Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson Thinks It's a Conservative Virtue to Mutilate the Genitals of Little Children

[RealDave]

He is wrong, but this is a lie.

He never said that it was okay to mutilate the genitals of children.

This is bullshit.

Your complaint is bullshit! Just because Asa Hutchinson never used the actual words "genital mutilation"
doesn't change the fact that is exactly what he advocates for little children being forcibly transitioned
from Ray to Raylene, for instance. Get wise to your own foolishness.

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs. Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children? As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

you're a classic example of "progressive" stupidity. You only follow what you're told to follow and believe what you are told to believe.

Science

 

[RealDave]

You are either dumber than shit or just a liar in your claim that children are getting reassigment surgury.

Children are being chemically neutered and altered. Sex-change treatment for kids on the rise
And kids as young as eight are being surgically mutilated. Read and learn stupid bastard.
Go back to wherever you just came back from (likely Hell but people don't usually come back from
that).

"Surgically mutilated:? False.

 

[RealDave]

You assfuck. I said go through their childhood.

Parents wanting their children to be the sex they are mentally is acting in their best interest.

And what if children get older and then greatly regret mutilating themselves?
Think about that......assfuck!

Quit taking the reassignment drugs. Reassignment surgery is over 18.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Quit taking the reassignment drugs. Reassignment surgery is over 18.

Look at post # 38 where I already dealt with your misconception.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Asa Hutchinson Doubles Down On Genital Mutilation For Minors Under The Guise Of 'Limited Government'

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas is back at it again, wielding "limited government" and Ronald Reagan to qualify chemical castration of children.

thefederalist.com

Pretending to speak for Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson twists logic and reason around like a pretzel until he would have you believe chemically castrating small children is a conservative value, if you were actually dumb enough to believe in such garbage.

“Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourself [sic] in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion in dealing with issues that parents face, that individuals face?” Hutchinson said. “I’ve got to remind my wonderful Republican colleagues that we are the party of Ronald Reagan that believes in the role of limited government.”

The question is, is it actually "intolerant" to make life changing decisions for children too young
to understand and appreciate what transexual genital mutilation will mean to children for the rest of their lives?
Or should children be spared the trauma of sexual reassignment until they are old enough to judge for
themselves, since it actually are the children themselves that will bare the brunt of decisions made by
leftist parents for them?

And these parents are to girls and boys in Santa Monica, Berkeley and New York what the Taliban are to little girls in Afghanistan, India and Sudan. Which makes the better parent, Governor?
The one that wants to join in a destructive faddish movement that would alter the lives of young children
in ways they might regret the rest of their years?
Or the parent who will let the child decide for themself when more mature and with a better
perspective on his or her own body?


Why is Asa Hutchinson trying to make sexual reassignment procedures in young children a sign of "conservative principles"? When that is the craziest stretch most anyone, except the deranged governor
of Arkansas, could ever make.
You know what's even a more sacred value for conservatives, you lunatic? Protecting the youngest and
most vulnerable among us from the idiocy of those that would abuse and mistreat them.
When are you coming out in favor of female genital mutilation, Governor Hutchinson?

Tell us how Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley would be the first in favor of that? Your "limited
government" bullshit belongs in a yurt in the mountains of Afghanistan where a little frightened girl
is being permanently deformed by monsters like yourself.

The thread premise is a lie.

Hutchinson was correct to veto legislation seeking to deny transgender Americans access to healthcare.

The legislation is ignorant, hateful bigotry – another example of the authoritarian right’s desire to increase the power and size of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The thread premise is a lie.

Hutchinson was correct to veto legislation seeking to deny transgender Americans access to healthcare.

The legislation is ignorant, hateful bigotry – another example of the authoritarian right’s desire to increase the power and size of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Your post is a lie as long as you make claims you never substantiate. Is this your first post? Do you not
know how this all works?

 

[Ringtone]

Asa Hutchinson Doubles Down On Genital Mutilation For Minors Under The Guise Of 'Limited Government'

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas is back at it again, wielding "limited government" and Ronald Reagan to qualify chemical castration of children.

thefederalist.com

Pretending to speak for Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson twists logic and reason around like a pretzel until he would have you believe chemically castrating small children is a conservative value, if you were actually dumb enough to believe in such garbage.

“Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourself [sic] in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion in dealing with issues that parents face, that individuals face?” Hutchinson said. “I’ve got to remind my wonderful Republican colleagues that we are the party of Ronald Reagan that believes in the role of limited government.”

The question is, is it actually "intolerant" to make life changing decisions for children too young
to understand and appreciate what transexual genital mutilation will mean to children for the rest of their lives?
Or should children be spared the trauma of sexual reassignment until they are old enough to judge for
themselves, since it actually are the children themselves that will bare the brunt of decisions made by
leftist parents for them?

And these parents are to girls and boys in Santa Monica, Berkeley and New York what the Taliban are to little girls in Afghanistan, India and Sudan. Which makes the better parent, Governor?
The one that wants to join in a destructive faddish movement that would alter the lives of young children
in ways they might regret the rest of their years?
Or the parent who will let the child decide for themself when more mature and with a better
perspective on his or her own body?


Why is Asa Hutchinson trying to make sexual reassignment procedures in young children a sign of "conservative principles"? When that is the craziest stretch most anyone, except the deranged governor
of Arkansas, could ever make.
You know what's even a more sacred value for conservatives, you lunatic? Protecting the youngest and
most vulnerable among us from the idiocy of those that would abuse and mistreat them.
When are you coming out in favor of female genital mutilation, Governor Hutchinson?

Tell us how Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley would be the first in favor of that? Your "limited
government" bullshit belongs in a yurt in the mountains of Afghanistan where a little frightened girl
is being permanently deformed by monsters like yourself.

The essence of limited government per individual liberty is natural law. Hutchinson is making baby talk.

 

[Ringtone]

Asa Hutchinson Doubles Down On Genital Mutilation For Minors Under The Guise Of 'Limited Government'

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas is back at it again, wielding "limited government" and Ronald Reagan to qualify chemical castration of children.

thefederalist.com

Pretending to speak for Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson twists logic and reason around like a pretzel until he would have you believe chemically castrating small children is a conservative value, if you were actually dumb enough to believe in such garbage.

“Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourself [sic] in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion in dealing with issues that parents face, that individuals face?” Hutchinson said. “I’ve got to remind my wonderful Republican colleagues that we are the party of Ronald Reagan that believes in the role of limited government.”

The question is, is it actually "intolerant" to make life changing decisions for children too young
to understand and appreciate what transexual genital mutilation will mean to children for the rest of their lives?
Or should children be spared the trauma of sexual reassignment until they are old enough to judge for
themselves, since it actually are the children themselves that will bare the brunt of decisions made by
leftist parents for them?

And these parents are to girls and boys in Santa Monica, Berkeley and New York what the Taliban are to little girls in Afghanistan, India and Sudan. Which makes the better parent, Governor?
The one that wants to join in a destructive faddish movement that would alter the lives of young children
in ways they might regret the rest of their years?
Or the parent who will let the child decide for themself when more mature and with a better
perspective on his or her own body?


Why is Asa Hutchinson trying to make sexual reassignment procedures in young children a sign of "conservative principles"? When that is the craziest stretch most anyone, except the deranged governor
of Arkansas, could ever make.
You know what's even a more sacred value for conservatives, you lunatic? Protecting the youngest and
most vulnerable among us from the idiocy of those that would abuse and mistreat them.
When are you coming out in favor of female genital mutilation, Governor Hutchinson?

Tell us how Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley would be the first in favor of that? Your "limited
government" bullshit belongs in a yurt in the mountains of Afghanistan where a little frightened girl
is being permanently deformed by monsters like yourself.

The thread premise is a lie.

Hutchinson was correct to veto legislation seeking to deny transgender Americans access to healthcare.

The legislation is ignorant, hateful bigotry – another example of the authoritarian right’s desire to increase the power and size of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Nonsense. No one is being denied healthcare. We are talking about a procedure, and the state has a legitimate interest to protect children from harm.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nonsense. No one is being denied healthcare. We are talking about a procedure, and the state has a legitimate interest to protect children from harm.

The only question is why is a generally considered to be republican governor bending over backwards to
back some of the worst aspects of the transgender movement? What is his motivation to mutilate
little children?

 

[John T. Ford]

Asa Hutchinson Doubles Down On Genital Mutilation For Minors Under The Guise Of 'Limited Government'

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas is back at it again, wielding "limited government" and Ronald Reagan to qualify chemical castration of children.

thefederalist.com

Pretending to speak for Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson twists logic and reason around like a pretzel until he would have you believe chemically castrating small children is a conservative value, if you were actually dumb enough to believe in such garbage.

“Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourself [sic] in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion in dealing with issues that parents face, that individuals face?” Hutchinson said. “I’ve got to remind my wonderful Republican colleagues that we are the party of Ronald Reagan that believes in the role of limited government.”

The question is, is it actually "intolerant" to make life changing decisions for children too young
to understand and appreciate what transexual genital mutilation will mean to children for the rest of their lives?
Or should children be spared the trauma of sexual reassignment until they are old enough to judge for
themselves, since it actually are the children themselves that will bare the brunt of decisions made by
leftist parents for them?

And these parents are to girls and boys in Santa Monica, Berkeley and New York what the Taliban are to little girls in Afghanistan, India and Sudan. Which makes the better parent, Governor?
The one that wants to join in a destructive faddish movement that would alter the lives of young children
in ways they might regret the rest of their years?
Or the parent who will let the child decide for themself when more mature and with a better
perspective on his or her own body?


Why is Asa Hutchinson trying to make sexual reassignment procedures in young children a sign of "conservative principles"? When that is the craziest stretch most anyone, except the deranged governor
of Arkansas, could ever make.
You know what's even a more sacred value for conservatives, you lunatic? Protecting the youngest and
most vulnerable among us from the idiocy of those that would abuse and mistreat them.
When are you coming out in favor of female genital mutilation, Governor Hutchinson?

Tell us how Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley would be the first in favor of that? Your "limited
government" bullshit belongs in a yurt in the mountains of Afghanistan where a little frightened girl
is being permanently deformed by monsters like yourself.

Protecting women and children from Leftist, including Leftist in sheep's clothing, is not anything new.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread premise is a lie.

Hutchinson was correct to veto legislation seeking to deny transgender Americans access to healthcare.

The legislation is ignorant, hateful bigotry – another example of the authoritarian right’s desire to increase the power and size of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Your post is a lie as long as you make claims you never substantiate. Is this your first post? Do you not
know how this all works?

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – it’s who authoritarian conservatives are.

 

[Trickster]

You're like the know it all who scoffs and laughs at cigarette warnings that say "cigarettes MAY cause lung
cancer". But it is absolutely true. We know for a fact nicotine in fact DOES cause lung cancer.

Nicotine is addictive, but it is not the nicotine in the cigarettes that causes lung cancer.

But not every single person who ever smoked in fact winds up with lung cancer but that hardly invalidates
the warning.

Awful analogy.

]You sound like someone who,for whatever reason, has a problem with the words MAY and WILL.
Only you know why.

I use and interpret words for what they actually mean. I do not exist in this void where words do not have objective meanings. My "problem" is not with the words, but rather with your poor interpretation of them.

Ummm, that's YOU doing the sexualizing. You know newborns aren't the only people who have been
circumcised or live with the life long consequences of circumcision, right?

Nah, you clearly have some messed up, perverted fantasies.

i actually quoted to you the opinions of several well known health and medical organizations
that DO recognize how circumcision LESSENS the chances of cancer and AIDS problems in later life
specifically because YOU asked for such expertise.

No, the sources said nothing like that.

Like all zealots you simply cannot stand contradiction so when the WHO or American Cancer Society, for instance, both say yes, uncircumcised adults do run a greater risk of cancer than those who were
circumcised you simply refuse to accept the fact. So why am I wasting my time on you?

None of those organizations recommend it.

"Disinformation" that you cannot scientifically dispute. That's why I say you have a "foreskin fetish".
It has nothing to do with infants, except to the degree you act like a petulant child when you
are told something you don't want to hear. Grow up. I've never missed my funny looking penile
turtle neck for even a nano-second even though I was never consulted on the matter.

I guess that must mean it is right then. Lol

Imagine that! Who has gotten to you and made you feel like your are missing something really great?
Are you gay by any chance?

No, I am attracted to women.

Where did you get your medical degree, doctor? Just as NOT smoking lessens the chance
of lung cancer later in life (and therefore saves lives) so it is with circumcision. Do you not understand
the cause and effect of diseases? Christ!

That's not implied at all. CAN only means it's not a guaranteed cause and effect but science
has proven a strong link which may or may not apply to you. I already covered this.

Oh, I guess that must mean it is right then.

It means what it says. It's impossible for me to deny the conclusion that you are a real
dumb ****** and a waste of my time and energy. Enjoy your education while it lasts, whether you appreciate
what you read or not. This is a one time deal for me.

Complete bs and it does not really matter what data from Third World countries where most communities have no access to clean water nor any knowledge of germ theory says.

Your pulled from your ass assumption is all this clinical data comes from third world sources.
Anything to deny and ignore what you don't want to read and cannot contradict. That's a sure sign of
a real ignorant jackass.

If there is anything that medical authorities actually say, it would be that that foreskin is not useless. It has a function and is thus, by definition, useful.

So the appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, goose bumps and tonsils all are "useful"
to you? That's weird. These are called "vestigial" organs and help to illustrate and prove what a jerk off you are.
Just because something exists doesn't make it indispensable or useful. Maybe to a dog or monkey
but to humans no. If it were useful in humans all the uncircumcised men in the world would miss these
turtle necks for penis' and of course that's bullshit.

Where did I ever say I "love" foreskins? What I love is reason and RIC is very anti-reason.

No, you are. What is RIC? And why is everything you post so easy to poke holes in?

Slice up your daughter too then. You would not want her to get labia-cancer, would you?

Geez.

Why are you so passionate in your defence of a procedure that is clearly barbaric and pointless? Are you maybe looking for rationalizations to feel better about what was done to you?

Do you actually know anything about male and female genital anatomy?
My last time saying this: There is nothing "barbaric" and "pointless" about making children less
likely to contract AIDS of cancer of the penis. Actually the absolute opposite of what you claim
is true so that's why I feel guilt free ridiculing your idiocy. It's like a public service.

The analogy is not absurd at all.

It absolutely is. The arms have a million functions. and cannot be replaced easily if at all.The foreskin is a vestigial organ that served man as an ape. If you circumcise a child, apart from the
improvement, you've lost nothing at all, foreskin lover.

They already agree with me.

Aside from some nut jobs in San Francisco give me citation from some expert that supports your idiocy.

Clearly you are no able to have a civil discussion about the matter without resorting to name-calling. Calm down, dude.

Pointing out your dogmatic fanaticism is not name calling. It is properly identifying
your bizarre obsession. I've yet to run into some pro foreskin loser who does not have a screw loose.

You don't have to worry, I was snipped too.

So who convinced you you've been mutilated and robbed of something precious?
Did he also sell you on a time share in New Jersey? Just skip the numerous insults if you like.

Blah, blah, blah. Shut the f- up.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Blah, blah, blah. Shut the f- up.

Okay. You lose. Enjoy being ignored.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – it’s who authoritarian conservatives are.

Print it up and put it on your clubhouse door. It has no real actual meaning in any honest sense of words.

 

[Mac-7]

?

Wtf is going on, I thought you were a Conservative?

Sexual reassignment is not conservative

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sexual reassignment is not conservative

It's a rare psychological issue that the woke left has turned into a tool they can use to divide people up
and set them against each other. It's also an anti-female wedge issue that denies girls the chance to
compete athletically on a real level playing field. It's 98% bullshit!