Quiz: Who said the following?
I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should’ve never turned this over to women. … And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.
And this probably was the reason that they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen. …
Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.
Was it:
Some dude on The Spearhead?
A regular guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News?
Well, yeah, you guessed it: it’s door number three. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Tea Party activist and founder of the group Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), said all of the above, and quite a lot of other outrageously misogynistic things, in a talk this March, and which is available on YouTube. Yet Hannity, who serves on the board of Peterson’s group, had him back on his show earlier this month, for an appearance during which Peterson described “liberal Democrat women” as “whores.” Raw Story, which discovered Peterson’s unlisted video on YouTube, offers many more delightful misogyny nuggets from Peterson.
Here’s the video of Peterson’s talk. The stuff about women and voting starts at about 8:30 in. But I suggest you watch the whole thing from the start; it’s a virtual smorgasbord of misogyny, seasoned with a bunch of stuff he simply made up about Sandra Fluke’s famous congressional testimony on birth control.
It would be nice if this sort of stuff was confined to the fringes of the manosphere, but alas, it’s everywhere.
JT: Where, pray tell, in the Constitution (you being professional in the Law, and all) is the requirement for one to be a taxpayer to vote?
The amount it was worth is irrelevant.
Really? So if a poll tax of 30,000 dollars were intituted, that wouldn’t matter?
While we’re at it, why don’t you tell us how much one dollar could buy in the time of the poll tax
What period of time? In what locale? Wages, and prices, aren’t the same even now; when there is a lot less regional variation. I could take my pension and buy a pretty decent piece of land in Tennessee. I can’t even think about using it to buy a small condo in Jersey City; though I can probably afford a double-wide on a half-acre downstate.
In San Luis Obispo, out of the question. In Parris, again no problem.
So a $1 dollar tax, in Fiddler’s Notch is a very different thing to that same dollar in Charleston.
If you add the inconsistent application, then the use of the poll tax/literacy test/family history of voting, etc, was plainly not the benign “he’s a taxpayer, and so a contributing member of society” you are pretending.
Remember that I said it was for people who did not own land, they already paid taxes. And it makes sense.
You couldn’t go to a Microsoft shareholder’s meeting and demand to vote your shares if you were not a shareholder so why should some person who never paid tax have any say in electing a government that would tax other people.
Because as a non-shareholder in Microsoft what they do doesn’t take anything out of my pocket.
The Gov’t, however, is something that I, no matter if I am, “paying taxes” or not, does directly; and intimately, affect me.
But the bedrock principles of the US (not the Constitution) says that just government derives from the consent of the governed. One of the grievances listed in that Declaration was, For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
The US Constitution is whatever the US Supreme Court says it is.
Not quite. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter, but the Constitution is what the people; in the form of the legislatures of the various states, and the Congress, say it is.
When a question of their interpretations seems to be in conflict, a suit is brought (by a person with standing), and the courts adjudicate the matter. Depending on the nature of that adjudication the “Constitution” may be different in its scope from region to region. That region may be as small as Rhode Island, or as large as the 9th Circuit.
Argenti-I’m a medical doctor and know the difference
Wait!!!!! You aren’t a professional at the Law!
Then shut up.
🙂
JT: Argenti-I’m well aware of what Supreme Court decisions mean. The whole case was based on lies anyway.
In such a case; where the question is of rights, and civil liberties, the truth isn’t all that crucial (sort of the flip side of Scalia saying that provable innocence isn’t enough to vacate a conviction, even a capital one).
The question the court was asked wasn’t, “did a rape occur”, but, “is this restriction of the right to privacy (implicit in the 4th amendment, and arguable under the 9th: which is the most neglected, and arguably most important amendment in the document; being that it prevents the idea that, “all rights which aren’t explicit are therefore negated, but I digress).
Ignoring your lack of citation, even if Roe v. Wade was based on a false claim, there had to be similar claims which weren’t brought, but which were true.
The question remained, and was answered (and the falsity of her rape claim wasn’t something which came up later; it was admitted in argument before the Supreme Court, so they could; and did, take it into account when they made the decision).
This whole abortion thing is really irrelevant today because abortion pills are used and anyone with any sense would have the chemical abortion within the time period which is like 50 days from the start of the last period.
Really?
Must be a new definition of irrelevant because there are laws which make it illegal to prescribe them. That’s completely ignoring the vast oversimplification of the way RU-486 works, and that, absent Roe v. Wade, it could be banned outright (and even inside Roe v Wade. Many states did ban it, with the argument that other abortion services were legal, even if they were, in all practical terms unavailable).
JT: Argenti-I’m well aware of what Supreme Court decisions mean. The whole case was based on lies anyway.
In such a case; where the question is of rights, and civil liberties, the truth isn’t all that crucial (sort of the flip side of Scalia saying that provable innocence isn’t enough to vacate a conviction, even a capital one).
The question the court was asked wasn’t, “did a rape occur”, but, “is this restriction of the right to privacy (implicit in the 4th amendmend, and arguable under the 9th: which is the most neglected, and arguably most important amendment in the document; being that it prevents the idea that, “all rights which aren’t explicit are therefore negated, but I digress).
Ignoring your lack of citation, even if Roe v. Wade was based on a false claim, there had to be similar claims which weren’t brought, but which were true.
The question remained, and was answered (and the falsity of her rape claim wasn’t something which came up later; it was admitted in argument before the Supreme Court, so they could; and did, take it into account when they made the decision).
This whole abortion thing is really irrelevant today because abortion pills are used and anyone with any sense would have the chemical abortion within the time period which is like 50 days from the start of the last period.
Really?
Must be a new definition of irrelevant because there are laws which make it illegal to prescribe them. That’s completely ignoring the vast oversimplification of the way RU-486 works, and that, absent Roe v. Wade, it could be banned outright (and even inside Roe v Wade. Many states did ban it, with the argument that other abortion services were legal, even if they were, in all practical terms unavailable).
JT: Argenti-I’m well aware of what Supreme Court decisions mean. The whole case was based on lies anyway.
In such a case; where the question is of rights, and civil liberties, the truth isn’t all that crucial (sort of the flip side of Scalia saying that provable innocence isn’t enough to vacate a conviction, even a capital one).
The question the court was asked wasn’t, “did a rape occur”, but, “is this restriction of the right to privacy (implicit in the 4th amendmend, and arguable under the 9th: which is the most neglected, and arguably most important amendment in the document; being that it prevents the idea that, “all rights which aren’t explicit are therefore negated, but I digress).
Ignoring your lack of citation, even if Roe v. Wade was based on a false claim, there had to be similar claims which weren’t brought, but which were true.
The question remained, and was answered (and the falsity of her rape claim wasn’t something which came up later; it was admitted in argument before the Supreme Court, so they could; and did, take it into account when they made the decision).
This whole abortion thing is really irrelevant today because abortion pills are used and anyone with any sense would have the chemical abortion within the time period which is like 50 days from the start of the last period.
Really?
Must be a new definition of irrelevant because there are laws which make it illegal to prescribe them. That’s completely ignoring the vast oversimplification of the way RU-486 works, and that, absent Roe v. Wade, it could be banned outright (and even inside Roe v Wade. Many states did ban it, with the argument that other abortion services were legal, even if they were, in all practical terms unavailable).
Argenti-I’m a medical doctor and know the difference.
Then why did you misstate the timeframe of usage for RU-486?
JT: @Sandra-there are a handful of these so called White Nationalists and I have yet to meet one in real life.
It’s a pretty big handful. They kill people. The Order. J.T. Ready.
Some of them (David Duke) get elected to office. Hand-waving them away may make it easier to sleep at night, but they aren’t a trivial group.
I am happy you’ve lived such an insular life. I’ve had the misfortune to meet them. I’ve had the misfortune to have them decide I must be of their ilk, and start talking to me as if I must (being white, and having been in the Army, I must be a reactionary, or something), share their views.
Having read a lot about them (and too much of their rantings) I know the code words, and the “secret handshakes”. Your denial, combined with a blissful ignorance, is helping them.
Good on ya.
Argenti-I’m not going to argue Law with an amateur
Really… tell me son, in which states are you licensed before the bar?
pillowinhell: Come back to Canada, I’ll buy you a Timmies.
An entire Timmies? I want to own a franchise in Vancouver, but Ottawa would be Ok too.
JT: Like everyone else does so perhaps that’s why the poll tax was abolished many years ago when these new taxes were established that didn’t exist in the past. However, the poor are generally a drain on society and no amount of arguing will ever change that.
1966. Well after taxes on property were the driving factor in the US tax system.
I hope you are more informed as a physician than you seem to be as a “non-amateur” of the law.
The state has nothing to do with a declaration of disability for SSD (not SSI; SSI is low-income, not disability). Those are handled entirely through the Social Security Administration and its uniform federal guidelines for disability.
If this bit hadn’t convinced me that you know jack shit about law OR medicine….
This bit would have.
First, Medicaid itself doesn’t cover transportation. Some states may have related programs that do cover transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries (my state doesn’t), but these are not Medicaid programs and they are not paid for via Medicaid block grants.
Second, what Medicaid covers vis a vis disabled individuals is irrelevant, because SSD recipients are covered by Medicare, not Medicaid. Medicare does not cover transportation either.
And frankly, if you did practice medicine in the U.S. and knew only one thing about the law that applied to your profession, Medicare rules would be that one thing.
Sincerely, a former health care lawyer
And …. John Thomas is Pell. (Or someone in the same city with a similar IP.)
Banned, this time before the inevitable full meltdown.
I gotta check those IPs more carefully.
All this anti-poor bullshit just makes me think:
“If they’re going to die, then they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population!”
Guys, the moral of the story was NOT TO BE LIKE SCROOGE. Come on!
JT: You have no idea about how many benefits are given out, especially to females. There are so many ways to be declared “disabled” including in some States being an alcoholic or drug addict oe being “depressed” and receive SSI. Once you have that all of the other benefits fall into line like rent subsidies, food, free medical, transportation, utilities, phones etc
False.
SSI disability is federal. Two, it’s a cash payment. It may, depending on the state, and the nature of your disability, entitle one to other benefits.
It also prohibits the recipient from any other employment.
So any other benefits which accrue (at the state level and so no specific drain on the federal budget), are a result of that aspect of the law.
So for about 2,000 a month, one gets to survive as best one can.
Another thing,if you’re poor don’t try to liv ein high rent areas, move to the boondocks. Sec 8 actually pays more if you live in an expensive area. In most States Sec 8 is not public housing and an owner cannot discriminate against tenants.
If you can afford to move. If there is available Section 8 housing. It may not be public, but nothing requires an owner to have Section 8 housing available. A municipality may require some Low income housing (not always under Section 8) as a condition for developig a multi-residential building/complex, but the developer can refuse to build.
And such conditions are almost always in areas with higher housing costs; because that’s where the need is.
If you’re “disabled” you don’t have to worry about going anywhere and besides medicaid will transport you to medical appointments.
What kind of doctor are you?
I’m disabled. I leave the house. I happen to be disabled in a way which doesn’t really affect my ability to get around (at the moment). So I am not entitled to get transport to my physician(s).
They are thirty minutes away, by car. They are a train, and a bus, and couple of 1/2 mile walks away. If I were in a wheelchair, it would be three buses, or about 3/4s of a mile to get to the elevator for the train.
When I was mobility impaired I could get a van. It was a four week wait (and a visit, on two buses, with a pair of significant walks, to fill out the paperwork). Once I was enrolled it was a 72 hour lead time to get a ride. To make sure I made my appointments I’d have had to get a pick-up window three hours before my appointment. If my appointment ran late, it was take the buses home.
JT: Argenti- I don’t even know what traditional sex roles are.And btw, use the word sex when talking about human beings, gender applies to language as in the masculine or feminine gender.
Not any longer. The usage has been changing in the past 40 years. With the awareness of non-binary sex, and the issues of presentation; gender has acquired another new meaning.
I can see language isn’t your profession either.
JT: I did that at prep school 40 years ago. Cicero? Is he related to the Cis co kid
Sure you did. If you did, and you don’t know Cicero, well perhaps you ought to brush up, and read some Martial… it’s more exciting, and I think his words speak to you.
and I see it’s Pell, So I’ll stop.
But he really ought to read Martial, and take it to heart.
I know John Thomas is a troll, but I just want to go ahead and say that Dr. Kellogg thought that eating a bland diet would prevent the urge to masturbate. Masturbation was bad because you shot energy out of your penis along with ejaculate, and that energy either couldn’t be replaced or recovered so slowly that you could make yourself sick with as many as one wank a week.
Of course, this was all about men. Women, you see, had no sexual feeling at all and thus didn’t masturbate, and there weren’t anybody but straight men and women. QED.
SURCUSM
RE: Falconer
You gave me a laugh today. Thanks much!
(Now my husband is facetiously claiming that I’m only on the ace spectrum due to my diet. Dork.)
OK, Pell really is one of my favorite trolls. I love that he just makes shit up that is clearly false, like he’s not even trying to make you believe it, but then he just keeps going with it and building on it…
I think he does think we’ll believe it. There is a certain blasé sangfroid (the bit about not discussing the Law with amateurs, and consistent capitalisation of Law), which implies he thinks he will pull it off; we being too stupid to spot his gaffes.
Of course he keeps failing to pull the wool over our eyes, and then has to slink back to try again. He’d do better if he didn’t, like Eoghan, so quickly resort to being so over the top. A bit of time as someone who is not quite in agreement, but mostly reasonable; a bit of research to have the general facts be in order.
That, of course, would require him to show us some respect as intelligent beings, so it won’t happen.
But a person can dream.
I’ve seen several mentions of this Pell meltdown of epic proportions. I missed it! Could I ask if anyone could direct me to the relevant thread?
It starts here How to hate women and have terrible sex
It’s a long thread (780 comments), and I think I have the first comment of Pell’s at that link.
Viscaria: If it tells you anything, Mags called him out as a troll, early on.
I just have such a hard time imagining that he thinks the stuff he says is believable. The country of New York? Not knowing who Cicero is?
There are also weird consistencies: He’s a doctor, he’s in his 50s, he lives in Connecticut. Obviously false (except maybe the Connecticut one), but he keeps them consistent between handles even though each handle is ostensibly pretending to be the same person.
It seems more like some kind of pathological liar thing, like he’s actually lying for no reason or because he can’t help it.
I think my favorite part of his last meltdown was ‘splaining how cis women don’t come until they have a good ol’ load of male essence all up in the uterus.
He knows because he’s “shagged at least 300 females.”
OT, sort of. Pell said he’d never encountered any White Supremacists/Nationalists.
He might want to look at this.
I think he believes it’s credible. That claiming to be a doctor in his fifties makes the medical nonsense believable.
When confronted on something, where he’s been a slight bit less than perfect (say gender), he makes a raising bluff. At that point he’s still not hopeless. But he’s too quick to try and “put people in their place”, and he tries to raise, behind the bluff.
It would take all of two minutes to google Cicero, and make an apt rejoinder (such as it’s being famous because of Al Capone), and then look up some other famous Romans, like Terence, or Virgil, and incorporate them into the theme. Verismilitude isn’t that hard to fake. Hard to sustain, and harder with something like the Law, or medicine.
But pretty much anyone can fake something like latin. One could even fake a passing familiarity with Russian, or Spanish.
But the class of reactionary troll we get doesn’t rise to the challenge. No pride in their work. They just fling some shit at the walls and hope the stink sticks.
I loved when Pell both claimed to be Montgomery Clift (dead) and the inventor of UNIX (dead), and then came back as Jane after being put in moderation. Good times, good times.
I’d say the true aspects are, in his fifties, lives in Conn. Might even have to commute, irregularly, to NYC.
I could, at this point, make some inferences, but it’s a bit less accurate than if I thought he was responding to the things people said in good faith. I have a pretty good idea of his politics, and I’d be willing to makes some guesses about his attitudes toward race, disabilities, and the like.
His actual attitudes toward women are a bit harder; because I know he is being dishonest on them; and they are his intentional subject. The things I am more certain of are the illustrative side-topics, because he puts less effort into them.