Conquer Club

You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

That's pretty ridiculous. Although to be fair, it was a pretty tactless statement.

Stupidity? Sure.

Religious stupidity? Not so sure.

Symmetry wrote:Stupidity? Sure.

Religious stupidity? Not so sure.

This

I don't know if that's religious (my opposition to abortion isn't on religious grounds) but it is pretty stupid...

Symmetry wrote:Stupidity? Sure.

Religious stupidity? Not so sure.

I can't imagine how the word "uterus" could be considered offensive unless it was in reference to being a "dirty part". Do you really believe that he's against "uterus" for any other reason? I'd like to hear it.

That's not necessarily religious though. It could have easily had to do with the fact that there was a much less pointed and much more tactful was of making that point. After all, it is a meeting of state congress. I'd expect an elected official to operate with at least a little more self respect (though that might be expecting too much). I'd say a reprimand was deserved, but it was gone about the wrong way.

pancakemix wrote:That's not necessarily religious though. It could have easily had to do with the fact that there was a much less pointed and much more tactful was of making that point. After all, it is a meeting of state congress. I'd expect an elected official to operate with at least a little more self respect (though that might be expecting too much). I'd say a reprimand was deserved, but it was gone about the wrong way.

The word UTERUS isn't tactful? What the hell else is he gonna call it that would be MORE tactful? I can think of nothing offhand.

There are plenty non-religious people who have a cow when "uterus" is uttered (lol, alliteration), but honestly if this guy needs it b& then he should put on some big-boy pants.

What a baby.

Woodruff wrote:

pancakemix wrote:That's not necessarily religious though. It could have easily had to do with the fact that there was a much less pointed and much more tactful was of making that point. After all, it is a meeting of state congress. I'd expect an elected official to operate with at least a little more self respect (though that might be expecting too much). I'd say a reprimand was deserved, but it was gone about the wrong way.

The word UTERUS isn't tactful? What the hell else is he gonna call it that would be MORE tactful? I can think of nothing offhand.

The word "uterus" isn't my point of contention. What I'm getting at is that the whole example itself was uncalled for. If you're going to make a reference to that part of the anatomy, then yes, that is the best way to go about it. But was it necessary? Did he have to mention a uterus? Aren't there better examples he could've used? Not to mention that he's bringing a whole other issue into the discussion by referencing abortion.

pancakemix wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

pancakemix wrote:That's not necessarily religious though. It could have easily had to do with the fact that there was a much less pointed and much more tactful was of making that point. After all, it is a meeting of state congress. I'd expect an elected official to operate with at least a little more self respect (though that might be expecting too much). I'd say a reprimand was deserved, but it was gone about the wrong way.

The word UTERUS isn't tactful? What the hell else is he gonna call it that would be MORE tactful? I can think of nothing offhand.

The word "uterus" isn't my point of contention. What I'm getting at is that the whole example itself was uncalled for. If you're going to make a reference to that part of the anatomy, then yes, that is the best way to go about it. But was it necessary? Did he have to mention a uterus? Aren't there better examples he could've used? Not to mention that he's bringing a whole other issue into the discussion by referencing abortion.

It's an appropriate reference, given that for the largest part, Republicans want to regulate people but not businesses.

Woodruff wrote:You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

Woodruff wrote:

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

Did you even read the article? It's pretty obvious that Cannon was throwing Randolph a curveball. It's a classic scarecrow move. "Let's get his mind off what I'm doing and on to something completely trivial". Reading a move and going five steps ahead of the logic leads you to many frightening places. Keep your feet on the ground and get your head out of the clouds. It's making you look quite silly Woody.

Woodruff wrote:

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

pcm & sheep-1
woodyruff-0

hteser whas no mentions of anything religious there. don't getme wrong, i pretyty anyti-relgioius, but that's' stretching a biet.

-tg

i am reminded of when dave posts unrelated stories of random robberies and such, and blames them on the tea party. everybody needs somebody to hate, i guess.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

pcm & sheep-1
woodyruff-0
hteser whas no mentions of anything religious there. don't getme wrong, i pretyty anyti-relgioius, but that's' stretching a biet.

I'm rather thinking this post might be in my favor, unintentionally. <grin>

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

sheepofdumb wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You can't say WHAT? http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-speaker-of-the-house-dean-cannon-uterus#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=f

You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

pcm & sheep-1
woodyruff-0
hteser whas no mentions of anything religious there. don't getme wrong, i pretyty anyti-relgioius, but that's' stretching a biet.

I'm rather thinking this post might be in my favor, unintentionally. <grin>

No.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

sheepofdumb wrote:You're trolling Woody. There's no mention of religion in that link.

I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

pcm & sheep-1
woodyruff-0
hteser whas no mentions of anything religious there. don't getme wrong, i pretyty anyti-relgioius, but that's' stretching a biet.

I'm rather thinking this post might be in my favor, unintentionally. <grin>

No.

Brilliant reparte!

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
I'm not at all trolling. Explain for me the reason for making this rule that the term "uterus" could not be used then, if not religion?

pcm & sheep-1
woodyruff-0
hteser whas no mentions of anything religious there. don't getme wrong, i pretyty anyti-relgioius, but that's' stretching a biet.

I'm rather thinking this post might be in my favor, unintentionally. <grin>

No.

Brilliant reparte!

Well why climb over the fence when I can go through the gate?

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:pcm & sheep-1
woodyruff-0
hteser whas no mentions of anything religious there. don't getme wrong, i pretyty anyti-relgioius, but that's' stretching a biet.

I'm rather thinking this post might be in my favor, unintentionally. <grin>

No.

Brilliant reparte!

Well why climb over the fence when I can go through the gate?

Recognizing that you're now posting coherently, I will only say that in your previous state, going through the gate was probably your only effective option. <chuckle>

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Stupidity? Sure.

Religious stupidity? Not so sure.

I can't imagine how the word "uterus" could be considered offensive unless it was in reference to being a "dirty part". Do you really believe that he's against "uterus" for any other reason? I'd like to hear it.

I would say he is opposed because he is a prick/prude, whatever. While he no doubt is a religious conservative, such a prohibition is not part of any religion I know. (the opposite, yes, but not the prohibition)

I never knew the word uterus has become an inappropriate word.