[StrikezOne]

[StrikezOne]

Okay.

So in case you havent heard by now, a Supreme Court Justice nominee of the United States was asked if she can define what a "woman" is. Her response was "I cant. I'm not a biologist."

Was she trying to avoid answering such a question to not upset the radical left? This itself is confusing even if she was. Because according to a leftist ideology, gender is social construct and not a matter of biology or genetics. So she really stepped on a rake with that one, not once but twice. Roe v Wade is a hot topic going around lately, is she going to sit silently about a "womans" right to choose? She doesnt even know what a woman is. Does she need a biologist around her 24/7 to let her know which public restroom to use?

Anyway, I think this is a small example of a much larger problem at hand in modern western society. We are moving away from being able to say what we believe a woman to be.

Everyone here loves and admires women. And yeah, I understand some here will say they just love huge boobs no matter who theyre attached to. I also understand that some people get triggered by other opinions I have and share, that responding to anything I say is too much for them - even going as far as ignoring BOOBS I post. However, I am just curious as to what others think about this.

Should we preserve the woman as we once knew a woman to be - or embrace a radical change and be afraid to say what a woman is? And I am not talking about a 1960s, 1970s, debate about a womans "role." I am specifically talking about "woman" in the Merriam Webster sense.

[Hiram]

Anyway, I think this is a small example of a much larger problem at hand in modern western society. We are moving away from being able to say what we believe a woman to be.

Why do men have nipples?

[Shadowmuse Blown]

Anyway, I think this is a small example of a much  larger problem at hand in modern western society. We are moving away from being able to say what we believe a woman to be.

Why do men have nipples?

Right?  Perhaps, that should have been her retort to the question!   

[Robin_K2]

This was just bait to create a FOX soundbite.

I'm surprised they didn't ask her if she still beats her husband.

[bignatslover]

was asked if she can define what a "woman" is. Her response was "I cant. I'm not a biologist."

I can see it from both sides.

Her answer may have angered people, as it sounded like she was looking for a way to dodge a simple question.

But in context, I sympathized with her because she was getting such an odd jumble of things thrown at her, especially if you saw Ted Cruz holding up childrens' books for reactions.

I get it, it's a big deal to be nominated to The Supreme Court. But tangential questions don't accomplish much other than to be disruptive.

[StrikezOne]

Anyway, I think this is a small example of a much  larger problem at hand in modern western society. We are moving away from being able to say what we believe a woman to be.

Why do men have nipples?

Right?  Perhaps, that should have been her retort to the question!   

So do you guys just think it was a stupid question to begin with? And that she was just above answering it due to how silly it was?

This was just bait to create a FOX soundbite.

I'm surprised they didn't ask her if she still beats her husband.

If it was bait, she fell for it didnt she? Or she couldve just answered the question.

I can see it from both sides.

Her answer may have angered people, as it sounded like she was looking for a way to dodge a simple question.

But in context, I sympathized with her because she was getting such an odd jumble of things thrown at her, especially if you saw Ted Cruz holding up childrens' books for reactions.

I get it, it's a big deal to be nominated to The Supreme Court. But tangential questions don't accomplish much other than to be disruptive.

Well, she was asked to define a woman a day before that whole confrontation with Ted Cruz. And Supreme Court nominations have turned into odd questioning just to disrupt the last few nominations.

And her excuse for not being able to answer is not being a biologist. I dont know, I just do not like the direction of where this is going.

[StrikezOne]

[StrikezOne]

If we are still authorizing booster vaccines under Emergency Use then how are we ending Title 42?

[StrikezOne]

[StrikezOne]

No one apparently finds this at all even in the slightest to be problematic huh?

[StrikezOne]

The whole world panicked over 65-90 year olds in aged care facilities dying from/with Covid but no one is concerned about an abundance of 20-50 year olds suddenly collapsing and having heart attacks?

Have a look for yourself.
Are they all vaccine related? Probably not, but this is not normal and you cannot deny that.

[Shadowmuse Blown]

LOL, Salem should change the name of this thread to “Spitting in the Wind”.  I’ve only been in here once or twice and found it to be silly propaganda central for both sides.  But, that’s just me.  Does anyone pop in here to try to be persuaded by anyone’s opinion or learn anything ?  Just curious.  I don’t really read the posts on here anymore.  I can just tell by who posts them what they’ll say. 

Have fun.

[StrikezOne]

Does anyone pop in here to try to be persuaded by anyone’s opinion or learn anything ?  Just curious.  I don’t really read the posts on here anymore.  I can just tell by who posts them what they’ll say. 

Have fun.

No one at all comes in here anymore. But as soon as the television tells them to worry about Covid again, then I can assume thats when they will return. And then they will act like they havent been wrong about everything and continue to lecture everyone about "misinformation."

[StrikezOne]