WATCH: Feminist Who Attempted To Steal Pro-Life Sign Wilts When Justice Finds Her

[Eric Arthur Blair]

LOL a Trump sheep talking about morals

You talking about someone talking about morals.....just a riot.

I'll bet you were the funniest guy in Special Ed.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would rather befriend and form alliances with people on all sides, so we can hear each other's input and objections. We can correct problems and resolve conflicts by including and covering all the issues as needed to truly represent the public interest from all angles.

Taking delight in defeating each other and making others wrong might serve in humbling some people who need a check on themselves.

You're a better person than I, and I salute you. I wish I could be as level headed as you, but unfortunately, I feel the people that put this president in the White House are enemies of the republic at the moment. I have no empathy for these people. I do not consider them my countrymen. I won't compromise with them. They will receive no concessions other than total submission and subsequent destruction of their tribe.

Dear Tumblin Tumbleweed
Consider that the sentiment is generally mutual.
Many people do not respect "Trump or his voters or supporters"
and demean such people as mentally incompetent and not counting!

Can we really sustain this level of dehumanizing and dismissing each other's right to representation?

Doesn't the Golden Rule apply here: that if we want to be included in public policy,
even if we don't agree on beliefs, we should treat others with equal inclusion and respect even if we don't agree with their beliefs. If we don't like being voted out of due process and democratic representation, because of exclusion by "majority rule by an opposing ideology",
why should we engage in this tactic for overruling others we deem to have wrongful beliefs and approaches?

Why not support them in pursuing their own programs equally "on their own" in order to keep those out of govt in the first place?

It makes more sense to me that we RECOGNIZE parties as political religions or beliefs,
and agree to SEPARATE these from govt and let people govern THEMSELVES,
such as through their own statewide and national parties that don't require other people to support that.

Both major parties are large enough collectively to fund their own programs for their own members.
So instead of trying to force one sets of terms and conditions on benefits and social programs,
why not call a truce and treat parties like any other religious organization that needs to keep funding of their programs to themselves.

If people VOLUNTEER to donate or participate, they should have equal free choice without being coerced or penalized by govt!

 

[emilynghiem]

Its time to show these pukes we are a nation of laws that apply to them too despite their political views and their self appointed moral high ground... In My Opinion, killing babies out of convenience is a very low rung on the moral ladder.

Dear Billy_Bob okay let's look for better ways to enforce laws to stop abortion. How about this:
instead of current laws that target and affect women while the men suffer no legal consequences from abortion laws,
why not turn the tables and put it ALL ON THE MEN with no consequences on the women:

How about banning relationship abuse based on complaints of unwanted sexual contact and/or sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

And holding the MEN responsible for this abuse "instead of the women."

Billy_Bob if all MEN faced charges for statutory RAPE, sexual abuse, or relationship abuse
if sexual relations result in unwanted pregnancy or abortion, would you AGREE to that in order to stop abortion at the source?

Are you only in it for the convenience as long as it only affects women
and doesn't hold men accountable for decision to have sex, or coercion in the case of rape and abuse.

What if the tables are turned?

If MEN were automatically blamed for sex abuse, would you support that as a way to prevent abortion?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Can we really sustain this level of dehumanizing and dismissing each other's right to representation?

No. It will get systematically worse. Some won't even survive it.

Doesn't the Golden Rule apply here: that if we want to be included in public policy,
even if we don't agree on beliefs, we should treat others with equal inclusion and respect even if we don't agree with their beliefs.

I agree it would be great, using the 'treat others as you would treat yourself' rule rather than the 'he who has the gold makes the rules' rule. But these days, it seems the latter overshadows the former. For example, religion holds no special importance to me, thus this country has pretty much already disregarded my opinions as invalid and has so for decades. How could I possibly respect that?

If we don't like being voted out of due process and democratic representation, because of exclusion by "majority rule by an opposing ideology", why should we engage in this tactic for overruling others we deem to have wrongful beliefs and approaches?

Because beyond mutual assured destruction of the political tribes in this country, it's apparently the only way we know how to do things.

Why not support them in pursuing their own programs equally "on their own" in order to keep those out of govt in the first place?

Some people have an obsession with power and control. Obtaining political office is a way to satiate that urge for some. Plus, I believe neither party seems to want to make the government any smaller.

It makes more sense to me that we RECOGNIZE parties as political religions or beliefs, and agree to SEPARATE these from govt and let people govern THEMSELVES,
such as through their own statewide and national parties that don't require other people to support that.

Sure, but that's akin to saying religion should be separate from politics in this country. I just don't see it realistically happening in my lifetime. Especially when certain political tribes depend on it to sway voters.

Both major parties are large enough collectively to fund their own programs for their own members.
So instead of trying to force one sets of terms and conditions on benefits and social programs,
why not call a truce and treat parties like any other religious organization that needs to keep funding of their programs to themselves.

Because I believe that would cause a huge backlash. 1. Both parties will always want more taxpayer money no matter how 'well funded' they are. 2. I think certain demographics in this country believe they deserve more equality than others and won't be marginalized one bit. Example: Christians

If people VOLUNTEER to donate or participate, they should have equal free choice without being coerced or penalized by govt!

I don't see that working realistically, but we can dare to dream!

 

[22lcidw]

Its time to show these pukes we are a nation of laws that apply to them too despite their political views and their self appointed moral high ground... In My Opinion, killing babies out of convenience is a very low rung on the moral ladder.

Dear Billy_Bob okay let's look for better ways to enforce laws to stop abortion. How about this:
instead of current laws that target and affect women while the men suffer no legal consequences from abortion laws,
why not turn the tables and put it ALL ON THE MEN with no consequences on the women:

How about banning relationship abuse based on complaints of unwanted sexual contact and/or sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

And holding the MEN responsible for this abuse "instead of the women."

Billy_Bob if all MEN faced charges for statutory RAPE, sexual abuse, or relationship abuse
if sexual relations result in unwanted pregnancy or abortion, would you AGREE to that in order to stop abortion at the source?

Are you only in it for the convenience as long as it only affects women
and doesn't hold men accountable for decision to have sex, or coercion in the case of rape and abuse.

What if the tables are turned?

If MEN were automatically blamed for sex abuse, would you support that as a way to prevent abortion?

Start with all of the 13,14,15,16 year old girls getting pregnant in poverty areas and for some reason no rape charges ever against those who impregnate them. And if the males are underage also, does that make the pregnant females a felon also?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can we really sustain this level of dehumanizing and dismissing each other's right to representation?

No. It will get systematically worse. Some won't even survive it.

Doesn't the Golden Rule apply here: that if we want to be included in public policy,
even if we don't agree on beliefs, we should treat others with equal inclusion and respect even if we don't agree with their beliefs.

I agree it would be great, using the 'treat others as you would treat yourself' rule rather than the 'he who has the gold makes the rules' rule. But these days, it seems the latter overshadows the former. For example, religion holds no special importance to me, thus this country has pretty much already disregarded my opinions as invalid and has so for decades. How could I possibly respect that?

If we don't like being voted out of due process and democratic representation, because of exclusion by "majority rule by an opposing ideology", why should we engage in this tactic for overruling others we deem to have wrongful beliefs and approaches?

Because beyond mutual assured destruction of the political tribes in this country, it's apparently the only way we know how to do things.

Why not support them in pursuing their own programs equally "on their own" in order to keep those out of govt in the first place?

Some people have an obsession with power and control. Obtaining political office is a way to satiate that urge for some. Plus, I believe neither party seems to want to make the government any smaller.

It makes more sense to me that we RECOGNIZE parties as political religions or beliefs, and agree to SEPARATE these from govt and let people govern THEMSELVES,
such as through their own statewide and national parties that don't require other people to support that.

Sure, but that's akin to saying religion should be separate from politics in this country. I just don't see it realistically happening in my lifetime. Especially when certain political tribes depend on it to sway voters.

Both major parties are large enough collectively to fund their own programs for their own members.
So instead of trying to force one sets of terms and conditions on benefits and social programs,
why not call a truce and treat parties like any other religious organization that needs to keep funding of their programs to themselves.

Because I believe that would cause a huge backlash. 1. Both parties will always want more taxpayer money no matter how 'well funded' they are. 2. I think certain demographics in this country believe they deserve more equality than others and won't be marginalized one bit. Example: Christians

If people VOLUNTEER to donate or participate, they should have equal free choice without being coerced or penalized by govt!

I don't see that working realistically, but we can dare to dream!

Dear Tumblin Tumbleweed Thank you for your thoughtful response in depth.
Your assessment is as honest as it gets. I wish you'd believe as I have found that this
level of communication is enough, it's all that is needed to get where we need to be.

Just what you state above is fair and enough to establish an agreed understanding.
Thank you for this!

It's BECAUSE of what you said, that people of both parties WANT THEIR BELIEFS SO BADLY
that it will lead to separate funding. That's the only way they will get what they want without conflict or obstruction with others!

So this very selfish desire for full control is the very key to agreeing to separate.

It's still not an easy process to work through and finally grasp.
But once people get it, they have to admit and acknowledge it's the only way to guarantee their beliefs.
They are going to have to agree to accept the other group(s) having their beliefs and to keep them separate.

It's like agreeing to divorce in order not to damage their children's future and relationships.
Sad, but in the end people are happier under separate households where they don't fight all the time for control of the budget.

Some ways I've been able to explain this to people
1. Treating Right to Life and Right to Health Care as equal choices of creeds
The conservatives who believe in prolife are not going to stop until abortion is completely "defunded" and they have the right to recognize "right to life" as a valid belief that shouldn't be infringed or excluded from laws. So I use that to explain to my right to health care friends that BOTH beliefs deserve equal treatment under law.

OTHERWISE IT'S DISCRIMINATION BY CREED

If you are going to say the "right to life" programs have to be privately funded by free choice outside of govt, the same applies to "right to health care." If you are going to say "right to health care" HAS TO BE ENDORSED THROUGH GOVT AS MANDATORY, then so can the "right to life" argue for their beliefs to be recognized and established by govt.

You have to remove both as private free choices or allow both to be embedded in govt to be equal to people of either creed.

Sorry to tell people this, but when I present it consistently
it's hard to argue with. They can say they don't trust this group or that one,
and I argue the others don't trust them or the govt either. So it's equal.


2. similar with the LGBT beliefs expression and practices
and the Christian beliefs expressing and practices. Either allow both in public schools and institutions,
or remove both. Or let each school community democratically decide what they want to fund and include or not.

But you can't make one rule for all people and then complain and want to remove the other group's beliefs.
Both are faith based, and not everyone shares the beliefs and they don't agree on what science has or has not proven.
So this "faith based" preference of beliefs cannot be FORCED or penalized by govt against the beliefs of others!

Treat them the same, either allow both, include both or remove both and stay neutral.

[3. NOTE: In addition, I point out that conservative who want the BORDER WALL so badly argue at the same level as liberals who DEMAND to DEFUND the Death Penalty. So if we negotiate funding the Wall while defunding the death penalty so taxpayers can choose for their resources to go into teaching hospitals and prisons along the border to send people instead of death row, then people would likely agree because they want their agenda so badly! www.earnedamnesty Why not let both left and right direct taxes to the part of immigration reform they BELIEVE in funding, and quit trying to force everyone to pay for the opposite]

Tumblin Tumbleweed
Because it is HUMAN NATURE to defend one's beliefs, people eventually agree to back off each other.
They don't agree to have the OTHER GROUP instigate their beliefs through govt, PERIOD!

So it may take a direct agreement between party leaders to call a truce that people will trust.

I believe the health care reforms will lead to a truce because as many people want
health care through govt and believe in that as the only way, as people who want it
out of govt as the only way they see it as Constitutional protected free choice.

It will take an agreement between parties how to have enough resources organized
to guarantee 'access through govt' WITHOUT imposing it on people who don't believe in that.
so it still must be run by free choice to fund or participate at will, based on terms that
the individuals or groups agree to without imposing terms on other groups that believe otherwise.

So what you assess above is exactly right.
And that's why people will be compelled to stick to a better solution
because neither of these parties will ever agree to have the other mandate their beliefs through govt!

 

[emilynghiem]

Its time to show these pukes we are a nation of laws that apply to them too despite their political views and their self appointed moral high ground... In My Opinion, killing babies out of convenience is a very low rung on the moral ladder.

Dear Billy_Bob okay let's look for better ways to enforce laws to stop abortion. How about this:
instead of current laws that target and affect women while the men suffer no legal consequences from abortion laws,
why not turn the tables and put it ALL ON THE MEN with no consequences on the women:

How about banning relationship abuse based on complaints of unwanted sexual contact and/or sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

And holding the MEN responsible for this abuse "instead of the women."

Billy_Bob if all MEN faced charges for statutory RAPE, sexual abuse, or relationship abuse
if sexual relations result in unwanted pregnancy or abortion, would you AGREE to that in order to stop abortion at the source?

Are you only in it for the convenience as long as it only affects women
and doesn't hold men accountable for decision to have sex, or coercion in the case of rape and abuse.

What if the tables are turned?

If MEN were automatically blamed for sex abuse, would you support that as a way to prevent abortion?

Start with all of the 13,14,15,16 year old girls getting pregnant in poverty areas and for some reason no rape charges ever against those who impregnate them. And if the males are underage also, does that make the pregnant females a felon also?

Deaer 22lcidw
Yes, if we set up a system for public health and safety that takes complaints of abuse,
Then ANY complaint or report of RELATIONSHIP ABUSE would mean the parties
would agree to undergo counseling as part of the conditions for setting up such a system.

Communities or districts using such a system would form agreements with all residents
to comply with the same rules and process, similar to a civil or homeowners association ordinance
against abuses and requiring counseling to address complaints or reports from members.

This is similar to the "consent forms" that some college campuses have written in to their student policies.
When you enroll there, you agree to the local rules. And these school campuses have a policy that
before students engage in intimate relations, they sign a written consent form recording what they agreed to.
So any abuse complaints can be tracked and documented, as well as preventing false claims of rape.

This system would protect people of any gender and age if it is set up and agreed to by THAT community so it covers all their residents.

The best advantage is the work to set it up already opens up cooperative relations
and education and training to make sure the parties agree on the same standards and process for resolving complaints of abuse.

That, in itself, is the greatest preventative factor in not only preventing abuse
but also worse violations and crimes, by earlier intervention to find out which people are not able to comply
because of preexistent or latent disorders, mental or criminal illness or patterns of abuse or addiction already present.

Those can be addressed through counseling BEFORE any abuse or crime results.

NOTE: The reason I stated the opposite alternative to current laws, where it targets MEN only not women, is to show the equivalent of the biases we have now in how laws are set up. The ideal solution would be to hold all people responsible for correcting causes of sex abuse and relationship abuse. But if you were going to show the EQUIVALENT bias, it would swing all the way to the other extreme and target "MEN ONLY." That's to make the point that we would have to change the system TOTALLY to get rid of either bias.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Start with all of the 13,14,15,16 year old girls getting pregnant in poverty areas and for some reason no rape charges ever against those who impregnate them

That would be RACIST! Black boy's lives matter! The girls, not so much.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Dear Tumblin Tumbleweed Thank you for your thoughtful response in depth.

My pleasure.

It's BECAUSE of what you said, that people of both parties WANT THEIR BELIEFS SO BADLY
that it will lead to separate funding. That's the only way they will get what they want without conflict or obstruction with others!

So this very selfish desire for full control is the very key to agreeing to separate.

Secession has been tried before. Unfortunately, It tends to get a lot of folks killed.

Some ways I've been able to explain this to people
1. the conservatives who believe in prolife are not going to stop until abortion is completely defunded
and they have the right to recognize right to life as a valid belief that shouldn't be infringed or excluded from laws.

But it is law, not just a belief. Abortion is legal. This is a law pro-lifers have refused to accept.

So I use that to explain to my right to health care friends that BOTH beliefs deserve equal treatment under law.

I don't believe the government has any business running our health care system. Period.

If you are going to say the right to life programs have to be privately funded by free choice outside of govt, the same applies to right to health care.

Correct.

If you are going to say right to health care HAS TO BE ENDORSED THROUGH GOVT, then so can the right to life argue for their beliefs to be recognized and established by govt.

Also correct. But I believe both of the above are bad ideas.

Sorry to tell people this, but when I present it consistently
it's hard to argue with. They can say they don't trust this group or that one, and I argue the others don't trust them or the govt either. So it's equal.

Sure, fair enough.

2. similar with the LGBT beliefs expression and practices
and the Christian beliefs expressing and practices. Either allow both in public schools and institutions,
or remove both. Or let each school community democratically decide what they want to fund and include or not.

But you can't make one rule for all people and then complain and want to remove the other group's beliefs.
Both are faith based, and not everyone shares the beliefs and they don't agree on what science has or has not proven.
So this "faith based" preference of beliefs cannot be FORCED or penalized by govt against the beliefs of others!

Treat them the same, either allow both, include both or remove both and stay neutral.

Nothing to disagree with there because it's logical. We are in agreement on that.

So what you assess above is exactly right.
And that's why people will be compelled to stick to a better solution because neither of these parties will ever agree to have the other mandate their beliefs through govt!

But the political tribes always seem to be trying to do this very thing, aren't they? And if they can, you know they will. That's what I see happening to this failing 'democratic experiment' in America called government.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tumblin Tumbleweed Thank you for your thoughtful response in depth.

My pleasure.

It's BECAUSE of what you said, that people of both parties WANT THEIR BELIEFS SO BADLY
that it will lead to separate funding. That's the only way they will get what they want without conflict or obstruction with others!

So this very selfish desire for full control is the very key to agreeing to separate.

Secession has been tried before. Unfortunately, It tends to get a lot of folks killed.

Some ways I've been able to explain this to people
1. the conservatives who believe in prolife are not going to stop until abortion is completely defunded
and they have the right to recognize right to life as a valid belief that shouldn't be infringed or excluded from laws.

But it is law, not just a belief. Abortion is legal. This is a law pro-lifers have refused to accept.

So I use that to explain to my right to health care friends that BOTH beliefs deserve equal treatment under law.

I don't believe the government has any business running our health care system. Period.

If you are going to say the right to life programs have to be privately funded by free choice outside of govt, the same applies to right to health care.

Correct.

If you are going to say right to health care HAS TO BE ENDORSED THROUGH GOVT, then so can the right to life argue for their beliefs to be recognized and established by govt.

Also correct. But I believe both of the above are bad ideas.

Sorry to tell people this, but when I present it consistently
it's hard to argue with. They can say they don't trust this group or that one, and I argue the others don't trust them or the govt either. So it's equal.

Sure, fair enough.

2. similar with the LGBT beliefs expression and practices
and the Christian beliefs expressing and practices. Either allow both in public schools and institutions,
or remove both. Or let each school community democratically decide what they want to fund and include or not.

But you can't make one rule for all people and then complain and want to remove the other group's beliefs.
Both are faith based, and not everyone shares the beliefs and they don't agree on what science has or has not proven.
So this "faith based" preference of beliefs cannot be FORCED or penalized by govt against the beliefs of others!

Treat them the same, either allow both, include both or remove both and stay neutral.

Nothing to disagree with there because it's logical. We are in agreement on that.

So what you assess above is exactly right.
And that's why people will be compelled to stick to a better solution because neither of these parties will ever agree to have the other mandate their beliefs through govt!

But the political tribes always seem to be trying to do this very thing, aren't they? And if they can, you know they will. That's what I see happening to this failing 'democratic experiment' in America called government.

Dear Tumblin Tumbleweed
We avoid secession by just allowing taxpayers the choice to DEFUND the programs
they don't believe in implementing through Govt.

Treat political parties as any other Religious Organization
such as the Catholic church that runs and funds its own programs and schools.

Then we quit fighting and don't expect any ONE group to force its programs
on the whole nation to fund, any more than we'd allow the Catholic church to do this.

Why should we allow political parties to impose their political religions on everyone else?
How is that not a violation of the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment equal protections,
and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Its time to show these pukes we are a nation of laws that apply to them too despite their political views and their self appointed moral high ground... In My Opinion, killing babies out of convenience is a very low rung on the moral ladder.

Dear Billy_Bob okay let's look for better ways to enforce laws to stop abortion. How about this:
instead of current laws that target and affect women while the men suffer no legal consequences from abortion laws,
why not turn the tables and put it ALL ON THE MEN with no consequences on the women:

How about banning relationship abuse based on complaints of unwanted sexual contact and/or sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

And holding the MEN responsible for this abuse "instead of the women."

Billy_Bob if all MEN faced charges for statutory RAPE, sexual abuse, or relationship abuse
if sexual relations result in unwanted pregnancy or abortion, would you AGREE to that in order to stop abortion at the source?

Are you only in it for the convenience as long as it only affects women
and doesn't hold men accountable for decision to have sex, or coercion in the case of rape and abuse.

What if the tables are turned?

If MEN were automatically blamed for sex abuse, would you support that as a way to prevent abortion?

If a crime is committed there should be consequences for whom ever is responsible.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Acts against democrats should never be considered a crime. At worst it is nothing more than taking out trash that has started to smell. It isn't dehumanizing because democrats were never human to begin with. The highest calling of a democrat is to be target practice.

 

[captkaos]

I just love it when the left is finally bitch slapped by the law.....it so rarely happens......Read the whole story behind this video at

WATCH: Feminist Who Attempted to Steal Pro-Life Sign Wilts When Justice Finds Her

Meanwhile thousands of fetuses got sucked out a vag today. WAKKA WAKKA

Its time to show these pukes we are a nation of laws that apply to them too despite their political views and their self appointed moral high ground... In My Opinion, killing babies out of convenience is a very low rung on the moral ladder.

LOL a Trump sheep talking about morals

I see your in that class of scum sucking pond sediment..

Your lack of caring for human life that can not protect itself makes you garbage.. Human babies are just pieces of shit you can kill for convenience.... FUCK YOU! Your beliefs remind me of Hitler and his attempt to dehumanize a whole race as he was systematically killing them.. You seek to dehumanize all races and think that killing them systematically is just okey dokey....Thanks for showing us your a bigot without morals..

Its time the law applied to all human life. Geroiga just made the distinction that all life is precious.

Very slick "lawyer" way around Roe v Wade ! We are not denying a woman the right to have an abortion, which we find to be immoral" We are simply Making it a crime for Drs. to perform Abortions . I think it's a thin line legally. However women aren't prevented from going elsewhere thus they are not being denied the right under Roe v Wade, and Drs. have no standing under the law. Very slick lawyer shit there! They can move across the state line into Fla. There are a lot of slaughter house States left . Set up anew town and Call it Deathville a Privately owned for profit death town for Abortion seekers . Could be Big money there somewhere. Oh That's right very few abortion seekers could ever afford the Medical procedure without the Govt supporting it. Unlike Bernie believes I have never seen " The right to an abortion mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Our first Unalienable right is " Life" why do you think that is"?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Justice is sweet when it finally snaps down on some fascistic zealot.
What is the outcome of her case, however?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Alabama law will make it's way through the courts. It will either be struck in it's entirety or watered down to nothing. Those who passed the law know this and expect it. The purpose is to start wearing the abortion protections down. Abortion has just become too much of a monster. Personally I see nothing wrong with democrats killing their children. They can kill all of them. It was the leap into infanticide that made people balk and caused this law.

 

[22lcidw]

Its time to show these pukes we are a nation of laws that apply to them too despite their political views and their self appointed moral high ground... In My Opinion, killing babies out of convenience is a very low rung on the moral ladder.

Dear Billy_Bob okay let's look for better ways to enforce laws to stop abortion. How about this:
instead of current laws that target and affect women while the men suffer no legal consequences from abortion laws,
why not turn the tables and put it ALL ON THE MEN with no consequences on the women:

How about banning relationship abuse based on complaints of unwanted sexual contact and/or sex leading to unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion.

And holding the MEN responsible for this abuse "instead of the women."

Billy_Bob if all MEN faced charges for statutory RAPE, sexual abuse, or relationship abuse
if sexual relations result in unwanted pregnancy or abortion, would you AGREE to that in order to stop abortion at the source?

Are you only in it for the convenience as long as it only affects women
and doesn't hold men accountable for decision to have sex, or coercion in the case of rape and abuse.

What if the tables are turned?

If MEN were automatically blamed for sex abuse, would you support that as a way to prevent abortion?

There are a lot of women who destroyed men. Many men will watch you get raped and killed and more then that suffer while it is being done. Half the men will not even defend you anymore. And the azzes that still do, do it their own detriment. You can not even control your own bodily urges as you spout that against men. You are frauds that have been empowered. And more then that the most spoiled people in human history. Divas without a cause in a world of want and pain.