Michigan State Rep. Lisa Brown Banned from Speaking After Opposing Abortion Law - Polidicks

No matter where you stand on Abortion, holy mother of shit this gag rule is literally against everything this country has ever stood for, ever. Every single one of those fucking sphincters enforcing that can choke to death on rhino shit.

[QUOTE=The golden;36349295]The republicans are doing a really good job of making sure they lose the next few elections.[/QUOTE] I dunno man, it looks like they got the woman vote locked up. Though not as literally as they'd like.

[quote=What The Article Was About:]"What she said was offensive," Republican representative Mike Callton told the Detroit News. "It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company." [/quote] [quote=What Lisa Said:]"And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no'." [/quote] They got mad because she said Vagina, there's nothing else to it. The fuck are they, six?

[QUOTE=The golden;36349295]The republicans are doing a really good job of making sure they lose the next few elections.[/QUOTE] holy shit what if the republicans are really secretly trying to give religious conservatism such a bad name that it's ousted from american politics, to the benefit of the nation

Lankist broke my auto merge. But still, they're scared of vaginas (the Republicans). [QUOTE=Lankist;36349337]holy shit what if the republicans are really secretly trying to give religious conservatism such a bad name that it's ousted from american politics, to the benefit of the nation[/QUOTE] Nope, scared of vagina.

[QUOTE=Burgervich;36345369]This entire abortion thing is stupid. The babies don't have any consciousness at that age, they have as much consciousness as a fucking tree. It's not murder if it doesn't know it exists.[/QUOTE] I'm not against abortion, but what if you killed a newborn? "It" isn't really concious either, nor does it know of murder, but would that make it alright? Or if a four year old got raped, would that be okay because they don't even know what rape is? Of course not.

[QUOTE=Crimptor;36349939]I'm not against abortion, but what if you killed a newborn? "It" isn't really concious either, nor does it know of murder, but would that make it alright? Or if a four year old got raped, would that be okay because they don't even know what rape is? Of course not.[/QUOTE] Newborns are conscious and they are generally more perceptive, more intelligent and infinitely more analytical than a mature human. Do not mistake knowledge for consciousness and intellect. Newborns are hyper-conscious and ridiculously intelligent, solely [I]because[/I] they know nothing and they need to learn as quickly as possible. As Neil deGrasse Tyson put it: When an infant is throwing things around, grabbing and touching everything or breaking stuff, it's performing spatial experiments and learning about how it can influence the world around it. And it learns much more effectively than an adult. The argument that a newborn is the same as a fetus simply does not fly. As soon as that kid exits the womb, they are radically different.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;36349333]They got mad because she said Vagina, there's nothing else to it. The fuck are they, six?[/QUOTE] They got mad because she made a ridiculously over-the-top, sensationalist statement that has no place in state legislature, culminating in a thinly veiled reference to rape, and then tried to claim innocence and use the 'oh I was just using a medical term' bullshit to excuse it. She made a dumb statement to score points with the pundits and got gagged because she was contributing nothing useful. Maybe a bit excessive in their response but no, it is not 'oh she said an icky word better silence her'. It is that she was acting like a six-year-old, as you accuse the Republicans involved.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350039]They got mad because she made a ridiculously over-the-top, sensationalist statement that has no place in state legislature, culminating in a thinly veiled reference to rape, and then tried to use the 'oh I was just using a medical term' bullshit to excuse it. She made a dumbly embellished statement to score points with the pundits and got gagged because she was contributing nothing useful. Maybe a bit excessive in their response but no, it is not 'oh she said an icky word better silence her'. It is that she was acting like a six-year-old, as you accuse the Republicans involved.[/QUOTE] using the word vagaina and making a reference to rape: rude legislating bodily autonomy: A-Okay!

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350039]They got mad because she made a ridiculously over-the-top, sensationalist statement that has no place in state legislature, culminating in a thinly veiled reference to rape, and then tried to claim innocence and use the 'oh I was just using a medical term' bullshit to excuse it. She made a dumb statement to score points with the pundits and got gagged because she was contributing nothing useful. Maybe a bit excessive in their response but no, it is not 'oh she said an icky word better silence her'. It is that she was acting like a six-year-old, as you accuse the Republicans involved.[/QUOTE] except their legislating what women can do with their vaginas that's p. rapey just because they don't like the comparison does not make it invalid.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350039]and then tried to claim innocence and use the 'oh I was just using a medical term' bullshit to excuse it. [/QUOTE] But that's not an excuse. That's the actual medical term for it. What else was she supposed to say?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36350072]But that's not an excuse. That's the actual medical term for it. What else was she supposed to say?[/QUOTE] congressmen use words like "vajayjay" because there might be children present while they declare wars and marginalize women.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36350072]But that's not an excuse. That's the actual medical term for it. What else was she supposed to say?[/QUOTE] No, see, that's just it: They don't care that she used the term vagina. Did nobody actually read the article? 'According to Ari Adler, a spokesman for the Republican majority, Republican Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh called Brown out of order, not for saying "vagina," but for saying "no means no," something which he says suggested that Brown was comparing the abortion legislation to rape.' She is trying to pass it off as them being Puritanical and getting mad over her using the term vagina, knowing full well that that isn't the issue in the slightest. They got mad because she was being a sensationalist asshole, not because she used a [I]naughty word[/I].

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350102]No, see, that's just it: They don't care that she used the term vagina. Did nobody actually read the article? 'According to Ari Adler, a spokesman for the Republican majority, Republican Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh called Brown out of order, not for saying "vagina," but for saying "no means no," something which he says suggested that Brown was comparing the abortion legislation to rape.' She is trying to pass it off as them being Puritanical and getting mad over her using the term vagina, knowing full well that that isn't the issue in the slightest. They got mad because she was being a sensationalist asshole, not because she used a [I]naughty word[/I].[/QUOTE] so because theyre offended the first amendment doesnt apply this just in: nobody in any american legislative body has ever been censored for being a "sensationalist asshole" prior to this woman mentioning her vagina. Do you seriously think worse things haven't been said? People in the U.S. House of Representatives have gotten into fucking [I]FISTFIGHTS[/I] in the middle of legislative sessions. People were beaten so bad that they got put in a hospital for weeks. [I]NONE[/I] of them were told they could not speak anymore.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350115]so because theyre offended the first amendment doesnt apply[/QUOTE] This is more sensationalism. Getting gagged because you can't abide by standards of conduct and just [I]have[/I] to get in the female-to-male equivalent of a 'your mom' joke isn't at ALL the same as having your first amendment revoked. People in courtrooms who get declared out of order aren't having their first amendment oppressed. Reporters told to shut up when they try interrupting the President's speeches aren't having their first amendment right eliminated. The first amendment is not a right to say whatever you want whenever you want, especially in a legal context.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350155]This is more sensationalism. Getting gagged because you can't abide by standards of conduct and just [i]have[/i] to get in the female-to-male equivalent of a 'your mom' joke isn't at ALL the same as having your first amendment revoked. People in courtrooms who get declared out of order aren't having their first amendment oppressed. Reports told to shut up when they try interrupting the President's speeches aren't having their first amendment right eliminated. The first amendment is not a right to say whatever you want whenever you want, especially in a legal context.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;36350115]so because theyre offended the first amendment doesnt apply this just in: nobody in any american legislative body has ever been censored for being a "sensationalist asshole" prior to this woman mentioning her vagina. Do you seriously think worse things haven't been said? People in the U.S. House of Representatives have gotten into fucking [I]FISTFIGHTS[/I] in the middle of legislative sessions. People were beaten so bad that they got put in a hospital for weeks. [I]NONE[/I] of them were told they could not speak anymore.[/QUOTE] Not sensationalism. Fucking history. [editline]16th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;36350155]The first amendment is not a right to say whatever you want whenever you want, especially in a legal context.[/QUOTE] Actually it is pretty much exactly that, provided what you are saying is not a lie.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350115]People in the U.S. House of Representatives have gotten into fucking [I]FISTFIGHTS[/I] in the middle of legislative sessions. People were beaten so bad that they got put in a hospital for weeks. [I]NONE[/I] of them were told they could not speak anymore.[/QUOTE] Used to be that physical violence was used by lawmakers to intimidate each other into cooperation. Times change. When was the last time such an event occurred?

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350177]Used to be that physical violence was used by lawmakers to intimidate each other into cooperation. Times change. When was the last time such an event occurred?[/QUOTE] Haha uuuhhhhh no, that is not how it "used to be." That's only happened like two times, ever. The last time it happened, the person who started the fight had his secessionist army obliterated. But he was never told he could not speak. He was never gagged, even as he promoted secession from the union and violent civil war he was allowed to speak his mind. But you're telling me that a woman saying the words "vagina" and "no" justifies a completely unconstitutional act of censorship, the audacity and transparent sexism of which this nation hasn't ever seen.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350164]Actually it is pretty much exactly that, provided what you are saying is not a lie.[/QUOTE] Try shouting your political views at the President during a speech, and see how long before your right to free speech is 'suppressed'. The first amendment does not guarantee the right to say anything anytime you feel like it, it guarantees the right to be able to speak your mind in public, which you can do whether or not you're told to shut up at an important event.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350194]Try shouting your political views at the President during a speech, and see how long before your right to free speech is 'suppressed'.[/QUOTE] They aren't going to gag you, they're going to kick you out of a private function. They can't stop you from screaming on the street. Nor will they. Nor can they tell an elected representative that she is not allowed to speak frankly about an issue that pertains to her own body. It is downright unconstitutional. They aren't just silencing her. They are silencing her constituents. Thousands of people who have now been denied representation. Being polite and inoffensive has never been and will never be a requisite for elected representatives.

I'm strongly pro-life but I think this is incredibly stupid. The angry selfish part of me says "YES, GOOD" but the reasonable and understanding part says, "Well, this is a democracy, how can you do this..."

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350194]Try shouting your political views at the President during a speech, and see how long before your right to free speech is 'suppressed'. The first amendment does not guarantee the right to say anything anytime you feel like it, it guarantees the right to be able to speak your mind in public, which you can do whether or not you're told to shut up at an important event.[/QUOTE] Hey do you remember when Joe Wilson called the President a liar during his 2009 address to congress? It was broadcast on live TV for everyone in the nation to hear. Then he showed up to work the next day and apologized and continued doing his job.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350180]Haha uuuhhhhh no, that is not how it "used to be." That's only happened like two times, ever. The last time it happened, the person who started the fight had his secessionist army obliterated. But he was never told he could not speak. He was never gagged, even as he promoted secession from the union and violent civil war he was allowed to speak his mind.[/QUOTE] Two times? [URL="http://voices.yahoo.com/ready-rumble-greatest-fistfights-us-congress-2129050.html?cat=9"]Don't think so[/URL]. [QUOTE=Lankist;36350180]But you're telling me that a woman saying the words "vagina" and "no" justifies a completely unconstitutional act of censorship, the audacity and transparent sexism of which this nation hasn't ever seen.[/QUOTE] I never said the gag order is justified, or the right response, or, hell, I don't even know if it's legal. What I'm saying is that the idea that 'oh no, the republicans don't like the word vagina so they censored her' is fucking retarded because it is completely missing the point. She made an asinine and juvenile comment and refused to own up to it, and the Republicans promptly started being their usual overreactionary selves and went completely overboard in their response. tl;dr of all this is that the Republican response is ridiculous and probably illegal, but it's not a case of censorship over one word as the article portrays.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36350220]Hey do you remember when Joe Wilson called the President a liar during his 2009 address to congress? It was broadcast on live TV for everyone in the nation to hear. Then he showed up to work the next day and apologized and continued doing his job.[/QUOTE] Even if he hadn't apologized, they weren't going to gag him.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350255]Even if he hadn't apologized, they weren't going to gag him.[/QUOTE] He only apologized because McCain said something. If he had let it go no one would have cared after 2 days and then it would be business as usual.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350255]Even if he hadn't apologized, they weren't going to gag him.[/QUOTE] If he kept shouting further comments, you can bet he'd be 'politely' asked to leave. Not gagged outright and prevented from speaking in public, but nobody ever suggested that.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350164]Not sensationalism. Fucking history.[/QUOTE] The House of representatives "Gag Rule" disagrees with your sentiment. First it was through resolutions, and then from 1840-44 there was a standing rule that tabled all petitions regarding abolition. Just wanted to point out that your claim was factually incorrect.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350254]Two times? [url=http://voices.yahoo.com/ready-rumble-greatest-fistfights-us-congress-2129050.html?cat=9]Don't think so[/url].[/quote] Did you even read those? Half of them are mild whacks on the head. One of them was just a dude rushing another dude before stopping when someone else whipped out his gat. I said fistfights, not "one punch then recess." [quote]tl;dr of all this is that the Republican response is ridiculous and probably illegal, but it's not a case of censorship over one word as the article portrays.[/QUOTE] You're right. She's being censored because of her opinion as a woman. [editline]16th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Spooter;36350277]The House of representatives "Gag Rule" disagrees with your sentiment. First it was through resolutions, and then from 1840-44 there was a standing rule that tabled all petitions regarding abolition. Just wanted to point out that your claim was factually incorrect.[/QUOTE] Yes we should use secessionists as a model for proper republican representative democracy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36350278]You're right. She's being censored because of her opinion as a woman.[/QUOTE] No, she's being censored because of the juvenile way she expressed her opinion as a woman, whether it's justified or not. There is a difference.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36350289]No, she's being censored because of the juvenile way she expressed her opinion as a woman, whether it's justified or not. There is a difference.[/QUOTE] define "juvenile"