It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Onslaught2996
So, pointing out the obvious things in life are faux-pa now?
She does have a nice rear end.
She should stick to things she knows. Gun Rights doesn't appear to be one of those things.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Onslaught2996
So, not really about Gun Control.
She does however have little to no social tactics when making statements.
Just more reason for her to maybe stick to what she does best...............modeling.
She does have a nice rear end.
She should stick to things she knows.
Gun Rights doesn't appear to be one of those things.
originally posted by: SubTruth
originally posted by: geldib
The 4th Amendment does protect the freedom of speech but doesn't protect you from the consequences the words you say might bring. I'm not saying it's right to threaten someone over something the say but, people tend to think they can say whatever they want without consequences because of the 4th amendment. Regardless whoever said this has absolutely no class.
It amazes me member actually starred your post. The freedom of speech is protected under the 1st amendment. If this is the level of understanding of what the founding fathers gave us it is any wonder why tyranny rules the day.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Body Parts discussion - sexual and superficial - check!
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Ignoring serious discussion - check! (How do you know what she does and doesn't know??? She obviously knows that we have a serious gun violence issue in the US and that we've become desensitized to it.)
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
She didn't mention gun rights AT ALL. Maybe if you'd actually READ what she said instead of dreaming about her ass, and thinking of ways to demean her and her opinion, you'd know that.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
And I was responding to the entire thread, not just you. Yours is just one of the posts that beautifully illustrates the points in mine.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ladyinwaiting
Some of the responses in this thread show how chauvinistic and misogynistic much of our membership really is (not that I needed a reminder). A woman says something about a serious situation in the country (gun violence and our desensitization to it) and they turn it into a frivolous discussion of the attractiveness of her body parts, implying that she's not smart enough to discuss a serious issue, but is rather better-suited to entertain them in a sexual and superficial way. Thank you FOX newsies...
And this is 2014? Ugh!
originally posted by: macman
What is wrong with admiring the female form??
..her inability to judge when is the right time to make comments is.
Hey, I like the female form.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Nothing. But it's totally irrelevant to her comment and is meant as a demeaning distraction from what she said to the physical.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
When would be the right time (according to you) for her to make a comment on her twitter account about the problems with the culture in the US? What's "inappropriate" about the time she chose?
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
So do I. But that's just a distraction from what she said. She wasn't modeling panties here, she was giving a serious opinion on US culture. And YOU and FOX "news" decided to make it about her physicality.