• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Senate confiscates tampons while debating anti-abortion bill [W:155]

Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

How are tampons to abortion like guns are to the NRA? I mean... what?

The point is the "threat" to use them. If you're willing to confiscate tampons because of some twitter "threats," what if the NRA folks come armed next time?
 
Last edited:
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

The point is the "threat" to use them. If you're willing to confiscate tampons because of some twitter "threats," what if the NRA folks come armed next time?

is coming armed a stated threat? if the protester just said we are coming with tampons and didn't mention they where going to throw them just bringing them is not a threat
 
Actually I knew that the initial report was a press release. I am having difficulty weighing that against a followup report on what the officers themselves said.

Anyway, I don't about you but I'm all feced out. Seriously, I don't think I've said the word "feces" as many times in my life as I have in this thread.

As far as I know one was strictly the PD and the other was a newspaper reporter, asking unspecified number of officers what they recall, with no info about how many were on duty there. I could be wrong by now but that is what it seemed like to me.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Nobody is afraid of marshmallows either but if thrown about then someone has still has to clean them up. Anything thrown about creates a mess, disrupts order and can create a tripping, slipping or fall hazard. Libtards simply throwing a loud tantrum is quite enough to make their displeasure known.

really, you are afraid of a tampon? It is not like the texas legislature works year round, have some of them sweep up. It would be good for them to actually do some labor. Seriously, had they just stuck to fair rules and lost like they deserved to for improper planning they would not even be in session. If you want to ticket them for littering or arrest them for disturbing the peace for throwing a tampon then that is fine. You are one of the pro-gun crowd. Do you support taking guns away from people because they might do something wrong with it? Just like a gun, if the women misuse their tampons by throwing them at the chickencrap texas legislature then you fine them in accordance with the law. This was just a spiteful thing to inconvenience women who were giving them trouble. The texas republicans hate women, and that is the only reason to take away a hygene product that is designed to avoid bleeding. It is very specific to women and their bodies and they knew it when they were doing it. No one is going to be hurt by being hit with a tampon. You can let that happen and then arrest the person responsible.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Assuming the tampon had not been spiked with some kind of toxic substance, it's fine by you for them to throw them around and trash the place? All because a law is about to be passed that they disagree with? It's obvious. A person that places no value on human life places no value on anything else except perhaps sex. Seems pretty disgusting to me.

really, they did not say that. Are there lots of women spiking their tampons with anthrax? It seems to me that would be an unwise and stupid way to distribute a toxin by women who might need to use the things in a sensitive area prone to access to the blood stream. but if that is a concern then the actions should have been for all objects that could have been used to harm the legislature including a gun. Your claim does not fit within the actions followed by the authorities in this case.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

All I know is that I am absolutely terrified of tampons now.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Apparently, Texas Republicans are far more afraid of tampons and maxi-pads than they are of guns. The order's been rescinded, but earlier today the order had been given that 'feminine products' were not allowed within the Texas capitol building. It seems that those in charge - Republicans, remember - were afraid that the protesters were going to throw tampons and maxi-pads at them during the debate over the abortion bill debate.

Really? Guns are allowed in the Texas capitol, but tampons and maxi-pads are not? How long will it take for the Republican rank and file to grasp just how far off the edge of the map their party has gone?

P.S. NO, this is not The Onion. This is Texas.

Well, you know the republicans did not think it would hurt them, women with menstrual cycles do not vote republican or are unlikely to do so ;). They are too old to need tampons or pads, they are pregnant or their husbands had forbidden them to leave the house before the housework was done (being sarcastic here, most republican men would never do that, a lot of female republicans do still have a menstrual cycle, etc.).
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

All I know is that I am absolutely terrified of tampons now.

As you should be. :lol:
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Don't know if this has been posted yet but Erick Erickson of Fox News and Red State blog summed up his thoughts on the abortion bill with this classy tweet:

erick.jpg

Disgusting pig of a man.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Just stop. Truth is dependent on belief systems... facts are not. There is not ONE commercial, widely consumed outlet for "news" that is not manipulating and obscuring in order to pander to ideological and party loyalists... ON BOTH SIDES. If you agree with it, it's truth, if you don't, it's dangerous manipulated propaganda. I can't think of anything more lame.



Horse-feathers. Why was it in question? Because standing armies are DANGEROUS to domestic peace. And if you read the extensive works (letter, opinions, etc), you'll find that gun ownership is indeed sacred. Why? Because without weapons we are without recourse to defend ourselves against a historical constant of all ages, eras, gov'ts, and men of ambition without a single exception... all gov'ts become tyrannically oppressive to the masses. Again and again and again, by founder after founder, we were warned that we have more to fear from our own gov't and it's army than we do from any foreign power. This hasn't changed in 10,000 years... why do you think it's different now?

"Standing armies are DANGEROUS to domestic peace"???? Gee, one wonders what would have happened in all the wars where we were the good guys if we hadn't had a standing army. You really think that the West could have won World Wars I and II if we hadn't had standing armies? What about the Korean War?

What the lack of a standing army means, guy, is that the OTHER nations whose leaders aren't so naive can have their way with you.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

"Standing armies are DANGEROUS to domestic peace"???? Gee, one wonders what would have happened in all the wars where we were the good guys if we hadn't had a standing army. You really think that the West could have won World Wars I and II if we hadn't had standing armies? What about the Korean War?

What the lack of a standing army means, guy, is that the OTHER nations whose leaders aren't so naive can have their way with you.

Disagree.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

"Standing armies are DANGEROUS to domestic peace"???? Gee, one wonders what would have happened in all the wars where we were the good guys if we hadn't had a standing army. You really think that the West could have won World Wars I and II if we hadn't had standing armies? What about the Korean War?

What the lack of a standing army means, guy, is that the OTHER nations whose leaders aren't so naive can have their way with you.

That may be what you FEEL, but the weight of history says you are ignorant. Sorry, blunt I know, but...

In both WWi and WWII, we had a very very small military prior to declaring war. Massive enlistment drives and the draft were needed to rebuild the army.

But the fact that you seem completely ignorant of this widely held view of the founders and of their WISDOM in studying ALL gov'ts and civilizations that came before... well... I would suggest you keep reading history.

I would rather have my gov't fear the people than the people fear their gov't.

Shall I deluge you with relevant quotes, or do you think you can remove your ignorance on your own?
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

is coming armed a stated threat? if the protester just said we are coming with tampons and didn't mention they where going to throw them just bringing them is not a threat

"Next time we're going to bring our guns. No real reason, we just like them. No real need to feel threatened, we're not trying to get you to do anything special...."

If you're threatening to come armed, the idea that they might be used is kind of the point.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

The point is the "threat" to use them. If you're willing to confiscate tampons because of some twitter "threats," what if the NRA folks come armed next time?

If there are serious threats that someone is going to use a gun at a public event, then it would be up to their discretion whether they allow guns or not at the gathering.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

That may be what you FEEL, but the weight of history says you are ignorant. Sorry, blunt I know, but...

In both WWi and WWII, we had a very very small military prior to declaring war. Massive enlistment drives and the draft were needed to rebuild the army.

We had small armies prior to both, yes...but we still had ARMIES prior to each one. And what that meant is that we had experienced soldiers who were on hand, ready and able to train the hundreds of thousands who were drafted to fight.

Furthermore - and specifically just prior to WWII - we had a standing NAVY...and if it weren't for the aircraft carriers that we had built and and the crews we had trained in the decade prior to Pearl Harbor, we would not only have lost our battleships in that attack on Pearl, but we would not have had the wherewithal to win a little battle called 'Midway' - you may have heard of it, but judging by your own ignorance when it comes to military matters, this retired Navy man stand ready and able to educate you. Suffice it to say that if we'd not had a standing Navy at the outbreak of WWII, not only would we not have stood a chance against Japan, but we would not have been able to save Britain, nor would we have been able to give the Soviets crucial support through the Lend-Lease program.

But the fact that you seem completely ignorant of this widely held view of the founders and of their WISDOM in studying ALL gov'ts and civilizations that came before... well... I would suggest you keep reading history.

Really? "Studying all governments that came before", hm? Guy, thou hast a great deal to learn, for if you knew as much as you think you do about history, you'd know that Western Civilization owes a great deal of gratitude to a group of three hundred Spartans at a place called Thermopylae, and to the Athenian navy at an equally-important battle called Salamis. If the Spartans and Athenians had not had standing militaries at the time, would we have benefited from, say, Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plutarch, and all the other Greeks and the Romans that followed who have all had immeasurable influence on our modern education?

THE POINT IS, standing armies are a double-edged sword. Yes, they can and often have cause great and lasting harm to their host population, and are the first tool of tyranny. BUT on the other hand, when the tyranny next door comes knocking, if you don't have a standing army, with the long years of training and experience and particularly drilling that professional militaries have had since ancient Rome B.C.E., then you've precisely zero chance to stand before that tyrant's army that wants to introduce you to what he believes is freedom and prosperity. The fact that we had a standing army and navy is why Hawaii is American today instead of Japanese, and why South Korea is free and not Japanese, and why the Philippines and Singapore and New Guinea and perhaps even China are free today instead of being under Japanese rule. The fact that the Soviets had had a standing army - even with as much as Stalin had weakened it with his purges - is more than any other the reason why Hitler lost. Even without our help, it's becoming more obvious that the Soviets were going to beat Hitler - they were just too big, and Hitler was just too stupid. BUT if we hadn't had a standing army and navy, and if we had not invaded Normandy, do you really, truly think the Soviets would have stopped in eastern Germany? No. They would have continued to the Pyrenees, and we'd most likely be looking at a completely communist Europe by now.

So be more careful next time you assume the ignorance of others just because they say something you don't like to hear.

[/QUOTE]I would rather have my gov't fear the people than the people fear their gov't.[/QUOTE]

I would rather there be no fear in either direction, but rather, understanding of the necessity of government tempered by the necessity of personal freedom. If you are a truly objective individual, you might benefit from this study which shows why conservatives concentrate so much more on what they fear, and why fear-based advertisements and politics are so much more effective among conservatives than among liberals.

Shall I deluge you with relevant quotes, or do you think you can remove your ignorance on your own?

Oooohh, scary! He's got QUOTES! Fine, go ahead. You've got quotes, and I've got education and experience, not only in the military, but in the cultures I've experienced firsthand overseas.

Again, standing armies are a two-edged sword - yes, they can cut you so badly that you'll bleed to death...but when your neighbor decides that he likes your stuff more than you do, that's your only defense.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

Don't know if this has been posted yet but Erick Erickson of Fox News and Red State blog summed up his thoughts on the abortion bill with this classy tweet:


Disgusting pig of a man.

As classy as members of the legislature grandstanding holding hangers.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

really, they did not say that. Are there lots of women spiking their tampons with anthrax? It seems to me that would be an unwise and stupid way to distribute a toxin by women who might need to use the things in a sensitive area prone to access to the blood stream. but if that is a concern then the actions should have been for all objects that could have been used to harm the legislature including a gun. Your claim does not fit within the actions followed by the authorities in this case.

I'm pretty sure nobody wants a bloody rag thrown at them.
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

As classy as members of the legislature grandstanding holding hangers.

I think thats actually the purpose of that tweet. The normal "the sky is falling" crap came up during this debate on this legislation as they did when other similar ones prior to their passage. The clinics remained open and abortions are still occurring as they were.

Frankly, the whole issue here is the pain aspect. The studies put the prenatal development of pain at 20-27 weeks. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution and go with the conservative side of the estimate?

I've always considered myself pro-choice with limits. I'll go Kerry and say I would never want a woman I'm with to do it and fortunately my spouse agrees. However, I prefer them done in a clinical manner in lieu of seedy hotel rooms and what not. I personally think 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are atrocious. If you can't make up your mind in 4 months, finish it out and give the kid up for adoption. I'd like to see an offer of sterilization to women who have more than several abortions.
 
Guns dont kill people but tampons hurt people! :lamo

What are you, like 12 years old ?

Did you just realize that you don't think girls are yucky anymore ?
 
Re: Guns Yes, Tampons NO! Welcome to Texas, Y'all!

@Glen Contrarian

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There are oh so many quotes from decades, centuries, and civilizations past that show how constant standing armies and constant war cause states to decay and eventually collapse. Even in The Art of War, Sun Tzu says "There is no instance of a nation having benefited from prolonged warfare."
 
Last edited:
Na im 21. How old are you?



Girls had koodies obviously

21 years maybe, but your obsession with feminine issues gives the impression that your maturity level lies some where around the 12 to 13 year old range. Not too mention your political ideology, which suggest a very young and very mislead mind.
 
21 years maybe, but your obsession with feminine issues gives the impression that your maturity level lies some where around the 12 to 13 year old range.
My "obsession"? Please tell me how im "obsessed" with "feminine issues"..

Not too mention your political ideology, which suggest a very young and very mislead mind.
:lamo Because im not a right winger that makes me immature and oh yea dont forget "mislead"
 
Back
Top Bottom