working class stiff wrote:
"I tend to agree with Merriam-Webster that woman means “an adult female person.” I agree not only with the dictionary but with the whole history of human civilization, which, collectively, has always understood woman in this way."
The whole history of human civilization has been wrong about plenty of things: the earth is flat; reality is made up of fire, water and earth: the world was created in 6 days; it's ok to own s***es; etc.
Male/female is sex. Woman/ man is g****r identity. Woman and female are not equivalents. Female is biology, woman is psychology and or sociology.
What is a woman? Wh**ever she wants to be and wh**ever role she chooses in her life. Pretty simple really.
"I tend to agree with Merriam-Webster that wo... (
show quote)
Both a female and a woman have an XX c********e. No amount of surgery or drugs can change that. Men cannot become women; women cannot become men. It is scientifically impossible.
Enabling people with mental defects to believe they can actually become the opposite sex is d********g and ridiculous.
PeterS wrote:
Don't bother Slaten. It's projection after their behavior over Obama. They think that any opposition to "their" president comes from the same core hatred they had for Obama. They can't figure out that if Putin wants someone to be president bad enough that he would attempt to corrupt an e******n then maybe, just maybe, that isn't someone who should be our Commander and Cheif. No, all they care about is power and they don't care if it took an ex KGB agent to hand it to them. But hey, when you are willing to give up everything for political power who helps you doesn't really matter does it...
BTW. These are the same people who came up with the Deep State so anytime they talk about paranoia they are clearly talking about themselves...
Don't bother Slaten. It's projection after their b... (
show quote)
You all have far more h**e for Trump than anyone had for Obama. The vast majority of us h**ed Obama's policies, not Obama. You all h**e Trump just because.
PeterS wrote:
Don't bother Slaten. It's projection after their behavior over Obama. They think that any opposition to "their" president comes from the same core hatred they had for Obama. They can't figure out that if Putin wants someone to be president bad enough that he would attempt to corrupt an e******n then maybe, just maybe, that isn't someone who should be our Commander and Cheif. No, all they care about is power and they don't care if it took an ex KGB agent to hand it to them. But hey, when you are willing to give up everything for political power who helps you doesn't really matter does it...
BTW. These are the same people who came up with the Deep State so anytime they talk about paranoia they are clearly talking about themselves...
Don't bother Slaten. It's projection after their b... (
show quote)
Oh, good grief. The exaggeration and nonsense run deep with the likes of you.
Obama knew at least as far back as 2014 about Russia interfering. And yet, he did NOTHING. NOTHING. Let that sink in. He and others were so sure Hillary would win, that they didn't care about Russian interference...that is, until T***p w*n. Then suddenly it's some major big thing.
Mueller's report shows that Trump did not collude or conspire with Russia to do anything. In fact, it says they had plenty of opportunities and didn't take any of them. How much clearer does it need to be for you people?
In 2008 both parties had their computer data hacked. It was believed to have been done by China. Why would Obama, after becoming president, not have done more to prevent future hacking -- by anyone? Hmm? Yeah, he really didn't care until Trump became president. Had that not happened, no one would be caring either way. Obama himself interfered in other countries' e******ns. If you don't want foreign countries interfering in our e******ns, why interfere in theirs?
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2008/nov/07/obama-white-house-usa
You should understand that if there's not even enough evidence to indict, then there simply is no crime.
Just like if there *is* enough evidence to indict, and someone is indicted, yet a judge or jury (depending on the type of trial) finds the person not guilty, then it's over. Just because some people believe a crime was committed doesn't make it true in the legal sense.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Mueller didn't even find enough evidence to indict. Thus, innocent.