, that’s tough competition.

Zucker: That’s some pressure right there.

Bush: Seriously, you had to take one of us as a date.

Zucker: I have to take the 5th on that one.

Bush: Really?

Zucker: Yup. I’ll take both.

Trump: Which way?

Zucker: Make a right. Here we go. [inaudible]

Bush: Here he goes. I’m going to leave you here. Give me my microphone.

Trump: Okay okay. Oh

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:55 AM

Meanwhile

Quote:
Woman to be stoned to death for adultery in Saudi Arabia - while male partner to receive 100 lashes

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/woman-stoned-death-adultery-sa
udi-6912835

I personally don't know much about the new law. What I gather from the scrambled explanations was that the new law was to equalize the treatment of "battery" outside of marriage (which was decriminalized) with the treatment of "battery" INSIDE of marriage (which just caught up to the other law).

Quote:
The passage by the parliament, or Duma, reverses a ruling by the Supreme Court last year, subsequently backed by parliament, that decriminalized battery that does not inflict bodily harm, but retained criminal charges involving battery against family members. That reform is effectively reversed by Friday's vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

...but yanno... it's really hard to tell.

I'm against the new law, whatever its origins. I don't even believe in spanking children, and I sure don't believe in slapping your spouse to enforce your POV.

Because it's under threat as well as sanctions from the west, Russia is being pulled together by a combination of patriotism and a resurgence of old-style religiosity (Orthodox Christianity), which is similar to evangelicals who believe that the man is the god-given family leader.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

According to you GSTRING, if I discuss something I'm over-reacting. If I DON'T discuss something, I'm hiding.

You see? You're a troll. YOU don't want to discuss the subject, all you want to do is look for an excuse for personal attacks. So the reason why I'm NOT discussing this with you further is because (1) You've been demonstrated to be wrong about five ti

1KIKI

Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:38 AM

BUT ... RUSSIA!

And who the hell cares about how barbaric the Saudis are anyway? They're our frie...eeeends.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Meanwhile
Quote:
Woman to be stoned to death for adultery in Saudi Arabia - while male partner to receive 100 lashes

The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to bigger problems, is an informal fallacy in which an opponent's arguments about issues are minimized, deemed unimportant, or dismissed on the grounds that more important topics and issues exist, regardless of whether these problems are relevant to the question at hand or not. The use of the fallacy has also been referred to as "whataboutery".

So, once again

Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:10 AM

So, let me go through your outright lies, post-edits, and logical fallacies.

Quote:
Vladimir Putin proposes ...

Did Putin propose the law? I'll let you answer that - but remember, we can all grade you by looking at your link.

Quote:
Vladimir Putin proposes decriminalizing domestic violence

I just want to remind you that that was you INITIAL title. "Vladimir Putin proposes easing penalties for domestic violence" is at least your third title on the same topic. But what the hell. Dishonesty is your bread and butter.

Quote:
Russia has a population of roughly 144 million and each year, about 14,000 women die in Russia at the hands of husbands or other relatives, according to a 2010 United Nations report.
The united states has 320 million and roughly 4,000 women die from domestic violence. I'd say they have a huge problem.

Now this is you, claiming facts with no links. I'd say 'for shame!', but I know you have none.

Quote:
Russians ditch legal booze as moonshine sales spike

And THIS is you changing the topic entirely! What logical fallacy is that? I'll let you answer that, too. Here's a link in case you need help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

And what logical fallacy is THIS, THUGGER?

Quote:
You need to change your signature Jack.

And I just want to point out this little morsel of lie ...

Quote:
Especially since he is on tape saying he did the things he is accused of.

... because the only thing he 'admitted' to was 'kissing women'.

And what DOES this have to do with Russia, again?
or this ...

Quote:
The guy is on tape admitting he sexually assaults women.

or this ...

Quote:
It's the same with SIG who swears he does not say he grabs their pussies.

or this ...

Quote:
Fact is, the gold digger is probably his wife.

or this ...

Quote:
you dismiss Trumps (sic) bad behavior

or this ...

Quote:
we are talking about grouping (sic)

Care to answer, THUGGER?

And what kind of logical fallacy is this, THUGGER?

Quote:
Like a good Russian troll ...

I can't find a single post of yours, THUGGER, that doesn't contain lies, post-edits, and logical fallacies.

And that's not even considering the dishonesty of your 'sources'. Like this opening sentence "President Vladimir Putin's allies have passed a preliminary draft bill ..." Yes, out of 383 Duma members, 380 are Putin allies! Because ... Putin!

When you bothered with 'sources' at all. All one of them. (The other link in a post of yours was you quoting Brenda.)

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 29, 2017 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Is that to me? Because I didn't know, and now that I know, I still don't care either way.

I just think it's funny that someone like 'G' who claims to care so much about women viscerally despises them so much, because, as women their thinking is unapproved - by 'G' of course.

Yes, directed to you, and any woman who whines about how other women could vote for Trump. The point, which clearly you missed ( or pretend to have done so ) is that not only did women vote for him, but strong, intelligent and dedicated women WORK for him !

Seems YOU'RE the one who is viscerally despising the thinking of women who support Trump, so you and G... peas in a pod ?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 29, 2017 10:52 PM

Tens of millions of women of all backgrounds voted for Trump.

Turns out there are a lot of women who aren't dumb enough to fall for the MSM/DNC manipulation tactics.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 29, 2017 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

And we can't even get weed decriminalized in half the states here....

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, January 30, 2017 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
6ix - And I have yet to hear one of them give me a convincing reason as to why, on balance, considering what I see as his adolescent, negative view of women, they would do so. It's possible that being around as many salesmen as I have I can spot a conman more easily than others, although in this case it seems remarkable easy to see Trump for the liar he is. It's also possible that you also have what I would consider an adolescent view of women. Am I wrong? You seem to think the women he's bragged about grabbing deserved it.

Curious: do you think he can actually build a wall across our southern border? If so, who do you think will pay for it? If you say "Mexico," please tell me how you see that happening. If you can't then you are speculating. If you are speculating, then please tell me what you base that on.

Simply making sure Hillary didn't get into office is reason enough for most intelligent women in this country. I'm all for having a woman president, as I'm sure many of them are too. Hillary just wasn't the right one. She's a criminal and a liar, and I believe that many of the women who voted for Trump didn't want the first female president to be such an utterly horrible choice.

As for the wall, I don't know if it will really happen or not. But I do have two ways it will be paid for, and yes, making Mexico pay for it is one of them.

1. $1.2 billion is already secured for it since the GWB years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

2. How is Mexico going to pay for it?

From Trump's campaign website: (archive.org capture from September 1st): https://web.archive.org/web/20160831162128/https://www.donaldjtrump.co
m/positions/pay-for-the-wall

Quote:
Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall

Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:

On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.

On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.

On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.

Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Monday, January 30, 2017 2:38 AM

Quote:
I totally believe in EVERY woman's RIGHT to be as stupid as every man - like you and SOGGY. And - just like men - I think they should be held accountable for their stupid choices.

And demeaning whole categories of people you don't know, haven't talked with, and haven't discussed any reasons OR FACTS with - like women - is part of your right to be a sexist pig?

Hate must be your nature. You'll find any excuse to hate, individually and whole groups. No wonder you're so fucking clueless about why your thread went to troll country.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

1KIKI

Monday, January 30, 2017 2:40 AM

Rappy

Quote:
Yes, directed to you, and any woman who whines about how other women could vote for Trump.

That was 'G'. Get a clue.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, January 30, 2017 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to bigger problems, is an informal fallacy in which an opponent's arguments about issues are minimized, deemed unimportant, or dismissed on the grounds that more important topics and issues exist, regardless of whether these problems are relevant to the question at hand or not. The use of the fallacy has also been referred to as "whataboutery".

Agreed.

But...

You gotta wonder why Lefties are all over everyone in the entire world about how they treat their women EXCEPT the Muslims.

Somehow being Muslim gives you a free pass to do whatever.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Monday, January 30, 2017 8:38 AM

Quote:
Simply making sure Hillary didn't get into office is reason enough for most intelligent women in this country. I'm all for having a woman president, as I'm sure many of them are too. Hillary just wasn't the right one. She's a criminal and a liar, and I believe that many of the women who voted for Trump didn't want the first female president to be such an utterly horrible choice.- SIX

That, and she is a psychopathic war-mongering bitch. Other than that - she was great!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

1KIKI

Monday, January 30, 2017 11:18 AM

Also, brain-damaged.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, January 30, 2017 2:05 PM

Yeah.... that part is actually really sad. :(

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

1KIKI

Monday, January 30, 2017 3:11 PM

She had strokes - blood clots in the brain. At the very least they admitted it affected her vision, which is why she had to wear those glasses with the funky lenses.

Strokes, brain infections, poor diet, too much drugging or drinking, vitamin B12 deficiency - they can all cause brain damage. It happens to lots of people every year. Nature is not necessarily our friend in all things. And she is not especially different from other aging people - just one among millions in this country alone.

But given her existing neurological problems and her tendency to develop blood clots, she really shouldn't have been running for president.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Monday, January 30, 2017 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

I just think it's funny that someone like 'G' who claims to care so much about women viscerally despises them so much, because, as women their thinking is unapproved - by 'G' of course.

I think it's astounding you post this about G, while deflecting and protecting Russia from scorn as they DO this to women. It shows your outrage at G to be disingenuous, and your lack of concern for the women of Russia shameful.

Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, January 30, 2017 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

Sadly, this is the price to be paid when the SJW/Regressives have had their way for too long and take the pendulum to the extreme. What goes up, must come down.

Once you start calling everything rape, then nothing is rape anymore. It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf or Chicken Little.

I feel bad for the women who are truly in abusive relationships that are going to have to be smacked around or worse a few times before anybody takes them seriously now.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Monday, January 30, 2017 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

Once you start calling everything rape, then nothing is rape anymore. It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf or Chicken Little.

Wow Jack, you are suggesting this is some how the result of women crying wolf. I spent years here not responding to your posts because of your ignorance on the topics you address. I am really, and I mean really sorry I started to respond to you.

No more Jack, no more

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Monday, January 30, 2017 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they (women) have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Wait, I said I didn't understand how any woman could vote for Trump and from that you get I hate all women?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Monday, January 30, 2017 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they (women) have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Wait, I said I didn't understand how any woman could vote for Trump and from that you get I hate all women?

I think it's astounding you post this about G, while deflecting and protecting Russia from scorn as they DO this to women. It shows your outrage at G to be disingenuous, and your lack of concern for the women of Russia shameful.

Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they (women) have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Wait, I said I didn't understand how any woman could vote for Trump and from that you get I hate all women?

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 1:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
I think it's astounding you post this about G, while deflecting and protecting Russia from scorn as they DO this to women.

She's locked up in repeat mode - happens every time she knows she has no argument. And clearly, she has no concern for Russian women, ANY of them. How do people get like her??

Yep and when she gets locked up, her posts in many instances become gigantic and angry. She is in a tough spot. Her beloved Russia just said it's ok to beat your wife. All she can do is point her finger at you and change the subject. She's fooling no one.

It also shows in her mind there is nothing Russia can do wrong. How could she protest so much about the rest of the world and not this, unless she is a Russia troll.

SHE G, she's a fucking women and she say's nothing about the fact that in Russia it just became legal to beat your wife. What a loser.

In the near future my response to whatever she complains about is going to be, "yeah but with you it's ok to beat your wife."

____________________________________________

1KIKI

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they (women) have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Wait, I said I didn't understand how any woman could vote for Trump and from that you get I hate all women?

And that pretty much sums up 'G's attitude towards women - get in line with his dictates, or be called an adolescent, misguided masochist.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Wow Jack, you are suggesting this is some how the result of women crying wolf. I spent years here not responding to your posts because of your ignorance on the topics you address. I am really, and I mean really sorry I started to respond to you.

No more Jack, no more

Nope. I'm saying it's the result of Leftist Regressives and their policies. I'm saying it's because we've practically gotten to the point that you need to have documents signed before you can have sex with a woman.

Call me ignorant. That's fine with me. But look around you. Things are changing. Your little SJW paradise is crumbling all around you.

It's the house that bullshit and backwards thinking built.

So I'll say it again.

I'm truly sorry for the women who are actually in abusive relationships that nobody is going to take seriously until something really bad happens.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Um, huh? Where did I come even close to saying that? Are you confusing people yet again, granny?
If you're going to make such a wild claim cite a reference. At the very least stop huffing the liter box.

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
"Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they (women) have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?"

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Wait, I said I didn't understand how any woman could vote for Trump and from that you get I hate all women?
And that pretty much sums up 'G's attitude towards women - get in line with his dictates, or be called an adolescent, misguided masochist.

So 1kiki. Do you condemn what Russia did regarding domestic abuse in the courts?

____________________________________________

THGRRI

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 3:47 AM

So 1kiki and SIG. Do you condemn what Russia did regarding domestic abuse in the courts?

1kiki has sent you a message from FIREFLYFANS.NET.

The message is as follows:

Me

Are you so ignorant that you do not realize that your refusal over and over again to condemn what Russia did, is all the proof I need. And again, if there is a troll here it is Russian made..

1kiki

we'll see if Haken agrees with you.

____________________________________________

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rappy

Quote:
Yes, directed to you, and any woman who whines about how other women could vote for Trump.
That was 'G'. Get a clue.
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Speaking of women. How any woman could vote for Trump is beyond me. Maybe they have an adolescent understanding of what being a woman is? Maybe being submissive and taking abuse is being a good woman in their minds?

Try naming who you quote then. All I saw was your post, and the " " around the first paragraph, which weren't attributed to G. Thus the confusion.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

1KIKI

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 9:21 AM

THUGGER

I hope you realize that posting a private message without consent of all parties is illegal.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
THUGGER

I hope you realize that posting a private message without consent of all parties is illegal.

First; still no condemnation from you on Russia's war against women.

Second; how many private messages of Hilary's have you posted here? Again, you continue to make shit up as you go.

____________________________________________

REAVERFAN

Thursday, February 2, 2017 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

You need to change your signature Jack. There is far to much evidence out their proving Trump mistreats women, some in his own words. You don't have a leg to stand on and it makes you look unreasonable. Stick with what you like about Trump and stop defending all the charges against him . Far to many are true.

____________________________________________

Jack's a full on 100% neo-Nazi racist pos.

Of course he hates women, because they all reject his hater ass.

THGRRI

Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

You need to change your signature Jack. There is far to much evidence out their proving Trump mistreats women, some in his own words. You don't have a leg to stand on and it makes you look unreasonable. Stick with what you like about Trump and stop defending all the charges against him . Far to many are true.

____________________________________________
Jack's a full on 100% neo-Nazi racist pos.

Of course he hates women, because they all reject his hater ass.

I ignored Jack for years here due to his posts. They were little more than alcohol induced rants completely void of logic. Briefly I gave in and conversed with him but it was a mistake. He can post what he wants but I won't respond. The reason I respond to SIG and 1kiki is because they are pushing Putin's agenda, and constantly undermining our democratic institutions.

They are Russian trolls. For the past year and a half I have tried to get them to criticize anything Putin has done. Not only have they yet to do so, but they spew obvious lies while defending him.

I am still waiting for SIG and 1kiki to condemn the war on women that's going on in Russia. The gutting of the domestic violence laws in the courts there.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 2, 2017 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

Jack's a full on 100% neo-Nazi racist pos.

Of course he hates women, because they all reject his hater ass.

Because I don't want Muslims here unless they've been thoroughly vetted?

Once again I'll point out that wanting to keep Muslims out of your country is just about as far from being anti-Semitic as you can possibly be, which is pretty much the number one requirement for being a Nazi.

If you want to go around calling people a Neo-Nazi, why don't you ask Obama why he didn't support the Jews in Israel on his way out the door.

And I don't get where anybody thinks I hate women. I said I feel sorry for those women who are truly going to be abused and won't get any help until it is too late in Russia now.

The SJW man-haters went around calling everything a sexual offense for so long that it lessened the the impact of the words to the extent where Russia seems to have just given up on it except in the most extreme cases.

There needs to be a balance, or else this cycle will just continue on forever. This is the pendulum swinging back fully the other way. I don't agree with this anymore than I agree with how they handle sex on college campuses here. What we've got is just a bunch of loonies on the fringes of both sides that scream the loudest running the show, and nothing good comes of that.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:26 PM

Quote:
He can post what he wants but I won't respond.- THGUR

What did he do right to get such favored treatment from Your Trollishness? And how can I be in that class of favored netizens?

In any case, since you're an inveterate troll, I'll bet this promise lasts no longer than snow in Los Angeles. So let's see how long you can keep those nasty fingers from the keyboard!

heh heh heh

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:30 PM

Quote:
There needs to be a balance, or else this cycle will just continue on forever. This is the pendulum swinging back fully the other way. I don't agree with this anymore than I agree with how they handle sex on college campuses here. What we've got is just a bunch of loonies on the fringes of both sides that scream the loudest running the show, and nothing good comes of that. - SIX

Agreed. Although the pendulum as swung so far in the USA, it's going to take a looooooong swing back in the other direction!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
There needs to be a balance, or else this cycle will just continue on forever. This is the pendulum swinging back fully the other way. I don't agree with this anymore than I agree with how they handle sex on college campuses here. What we've got is just a bunch of loonies on the fringes of both sides that scream the loudest running the show, and nothing good comes of that. - SIX
Agreed. Although the pendulum as swung so far in the USA, it's going to take a looooooong swing back in the other direction!

I don't think it really will take all that long. If you look around us, it is already happening concerning some of the issues, and rather quickly.

My fear about this is that every time the pendulum swings the other way, some of the worst things get left where they are and we end up with the worst of both sides in the long run.

For instance... we're never going to repeal non-smoking bans in bars once put in place, nor are we going to see the taxes lowered on them. I've resigned myself to that and won't even bother fighting it anymore. It's done. That's not my point here...

The point is, just as I said to non-smokers while it was happening, that they were next... whatever their particular vice was. Cook County, IL (perhaps the whole state) has passed legislation for a 6 cents per ounce tax on soda that just went into effect. This even includes on restaurants which is really going to hurt some of the ma and pop places out there.

What happened is that there is no more room for exploitation of smokers and the easy money the tax revenue generated with little meaningful opposition to it. They don't actually want people to quit smoking, otherwise there would be an outright ban on it. After tripling the price of cigarettes, they know that they can't raise it anymore otherwise there will be no tax revenue once people quit (or they make it so un-affordable that the possibility of a black market arises).

The state of Illinois, in particular Crook County, is so bankrupt that they always need to keep raising taxes somewhere. Soda tax is not going to be as easy to institute as a cigarette tax was, but it is the path of least resistance. Everybody knows that it's essentially liquid candy and offers no nutritional value, while it is linked to diseases such as diabetes. The only reason they will get more resistance is that more people drink soda than smoke, and nobody gets sick from second hand soda consumption.

I don't believe that a "Trump America" will involve curbing cash grabs like this by our government at all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
how many private messages of Hilary's have you posted here? Again, you continue to make shit up as you go.

Those were no longer private once they were released to the public.

I don't think anything you posted that was private was particularly damning THGRRI, but I would caution you to think about what you're doing while posting private messages in a public forum. I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you could get yourself into some trouble you don't want by posting the wrong thing by the wrong person.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Thursday, February 2, 2017 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
He can post what he wants but I won't respond.- THGUR

What did he do right to get such favored treatment from Your Trollishness? And how can I be in that class of favored netizens?

In any case, since you're an inveterate troll, I'll bet this promise lasts no longer than snow in Los Angeles. So let's see how long you can keep those nasty fingers from the keyboard!

heh heh heh

He may be far right but he has no agenda; that's good. He just reminds me of an Archie Bunker type and I don't wish to have to explain things to someone exibiting that level of ignorance.

You are trolling an anti democratic agenda. I would also remind all that STILL, there is no condemnation of Russia's dismantling of the domestic violence laws leaving women very vulnerable. You and 1kiki are a disgrace to your gender.

____________________________________________

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 3, 2017 12:10 AM

I'm not far right on almost everything. On most social issues I am to the left of center. I lean more to the right when it comes to money.

Care to explain yourself?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Friday, February 3, 2017 10:44 PM

Still waiting for SIG and 1kiki to condemn Russia's actions.

____________________________________________
Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

1KIKI

Sunday, February 5, 2017 10:10 AM

THUGGER

Quote:
Still waiting for SIG and 1kiki to condemn Russia's actions.

Well, since Sig replied a long time ago, and you're STILL waiting, I'd count that as you making a big dumbass of yourself. But I guess that isn't the first time you've heard that.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to care about whatever it is you want from me.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 5, 2017 12:33 PM

Quote:
Still waiting for SIG and 1kiki to condemn Russia's actions.

I already expressed my opinion. Look on page 1.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 5, 2017 6:18 PM

Did anybody ACTUALLY read this article?

I finally got around to it now, and I have to say that except for a tiny quote at the end, I don't see what the problem is. In fact, I think what Putin himself had to say about it actually goes against some of the claims of what a fascist he is.

Quote:
Asked about the domestic violence law at a news conference last month, Putin said that while he was not a supporter of parents smacking children, the authorities should not interfere in family affairs without justification.

"We cannot go crazy here. It's harmful, at the end of the day it destroys the family," he said. "Cavalier meddling with the family is not acceptable."

No. That doesn't sound like a leader who is looking for any and every reason to have his jackboot thugs knock down your door to see what you're up to.

Quote:
The amendment, which passed parliament's lower house on a preliminary first reading, would reduce battery of a relative to a civil offence instead of a criminal offence in first instances, when the victim suffered no serious harm.

One of the authors of the proposed change, Olga Batalina, a member of parliament from Putin's United Russia party, said society wanted to protect parents' right to discipline children.

"Do we think it's right to give a two year prison term to a single mother who, while raising her teenage son, physically punishes him for stealing or running away?" Batalina asked in an interview with Reuters.

Two things to note here. The author of the proposal is a Woman. Second is they are talking about a parents right to discipline unruly children. The example used is that of a single mother going to prison for two years for disciplining her brat.

We continue...

Quote:
Supporters of the amendment say anyone who inflicts serious physical harm will still be criminally liable.

Doesn't sound like anything is changing. If you beat somebody, you're still going to prison for it.

Quote:
Each year, about 14,000 women die in Russia at the hands of husbands or other relatives, according to a 2010 United Nations report.

She said that if it goes unchecked, low-level domestic violence, of the kind that would be decriminalized under the amendment, often escalates into attacks causing serious injury.

Well, that's just it. It hasn't gone unchecked. And yet 14,000 women die each year at the hands of their abusive husbands or other relatives.

What this law has done, however, has allowed the government to come inside of people's houses for disciplining their children. We're talking about swats on the ass and such. Not actual physical abuse.

I think what they're doing here is right. But at the same time they should have brutally harsh penalties for ACTUAL abuse. ESPECIALLY for those responsible for murdering their wives. Eye for an Eye, perhaps? Watch how quickly those numbers would shrink if a potential murderer really thought twice about what they were about to do when faced with the realization they were signing their own death warrant.

I'd agree with rules like that here in the states as well. Hitting a woman make you feel like a man? Let's see how you like it when we let this bouncer let out some of his frustrations on your face for a few minutes.

So what part of this article did I have a problem with? This quote right here:

Quote:
Last month the justice ministry placed [Marina Pisklakova-Parker's] organization on a register of "foreign agents", a designation that makes it subject to extra scrutiny from the authorities and can make it harder to raise money.

I likely would not agree with much of what she has to say, or the agendas she is trying to push, but I'd fight for her right to be able to say it. Not only do I have a problem with government censorship, but the thought that they now consider her a "foreign agent" is just creepy and Orwellian to me.

Do Right

THGRRI

Sunday, February 5, 2017 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Still waiting for SIG and 1kiki to condemn Russia's actions.
I already expressed my opinion. Look on page 1.

Yeah that's funny. You went back and added a comment to an old post. If you look at the last post on page one, you'll see I responded to the post you speak of. I am still trying to get you to give your opinion.

At least you finally admit that the law is bad. It was like pulling teeth to get you to this point. Now lets see 1kiki condemns the law.

1kiki????

____________________________________________
Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 5, 2017 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
At least you finally admit that the law is bad.

The law is bad. They're getting rid of it.

[EDITED TO ADD]

This thread, and the article itself, is an example of people letting their own political beliefs and agendas change the narrative.

THGRRI has taken now to finishing every post in here with "Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence" when this is not what happened. Domestic violence has not been decriminalized in Russia, nor does anything in this article suggest that it will be in the future. The article even states that anyone who does visible physical harm will still be punished criminally.

The article brings up something completely unrelated that was designed to further trigger people like THGRRI when they said this:

Quote:
In his 17 years as Russia's leader, Putin has overseen an embrace of the socially-conservative Russian Orthodox church and a rejection of many liberal ideas as an attempt by the West to impose its values on Russia. One example was a 2013 law making it illegal to promote homosexuality to children.

It's subtle, but that is mental manipulation in writing right there. It had no place in this article and could easily have been an article of its own for debate.

Stop saying that Russia is decriminalizing spousal abuse THGRRI. Unless you have other evidence aside from this article that this is or has happened, you are lying if you continue to say it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Tuesday, February 7, 2017 9:20 PM

1kiki??????

Do you condemn Russia for doing this.

____________________________________________
Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

Russia's parliament voted 380-3 on Friday to decriminalize domestic violence in cases where it does not cause "substantial bodily harm" and does not occur more than once a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decri
miinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

1KIKI

Saturday, February 11, 2017 11:34 AM

I hope you realize that the more you try and bully me into answering, the more fun it is to refuse.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

THGRRI

Saturday, February 11, 2017 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I hope you realize that the more you try and bully me into answering, the more fun it is to refuse.

Everyone here is well aware that you never post anything negative about Russia. It took SIG forever to comment on the law. Finally she did it by editing an old post to make it look like she commented right away. She added a condemnation of the law, sort of. That was funny.

No 1kiki, my asking again and again was not so you would be forced to do it. It was to prove my point yet again. You and SIG never condemn anything Russia does because you are trolling on their behalf. No American would ever defend all Russia does as you two do. Unless they are pure trolls. All of this back and forth proves the point comrade. You're not in this for the honest debate but instead, well, I think you're sick in some way.

---------------------

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 11, 2017 10:23 PM

Good on ya, KIKI! Keep on refusing. THUGR is a bully and a troll. And a liar.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:23 AM

Once again, I would ask that people actually read the article.

Putin was asked about it, and quoted in the article, but other than that he had nothing to do with this.

The proposal was authored by a woman who was also quoted in the article.

Actual physical abuse with markings is still a criminal offense.

This information is all in the article. It was presented as something that it wasn't.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Good on ya, KIKI! Keep on refusing. THUGR is a bully and a troll. And a liar.

Ah, that hurts.

---------------------

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:22 AM

THUGR, son, I think SIX is pointing out that you've mis-represented the event about 20 times by now. Since it's been pointed out to you more than once already, isn't this just another example of you ... er .... what's that word again ... lying?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THGRRI

Sunday, February 12, 2017 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
THUGR, son, I think SIX is pointing out that you've mis-represented the event about 20 times by now. Since it's been pointed out to you more than once already, isn't this just another example of you ... er .... what's that word again ... lying?

Nope, six is incorrect. Six is representing the spin that has been put forth by Russia to explain why they gutted the domestic violence laws. Not the damage it does when it comes to protecting women.

So, by this post you have changed your mind and are now for the changes to the law's regarding domestic violence in Russia. Is that so SIG?

---------------------

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 12, 2017 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
THUGR, son, I think SIX is pointing out that you've mis-represented the event about 20 times by now. Since it's been pointed out to you more than once already, isn't this just another example of you ... er .... what's that word again ... lying?

Nope, six is incorrect. Six is representing the spin that has been put forth by Russia to explain why they gutted the domestic violence laws. Not the damage it does when it comes to protecting women.

So, by this post you have changed your mind and are now for the changes to the law's regarding domestic violence in Russia. Is that so SIG?

My god, you're an ass.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THGRRI

Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So, by this post you have changed your mind and are now for the changes to the law's regarding domestic violence in Russia. Is that so SIG?

Quote:
My god, you're an ass.

You're the one who condemned the changing of the domestic violence laws, sort of. And you're the one who suggests six is right when he says the changing of law is misunderstood and not bad.

Who's the ass? Who's trying to have it both ways and who is once again being subjective.

---------------------

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:20 PM

Quote:
So, by this post you have changed your mind and are now for the changes to the law's regarding domestic violence in Russia. Is that so SIG?- STOOPID

My god, you're an ass. - SIGNY

You're the one who condemned the changing of the domestic violence laws, sort of.- STOOPID

I did not "condemn."

Quote:
And you're the one who suggests six is right when he says the changing of law is misunderstood and not bad.-SIX

As far as I can tell, what SIX is objecting to is YOUR CHARACTERIZATION of the event- that "Vladimir Putin proposes.."

It's right in your title (unless you post-edit your title).

Quote:
Who's the ass?-STOOPID

You are, clearly.

You've managed to consistently misrepresent not only the event, but also what I, KIKI, and SIX have said about it. Many times. Despite having been corrected. Many times. Either you're incredibly stupid, a person who is incapable of understanding the simplest statements, or you're a deliberate liar.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, February 12, 2017 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Nope, six is incorrect. Six is representing the spin that has been put forth by Russia to explain why they gutted the domestic violence laws. Not the damage it does when it comes to protecting women.

So, by this post you have changed your mind and are now for the changes to the law's regarding domestic violence in Russia. Is that so SIG?

They didn't gut existing domestic violence laws. That was a spin slightly suggested in the article and wildly blown out of proportion by your thread title and your subsequent posting.

Any physical abuse that leads to visible marks is still subject to criminal charges. The law is being changed because it got to the point that you couldn't even discipline your own children without having jackboot thugs come in your home.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

THGRRI

Monday, February 13, 2017 12:13 AM

Ok SIG. I see once again you are posting quotes that you have edited so there's nothing more to say. Except, get a hold of yourself.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
So, by this post you have changed your mind and are now for the changes to the law's regarding domestic violence in Russia. Is that so SIG?- STOOPID

My god, you're an ass. - SIGNY

You're the one who condemned the changing of the domestic violence laws, sort of.- STOOPID
I did not "condemn."

Quote:
And you're the one who suggests six is right when he says the changing of law is misunderstood and not bad.-SIX
As far as I can tell, what SIX is objecting to is YOUR CHARACTERIZATION of the event- that "Vladimir Putin proposes.."

It's right in your title (unless you post-edit your title).

Quote:
Who's the ass?-STOOPID
You are, clearly.

You've managed to consistently misrepresent not only the event, but also what I, KIKI, and SIX have said about it. Many times. Despite having been corrected. Many times. Either you're incredibly stupid, a person who is incapable of understanding the simplest statements, or you're a deliberate liar.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

---------------------

SIGNYM

Monday, February 13, 2017 12:19 AM

Quote:
Ok SIG. I see once again you are posting quotes that you have edited so there's nothing more to say. Except, get a hold of yourself. -THUGR

Is this ANOTHER baseless accusation?? (See above^^^^ about the "years of threads")

Son, tell us all - me too! - what I post-edited. I really don't know what you're posting about.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE