I suspect they’d be happier if their state government were not, in fact, mixed company.
Oh, no doubt.
She should have blown this up as a PowerPoint presentation and shown it to them.
So forcing someone to have an unwanted guest inside of her reproductive organs is in no way like rape? Fascinating.
And we wonder why the world shows little respect for our country at times. When I go overseas, I’m often asked about such antics in our state and federal governments and can say nothing to excuse or even explain them. I am embarrassed as heck by our willingness to demonstrate our stupidity to the world, after which we then demand that we be shown respect.
I suggested abolishing state governments a while back and was shot down. 
One could argue that we need them as farm teams to find the few aspiring pols who aren’t idiots before we put them in Congress. One could. But honestly, we could probably do better promoting from the civil service, the federal bench, and the foreign service.
The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous to me but I thought the fact that she referred to her vagina specifically makes a difference. Not a huge difference, but it’s more provocative than just referring to vaginas in general.
Vag, vag, vag , vag, weiner, buns and vag.
She should have referred to her nether yaya.
Which ones?
Do you really think had she used it in a technical way, when it was actually relevant, that it would have provoked this reaction?
Well yeah, you can call it that. The term “you’re interested in my vagina” has a highly offensive connotation. And it’s completely bogus too, because while the legislation may in fact impact her vagina, there’s no evidence at all to suggest that anyone is specifically interested in it. She was just being extremely obnoxious and offensive.
Imagine if a group of mostly female legislators would be debating something like child support payments, and a male legislator would say “well I’m glad you’re all so interested in my penis but …”. Would you call it a “blunt, negative description of their proposed legislation”?
No, of course not, you - and all the others in this thread - would call it extremely offensive and inapropriate, and would call for the guy to be censured or worse.
And I’m sure you’re not offended by the word penis, medically correct as it is …
Except it would be more like a group of mostly female legislators were trying to pass a bill that would force men seeking vasectomy to undergo a state mandated penis groping, counseling and education about the risks of vasectomy, and have their penis sizes published on a state website before being given access to the procedure.
Which incidentally, is similar to the analogy another female state rep tried to make the same day and was also barred from speaking. See post #57.
Read the quote in the OP.
You’re going to dig yourself into the same hole the Republicans got into if you make claims like this. 
Yes, because that’s exactly what it is. And maybe it’d annoy me, but I’d know better than to react in the cretinous way these Republicans did.
That’s one guy.
What does this mean?
I don’t believe you.
Well that’s just because you’re so much smarter than Republicans. Everyone knows that. But that’s not what we’re discussing here.
That’s one of the people who voted for the censure. I thought I saw a second quote in news stories written last weekend, but maybe I’m misremembering. Meanwhile it’s the one timely Republican quote about Brown’s comments. A few days later the Republicans began saying the issue was the “no means no” comment, and to me, that’s an obvious case of coming up with an excuse for doing something stupid.
I mean if you start by saying ‘abortion has nothing to do with vaginas,’ it’s pretty easy to make the jump to ‘you said vagina? You’re not allowed to debate on the house floor tomorrow.’
That’s the response I expected. It does kind of makes the question pointless if you’re going to impeach people’s honesty for not giving the answer you wanted.
Vasectomies would be a much better comparison, and using that sentence would be completely appropriate in context. She’s not talking about children, but about a specific piece of legislation which does, actually, specifically, involve women’s vaginas. Her use of that word was not a coincidence.
If she’d been talking about child support payments and had referenced her vagina then she would have sounded like a madwoman. But she was talking about legislation that actually involves vaginas in a direct way.
She made it specific to her by asking why they were so interested in her vagina, but personalising things like that is standard rhetoric.
What you’re trying to believe is that Republicans object to the word vagina but do not object to being accused of trying to legislate abortion issues due to an interest in Lisa Brown’s vagina. And on the basis of a media quote from one guy.
It’s the same thing. “You’re so interested in my vagina” carries a very prurient connotation - which is why she said it - and the rape reference drove it home.
I don’t see any connection between the two.
But besides for that, I never claimed ‘abortion has nothing to do with vaginas’. Obviously it does. As do a lot of other things, like childbirth etc. What I am claiming is that someone who wants to legislate some aspect of these issues is not necessarily doing it based on his or her interest in vaginas, let alone Lisa Brown’s vagina specifically.
It was a rhetorical question. And you’re not the only one in this thread.
The “one guy” was Rep. Mike Callton (R), who was on the floor and presumably voted in favor of the censure, so I’m going to take his word over some week-later speculation and spin that was employed after the legislators realized they were getting a bunch of bad press. I didn’t say they object to the word vagina. I said they objected to a female legislator referring to hers during a debate where they were attempting to pass anti-abortion legislation. Callton made it clear he found the word vagina very rude. He said nothing about “the rape reference” or the other supposed causes of their outrage, and that’s an explanation from a primary source.
Regardless, I think I’m done here. I’m not interested in discussing what you think I am trying to believe or why I’m doing so, or in questions that may or may not be rhetorical depending on how you like the answer.
Party on, Garth!
Party on, Wayne!
Mike Calton was not appointed to represent his fellow Republicans on this issue. He is one guy. (And even he might have said a lot more than that quote, for all we know.)
You are weaseling.
You quoted Foolsguinea as saying “It’s highly probable that the offensive thing about what she said was the sentence, not the word.” and your response was, in its entirety “Their comments make it very clear they were offended she used the word vagina.”
I can’t find anywhere in this thread in which you’ve said (or implied, hinted etc.) that “they objected to a female legislator referring to hers …”.
Works for me.