Updates from just a conservative girl Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 12:04 PM on 04/09/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: graduation, ,   

    Disgruntled Student Leaves Note for Teacher – Score One for the Teacher 

    Sadly, this student didn’t get a great deal out of thier English IV class.  In all seriousness, how is this kid graduating high school if he can’t even follow simple rules of grammar?

    Grammar and spelling is a problem for many, myself included, but one would think two months from graduation you would have a better grasp of it.  At the very least they could have used spell check before hitting the print button.

    letter

     
  • just a conservative girl 2:21 PM on 04/04/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , gay mafia, , ,   

    Quote of the Day – Andrew Sullivan Edition 

    When people’s lives and careers are subject to litmus tests, and fired if they do not publicly renounce what may well be their sincere conviction, we have crossed a line. This is McCarthyism applied by civil actors. This is the definition of intolerance. If a socially conservative private entity fired someone because they discovered he had donated against Prop 8, how would you feel? It’s staggering to me that a minority long persecuted for holding unpopular views can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason. If we cannot live and work alongside people with whom we deeply disagree, we are finished as a liberal society

    On the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.

     

    This is a response to the emails he has received for daring to question why the forced resignation was a good thing.  RTR here, the “tolerance” of the left is on full display.

     

     
  • just a conservative girl 10:47 AM on 03/28/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , cancer, , , running, self magazine   

    Another Magazine About “Empowering” Women is Anything But – Self Magazine Beclowns Itself By Poking Fun at a Cancer Survivor 

    Monika Allen, a brain cancer survivor and marathon runner, was asked by Self Magazine if they could use a photo of her wearing a Wonder Woman shirt and tutu while she was running a marathon.  Ms. Allen was happy about the use of the photo, that is until the issue came out.  

    Along with her photo Self put this little editorial

     

    “A racing tutu epidemic has struck NYC’s Central Park, and it’s all because people think these froufrou skirts make you run faster. Now, if you told us they made people run from you faster, maybe we would believe it.”


    Nice.  Not only was the woman undergoing chemotherapy at the time she ran this marathon, she made these tutu’s herself.  You see she makes and sells them, then gives the money to charity.  She donates money to Girls on the Run.  A charity that helps young girls, aged 8 – 13, engage in physical activities and gain confidence in themselves by learning to enjoy running.  While people make think that isn’t that big of a deal, running competitively can transform your self confidence.  When you start doing better you not only gain confidence but want to continue to improve yourself.  The program ends for these young girls by competing in a 5K race.  It is a charity that teaches not only self confidence, but also teaches them discipline and goal setting.  All qualities that young women will need to navigate the world as they get older.  


    Instead of Self doing any kind of reporting they just make fun of the woman.  I do not give them a pass by saying well maybe they didn’t know she had cancer.  They are a magazine for pity sakes, they could have asked the question.  But no, they just dissed the woman and her outfit.  Now, would I wear that outfit?  Not likely.  But that doesn’t mean I get to make fun of someone who does.  I have a few friends that run in marathons.  It is very hard work to get your body into shape to do this.  That is even without health issues.  Just imagine how much harder it is when your brain has cancer in it and you are undergoing chemotherapy?


    Self Magazine has released a statement:

    In a statement to NBC 7, SELF apologized “for the association of her picture in any way other than to support her efforts to be healthy.”
    “Of course if tutus make you run with a smile on your face or with a sense of purpose or community, then they are indeed worth wearing, for any race,” the statement read.

    In the first issue of Self, the Editor in Chief made this statement:

    An extraordinary spirit and energy are emerging in women today. Fitness is the fuel. We have acquired a strong appetite for the full experience of life—the exhilaration of the outdoors, the challenge and success of professional work, the honest enjoyment of sex. Selfwill be a guide to the vitality we need to do all the things we want to do.

    They certainly have strayed a long way from that mission statement.  


    Sadly, the apology is of the non apology variety that is more about covering their own ass.  I doubt they have learned anything from this incident.  Yet one more reason I don’t buy into all the hype about “empowering” women.   This is what they did to a woman and are only now sorry because they found out she had cancer.  They never bothered to ask where she got the tutu or why she was wearing it.  They just wanted to be catty.  Well Meow to you Self.  


    If you want to support Ms. Allen, you can find her facebook page here.  


     
    • lawrunner 11:10 AM on 03/28/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Thank you for pointing this out. There are far too many snarky “journalists” out there who are constantly demeaning people in the name of entertainment or as a way of making themselves out to be experts in the fields of beauty, health or fitness. This writer is obviously one of those who decided that a tutu said everything about the person wearing it because of their own narrow beliefs about what makes a runner or what makes a person dedicated to what they’re doing. Ms. Allen has my admiration and support. Thank you again.

  • just a conservative girl 9:59 AM on 03/27/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Photo of the Day – Pope Francis Meets President Obama Edition 

    Oh my.  He looks like he wants to be anywhere else but there.

    Maybe Pope Francis just got the answer as to why Catholics must choose between their faith and their business in America now.

    pope francis

     
  • just a conservative girl 7:05 AM on 03/26/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Quote of the Day – Rand Paul Edition 

    “He ought to explain to the Pope why he is telling businesses in America they can’t remain true to their faith and stay in business.”

    Rand Paul and the upcoming meeting between President Obama and Pope Francis.

    I would love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation, wouldn’t you?

     
  • just a conservative girl 9:40 AM on 03/22/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , compassion, , westboro bapist church   

    This is What Christianity Really Looks Like – Counter Protest for the Westboro Loonies 

    westboro

     
    • A.Men 11:30 AM on 03/24/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Christians should learn to fight fire with fire. Those horrible westboro creeps see this as weakness.

      • just a conservative girl 12:39 PM on 03/25/2014 Permalink | Reply

        Then you don’t understand what these people are really about. They are con artists. The protesting has nothing to do with their beliefs, it is about them suing people who violated their rights because of the over the top rhetoric they purposely use.

  • just a conservative girl 2:36 PM on 03/07/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Just in Case You Were Unclear of Rachel Canning’s Motives – 18 Year Old Suing Her Parents Speaks 

    Oh my.  Ms. Rachel posted this on her Facebook fan page.  Education for Rachel.

    “Suburban baby boomer types are the spoiled lot, they make massive amount of money a year, they are used to flying to luxury destinations when they want, and buy things that they don’t need, people should be inclined to see things Rachel’s way.  We have been stunned by the financial greed of modern parents who are more concerned with retiring into some fantasy world rather than provide for their children’s college and young adult years. In today’s economy there are no more meaningful jobs and without family help it’s usually military or bust. We see parents like this every day, children were always an accessory to them and nothing more, once that accessory grew up and went out of fashion, much like a marriage that people allegedly commit to, the child becomes a throwaway, that’s just how it is.”

    Really?  How dare parents save for retirement?  What kind of monsters are they?  Go ahead and read the page, it is all me, me, me, and more me.  She talks about herself in the third person.

    She may have legal standing with her college fund as they are usually set up in the child’s name, but apparently that isn’t enough for this young woman.  She wants 100% of education funded.  It just amazes that the adults in her life are funding not only this behavior, but this mindset.  What are these parents teaching their own children?  I guess if one of this family’s kids commits a crime they can use the Affluenza defense.

    I do have one question for Ms. Rachel, if there are no more meaningful jobs why bother to spend the money on an education, you can just then sue for your family to support the rest of your life, right?  Oh yeah, you want to party for a few years.

     
    • AKA John Galt 2:37 PM on 03/07/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.

    • Richard M Nixon (Deceased) 3:00 PM on 03/07/2014 Permalink | Reply

      I posted on her Facebook: “What “right” of obtaining education assistance? Show me where such a “right” is stated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights of this nation. Show where it is and I’ll guarantee your tuition and living expenses at any University in the US through a PhD.”

      • just a conservative girl 3:42 PM on 03/07/2014 Permalink | Reply

        She could care less about the constitution. This is all about her human rights. Her parents don’t need money to retire. They shouldn’t be taking vacations. They shouldn’t be using the money they worked hard for unless of course it is spent on her.

    • A.Men 8:34 AM on 03/13/2014 Permalink | Reply

      another braindead obomabot. Bossy?

  • just a conservative girl 11:28 AM on 03/07/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Quote of the Day – Juan Williams Edition 

    If she is truly on the fence about a White House run, I would suggest she go for it if for no other reason than to rub it in the faces of these pompous jackass professors.

    Juan Williams on the controversy surrounding Dr. Rice giving a commencement speech at Rutgers University.

    RTR Here.

     
  • just a conservative girl 1:11 PM on 03/03/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , college tuition, , , , spoiled children   

    When Does Your Job as Parent End? New Jersey Teen Suing for Parents to Pay College Tuition 

    Rachel Canning, an 18-year-old senior in a private Catholic high school has filed suit in Superior Court in New Jersey to pay back bills on her high school tuition and to give her access to her college fund.  Rachel turned 18 last fall.  After her 18th birthday she moved in with the family of her best friend (whose father happens to be an attorney who is funding this lawsuit).  She has been attending school since that time and is an honor student.

    Her parents claim that she wasn’t following the rules of the household.  They say she wasn’t doing her chores, wasn’t coming home by her set curfew, was disrespectful, didn’t treat her sisters very well, and there seems to be an issue with a boyfriend that her parents don’t particularly care for.  They believe he is a “bad influence”.

    Sean Canning said that a DCP&P representative visited his home for about three hours last fall, found nothing amiss, determined that Rachel was “spoiled” and discontinued the investigation. He said that he and his wife are beside themselves that discord with their daughter has reached this level.

    Attorney Laurie Rush-Masuret, who represents the parents, said in court papers that Rachel emancipated herself and removed herself from her parent’s “sphere of influence” by voluntarily moving out of their house “as she did not want to abide by her parents’ rules….”

    Rush-Masuret and Sean Canning said that Rachel was seeing a therapist long before moving out and is supposed to take medication. The parents contend she had disciplinary problems at school last term, was suspended twice, ignored her curfew at home and bullied her younger sister.

    This in many ways boils down to our house, our rules.  Virtually every young adult has heard that coming from at least one of their parents.  But how far does the responsibility of parenting go once the child has turned of legal age?  She is still in high school so it does seem fair to me that her parents pay the back tuition of the school they had her enrolled in before this incident took place.  That seem very reasonable to me.  But she kind of loses me when it comes to the college education.

    No parent should be forced to pay for a college education.  Has that become a “right” now as well?  My parents didn’t pay for mine.  My mother was from a generation that believed that girls didn’t need to go to college.  She has since realized that is not true in the world we live in today, but when I was in high school and college, she firmly believed that.  Should I have taken her to court to try to get money?  That seems more than just a little absurd to me.

    We don’t know the details of what happened.  This is going to come down to the parents word against hers.  I am sure they will both be able to find witnesses that can testify to their version of the story.  It then leaves a judge to decide is it really the parents responsibility to support an adult while they are in college if they don’t want to?

    It seems that New Jersey law may be on her side:

    The mere fact that a child has turned 18 is not an automatic reason to stop financial support, according to Helfand and several longtime family attorneys in Morris County. A key court decision in the state specifies that, “A child’s admittance and attendance at college will overcome the rebuttable presumption that a child may be emancipated at age 18.”

    Prominent family-law attorneys Sheldon Simon and William Laufer both called the lawsuit highly unusual and Laufer said he has seen nothing like it in 40 years of practice.

    “A child is not emancipated until they’re on their own,” Simon said. “Even if a child and the parents don’t get along, that doesn’t relieve the parents of their responsibility.” Laufer noted that under New Jersey law, a child can still be declared nonemancipated even if there is a hiatus between high school graduation and college.

    So let me get this straight, a child turns 18, the legal age of adulthood in this country, finishes high school, hangs out for a year or two doing heavens knows what, decides to go back to college and then should be expected to remain a child and stay the financial responsibility of the parent?  Got it.

    Is it any wonder that people today are leaning more and more to nanny state government?  Now it could be that this law was designed for purposes of getting student loans.  If the child is still dependent on the parent for financial support, then the parents income is what grants and loans for college is based upon.  Most will likely receive more aid if they are nonemanicpated.  But in any case, it is still telling an adult that someone else is responsible for your life, your finances, and your choices.  I have no problem saying that to a parent who is under the age of 18 or still in high school.  But when do we draw the line, legally speaking?

    A parent that has a child that they feel is disrespectful and acting like a spoiled brat may have very good reason for saying hey honey, you are on your own.  You made these decisions now you live with the consequences of them.  The parents in this case have kept the car that they bought for their daughter.  They also say that they have done nothing with the college fund that they had set up for her and that she will have access to it.

    It will be very interesting to see how this case plays out.  Ms. Rachel should consider herself very lucky that I won’t be making this decision for her.  Her parents don’t owe her that college fund.  They did that because they wanted to, not because they “had” to.  It isn’t the responsibility of the parent to pay for a college education.  If they want to and can help that is wonderful, but it certainly isn’t something that is a “right” or should be forced by the rule of law.  The parents should pay the remaining tuition of her high school education.  After that, their job is done.  A college education can be had when the parents don’t pay for it, I am living proof of that.

     
    • AKA John Galt 1:14 PM on 03/03/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.

    • Me 7:12 PM on 03/03/2014 Permalink | Reply

      I am baffled by this. My parents paid nothing into my college. I did it on my own by getting jobs. Yep, plural! It is called being responsible, also something one needs to maintain a college career. Darn right she is spoiled. Perhaps she could pop that silver spoon from her mouth, pick up a pen, and apply for some scholarships.

    • Lorenzo T Neal 8:07 AM on 03/04/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on Zera Today Blog.

  • just a conservative girl 4:37 PM on 02/28/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , scarlet letter, sex offenders, tennessee   

    Another Seemingly Good Idea That Isn’t – Tennesse Wants to Label All State Issued ID’s with Sex Offender Status 

    The state legislator in Tennessee has come up with absolutely horrible idea of making every state ID stamped with the words “SEX OFFENDER” in red in three different places.  Seriously?  While this may sound good on the surface we all know that the reasons that some people end up on these lists are bogus, the laws are too broadly written.

    Think back to that young man who was pulled a high school prank of streaking at football game.  While we don’t know what would have happened to him but before his suicide he was told he would end up on the state registry for sex offenders.  Streaking is hardly a crime that constitutes being labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life.

    I am all for protecting children from predators.  But the truth is this, if these people are so dangerous that they can’t be trusted to be around young children without raping them why aren’t they in jail where they belong?

    The lawmaker, Matthew Hill(R), says the idea came to him from a constituent talking about how many day cares ask for an ID in order to pick up the child.  Again, on the surface that sounds good, but let’s be realistic here, don’t they have a list of adults that are able to pick up the child?  If not, isn’t that the answer to the problem?

    Some of the crimes that can get you listed on a sex registry list is prostitution.  Engaging in consensual sex for money is not something that I would personally do, that doesn’t mean that you are a “sex offender”.  Some states go as far as putting people who are convicted of public exposure onto these lists as well.  Again, not behavior I would engage in but is that person really a danger to society for the rest of their lives?

    There are many instances where the sex is consensual but one person is under the legal age.  We are legally allowed to label an 18-year-old who is having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girl friend.  While I wouldn’t approve of that behavior in my son or daughter I would like to think that they wouldn’t have their driver’s license stamped in big, bold, red letters for the rest of their lives because of it.

    Your ID is used for many things that have nothing to do with being a danger to children.  You need to cash a check, get into many businesses around the country, get on an airplane, and hundreds of other things that are have nothing to do with your past sexual history.

    The real goal should be to protect children by not allowing these people, who have a proclivity to harm, out of everyday society by strengthening the amount of time they spend in jail.  Not putting a scarlet letter on the ID’s of some high school kid that decided it would be funny to take his clothes off at a football game.

    This bill needs to go the scrap heap where it belongs.

     
  • just a conservative girl 1:15 PM on 02/28/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , fitzsimmons, , shameful behavior,   

    A Little Twat and a Whole Lot of Controversy – When Republicans are Their Own Worst Enemies 

    Bob Fitzsimmons, Treasurer of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) used the word twat in a facebook discussion a few nights ago.  Twat in case you don’t know is sometimes used as slang for the female vulva. 

    Now, I am not going to sit here and defend the use of that word.  It never should have been used.  The problem is that if you read the exchange in context, he was referring to the comment that someone else had made as ridiculous.  He used the wrong.  Obviously he isn’t up on sexual slang words.  He should have used the word twaddle, which means stupid speech.  

     

    Now, what you can’t see in the above graphic is the comment he was answering.  That comment was about why Delegate Barbara Comstock should be the nominee in the hotly contested republican primary simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  His comment was about identity politics.  I am not sure who, if anyone, he is backing in this contest, but I can tell you that I support Barbara.  I like Barbara.  I have worked many a days knocking doors in her elections for the state delegate seat that she currently holds.  But I don’t support her simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  I HATE identity politics.  It is a losing game and I have little respect for people who voted based upon gender, skin color, or financial status of the people in the race.  To me that is the democrats game and played a big part in why President Obama won his election.  On this Mr. Fitzsimmons and I agree.  We are never going to beat the democrats in that game, so lets put up the best possible candidate in each and every race.  I happen to believe that Barbara is that person.  Her voting record speaks for itself.  At the end of the day that is what really matters.  

    What really sits in craw about this entire unfortunate episode is that people who don’t like Mr. Fitzsimmons, for reasons ranging from he is a supporter of conventions over primaries (which I am not) and he is also a big supporter of Ken Cuccinelli and more libertarian leaning people, have used this to try and force him from his job.  Insert primal scream here.  

    This has turned into a national story that has been on HuffPo and in The Washington Post simply because people, who I won’t mention by name, even though I would bet my bottom dollar are involved, are using this to oust someone they disagree with.  

    The man made a mistake.  He used an unfortunate word when he wasn’t clear on the meaning.  There is no way that anyone reading what he wrote can misconstrue that he was calling Delegate Comstock a twat or even the young woman he was having the discussion with that word.  

    Here is the post he was responding to with the name of the person not included:

    I also think women are going to be very frustrated about about a man trying to usurp Barbara’s position in this race. If women come out in force for her, it will create a battle cry for Republican women so loud that Howie Lind won’t have a prayer of competing with her. Republican women are a force to be reconed with and I for one want to see this power harnessed effectively in key political races.

    His response was the he doesn’t like sexist twat.  Now, if he was talking about this woman or Barbara it would make sense that you would be able to replace the word with the name and it would still make sense.  But you can’t do that in this case.  Because he wasn’t referring to a person, he was referring to the thought of using identity politics.  

    So, now we have a national story about how republican men and party officials were using sexual terms to talk about a woman when clearly that isn’t what happened.  

    We don’t need the democrats to do anything, we are doing a bang up job all on our own.  Should he have apologized for using that word?  Absolutely.  Should he lose his job over it?  No, a very clear and unambiguous NO.  This has been blown out of proportion by people who don’t like him and his stances.  Those are the people who should be called out in all of this.  Not a man who obviously needs to spend more time with a dictionary.  

     
  • just a conservative girl 12:07 AM on 02/25/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , openly gay, sam   

    Will Michael Sam’s Poor Performance at the NFL Combine Make a Difference with His Draft Prospects? 

    Openly gay football player Michael Sam was at the much heralded NFL Combine.  His performance was lackluster at best.

    • 40-yard dash: 4.91 seconds (tied for 18th
    • Bench press (225 pounds): 17 reps (tied for 47th/second to last)
    • Vertical jump: 25.5 inches (tied for 39th)
    • Broad jump: 114 inches (tied for 14th)

    Now, this has to be a concern for teams looking to fill spots on their defensive front line.  (Yes, I know about football).  The NFL is looking to fill these spots with explosive men who are not just strong, but fast.  His vertical jump debacle is going to be a real problem.

    While it is certainly true the NFL combine isn’t the only sign that there are problems with him being a high pick in the draft.

    My conclusion. Sam was a good player for one season in college. He was productive, so the accolades he received were earned. But being a good college player and becoming a good NFL player are two different things (see Tim Tebow). Sam did well for Missouri with a lot of talent around him. A majority of his production came in three games against inferior competition without a need to show much of a pass-rushing repertoire. He doesn’t show much of what the NFL looks for on special teams, and it’s difficult to project a position for him on the next level. For those reasons, Sam would project to be no better than a mid- to late-round pick. He could go undrafted. To my eyes Sam is decidedly average, with nothing exceptional about his game—though he will be helped by the fact that this draft is not deep with pass rushers, and those are always needed.

    This written by Peter King of Sports Illustrated.  Mr. King knew little of Mr. Sam until his announcement about his sexuality.  Mr. King watched hours of game film to gain perspective of the player.  I have seen no one say that they thought Mr. Sam would be drafted in the first two rounds come May.  He just isn’t all that.

    The problem becomes what will happen if he doesn’t get drafted at all?  From Scriber Mag:

    Will Sam’s sexuality play a role? Absolutely, but it won’t cost him the first or second round. He was never there to begin with.

    If Sam goes undrafted, that is when we will know that homophobia in the NFL is truly rampant.

    Now this was written before the combine.  It seems to me that some in the NFL are being set up to be called homophobes before Sam even went and did the dog and pony show for the scouts and GM’s.

    There are real concerns about putting an openly gay player in a locker room. Much of it may be silly and ignorant, but that doesn’t change the fact that it will be there.  These men undress and shower in very close proximity to each other.  There will be some that will be uncomfortable with that.  While I doubt that gay men are all that interested in being with heterosexual men, it doesn’t change the fact that there will be some who will find it uncomfortable.  They have the right to feel that way and that doesn’t make them homophobic.  Can an inexperienced head coach handle the problems that could arise?  Does an owner want to deal with a situation not unlike the one that happened in the Dolphins locker room last season?  Do other players want to surrounded by the media asking questions about how they are dealing in the locker room with an openly gay player.  Mr. Sam will get a great deal of media attention soley because he is gay, not because of his game time performance.  That will put additional pressure on the team, at least in the short-term.  Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but it will be.

    We have seen all too clearly this past season that a NFL locker room is not for the faint of heart.  The mess with the Miami Dolphins highlighted that quite clearly.

    We will see how this all pans out once the draft is done.  But so far nothing about Mr. Sam’s performance on the field has put him in a position to be drafted before the third round and that would be the case if he were straight.  Regardless of what anyone else wants to say about it.

    I am sure that he won’t be the first gay player in the NFL.  He is just the first to talk about it.  No one should not get a job because of what they are doing as consenting adults in their bedroom.   That is private affair.  The one postive about it is that once this hurdle has been passed maybe we can actually stop hearing people going on national television and talking about their sex lives.  I personally am sick to death of hearing it about it.  Sam shouldn’t not be drafted because he is gay.  He also shouldn’t be drafted simply because he is gay and people are afraid to be labeld a bigot either.

     
  • just a conservative girl 5:26 PM on 02/24/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , duke university, , , wolf   

    Don’t Shame Me For My Porn Career – I’m Paying for College 

    A student known only as Lauren (not her real name) is a porn star and student at Duke University.  She uses the proceeds of her career choice to pay tuition.  She believes that she will leave Duke University with a good education, ready for law school, and be debt free.  Good for her on being debt free.

    The problem has become that someone on campus saw on of her “films” and has outed her as a porn star.  She feels she is now being bullied for her choice.  She tried waitressing, but apparently that didn’t work out as well for her:

    “I worked as a waitress as a job for a year in high school,” Lauren told Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle. “Not only did it interfere with my school where I was barely sleeping and wasn’t doing my work, but I also was making $400 a month after taxes.”

    She also found working as a waitress humiliating.

    “I felt like I was being degraded and treated like s***,” Lauren said.

    I don’t know, I managed to waitress/bartend my way through college and never felt degraded.  Where are going as a society that a college freshman feels that being a waitress is more demeaning that taking your clothes off for a rough sex porn site?  That is the better alternative?  

    “For me, shooting pornography brings me unimaginable joy. When I finish a scene, I know that I have done so and completed an honest day’s work. It is my artistic outlet, my love, my happiness, my home,”

    How often is she tested for STD’s?  That is something that you don’t need to take into consideration when you are working as a waitress.  At least that was not my experience.

    Sexually transmitted diseases are highly prevalent in the pornography industry. Among 825 porn performers screened in 2000–2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had Chlamydia and 2% overall had gonorrhea. Dr. Sharon Mitchell confirms the STD prevalence in an interview with Court TV, in which she states: “66% of porn performers have Herpes, 12-28% have sexually transmitted diseases and 7% have HIV.”

    Well if that isn’t something that should bring joy to your life, I don’t know what is.  Oh, but it gets better.  This from a male porn star:

    “Drugs are a major, major problem in my business. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I can’t tell you the number of girls who have disappeared and dropped out of the business because of their drug problems. It is unbelievably sad to think about, and seeing some of them fall into a downward spiral hurts me more than others. But I think we all can agree that a huge majority of drug users will never change unless they get professional help. I have seen all manner of drugs on set, at parties, in cars, everywhere. If I had to guess, I would put marijuana use at 90 percent of ALL people involved in the industry (performers, directors, crew, agents, drivers, owners, office workers, etc.). I have been on a set where a girl has passed out during a sex scene with me (she was abusing oxycontin). Just recently a girl overdosed on GHB (a party drug that is a clear odorless drug that doesn’t mix well with alcohol) on set. I have seen a girl win a prestigious AVN Award, not show up to accept the award, and then fall into the throes of drug use that caused her to lose at least 50 pounds and drop off the face of the earth. Why is drug use so prevalent in our business? Well, let’s figure that out. First of all, remember that the business is populated largely with girls aged 18-21. And the majority of those girls are uneducated (many haven’t graduated high school). Add to that the fact that many come into the business because they have no money and are working at menial jobs like fast food places. So you have young girls who are uneducated with very little money entering the business.

    We can now move onto the violence in the industry.  Now, I have never seen a porn film, but I would assume that most of the violence is generated towards women.

    Former pornographic performer Alex Devine shares her violent experience and writes:

    “Donkey Punch was the most brutal, depressing, scary scene that I have ever done. I have tried to block it out of my memory due to the severe abuse I received during the filming. The guy, Steve French, has a natural hatred towards women in the sense that he has always been known to be more brutal than EVER needed. I agreed to do the scene thinking it was less beating, except the ‘punch’ in the head. If you noticed, Steve had worn his solid gold ring the entire time, and continued to punch me with it. I actually stopped the scene while it was being filmed because I was in too much pain.”

    There is a very heavy emphasis on rougher, more sadistic sex, with slapping, spitting, violent hair-pulling and scenes of extremely abusive hardcore sex acts. In one film, the man forces the woman’s head into a toilet during the final scene, a technique that seems to help him achieve climax.

    Just lovely.

    From Australia:

    A recent University of Sydney study, in which two professors surveyed more than 800 men, found that excessive porn consumption was reported by almost half the respondents (85 per cent of whom were married or in a relationship), and was harming their professional success and relationships.

    The numbers were dramatic: 47  per cent of the male subjects watched between 30 minutes to three hours of porn per day, one in three said it harmed their work efforts, and one in five would rather watch porn than have sex with their partners.

    So Lauren, do you still want to believe that you are just being free and enjoying your “kink”?  What you are doing is adding to the misery of people all over the world.  You are complaisant in the act.  She says she doesn’t like the whole virgin/whore dichotomy that goes on at Duke University.  Ok, that may very well be a problem.  But is men viewing the violent nature porn that you star in helping with that?  I have this feeling it is actually adding to it, not solving the problem.

    From feminist Naomi Wolf:

    Young women tell me that hair-pulling, and even pressure around the neck at orgasm, are normal parts of courtship sex these days. These are ‘porn cliches’, as one young woman put it. I am not surprised by these shifts because  we all know about the pornification of society.

    I believe more voices would be speaking out if the new research on this issue were better understood. What we’re not being told – and this is a view which many scientists now confirm, but too few ordinary people understand – is that porn use poses health problems.

    Porn actually promotes the notion that women are sex objects.  It doesn’t cure it.  Your little money-making venture dear Lauren is robbing more and more young women of real experiences of what sex should really be about.  Two people coming together to enjoy each other.  Instead, we now have a generation of people who don’t see mystery in sex.  They don’t see it as something that is to be enjoyed between two consenting adults in a relationship based on mutual love and respect, but nothing more than scratching an itch.

    Lauren was also upset by the one of the papers who interviewed her noticing that she had a very expensive designer handbag as part of her new-found riches from her job.  Yes, she may be making good money.  Yes, she may graduate law school debt free (her career goal after getting a pre-law degree from Duke).  Yes, she is far from the only one who has chosen this path in order to pay the bills during college.  But, don’t be surprised years from now that you can’t have children due to the STD’s you received.  Don’t be surprised that many a decent man will not be willing to marry or raise a child with someone with this past.  Don’t be surprised if you fall into a deep depression when you a woman tells you how your films shattered her marriage.  Remember Christie Brinkley’s very public divorce?  Someone was starring in those porn films her ex-husband was watching.

    You keep doing what you’re doing because you don’t want to demeaned by being a waitress.  It is really not that big of a deal.  The “bullying” is really the least of the issues your career choice will bring to your life.

     
    • Alex 5:40 PM on 02/24/2014 Permalink | Reply

      She’s happy, and I won’t be paying for her collage….. I’m fine with it

      • just a conservative girl 6:09 PM on 02/24/2014 Permalink | Reply

        Duke is private university, you were never going to be paying for her education.

    • beyondhissexaddiction 2:17 PM on 03/03/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Awesome analysis- I couldn’t agree more.

  • just a conservative girl 11:01 PM on 02/23/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , sexism   

    Coming Soon – The New Racist 

    LOL

    hilary for president

     
  • just a conservative girl 1:45 PM on 02/22/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You Think It Says 

    Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona’s 1062 Bill “Anti-Gay”, discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn’t any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

    Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

    Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

    Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity”, and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

    Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can’t throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

    People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don’t.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn’t want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

    I, for the life of me, can’t figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don’t want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn’t make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

    We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

    I am not saying that the whole “agree to disagree” is something that is simple.  But it isn’t as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn’t available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

    A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don’t.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn’t do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

    A jury will get decide.  This law doesn’t guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.

     
  • just a conservative girl 11:37 PM on 02/21/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bieber, , ,   

    Keeping Bieber 

    The people of twitter came up with a funny bet about the Men’s Olympic Hockey game.  Loser keeps Justin Bieber.  A sign in Chicago breaks the bad news that the U.S. gets to keep him.

    keeping beiber

     
  • just a conservative girl 11:31 AM on 02/21/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: blair, , , , medal of freedom, ,   

    Defining the Abstract 

    We spend a great deal of time in our country (way too much in my opinion) in arguing over what things mean.  How exactly do you define the abstract?  What does it mean when people say “they just want freedom” when talking about people from other nations?  Do they define freedom the same way you do?

    We can’t agree on what freedom means in this country, yet people want to define it for someone who has no concept for government like ours.  They have never lived in a “free” society.  President Bush famously (or infamously depending on how you look at it)

    “And my deepest conviction, the guiding principle of the administration, is that the United States of America must drive to expand the reach of freedom.”

    Go and talk to the average person who lives in Europe and ask them if they are “free” and have “freedom”.  The answer you are very likely to get is yes.  Yet, you ask a person who is on the right in this country if they do the answer is very likely to be no.  Most European countries are set up as Socialist Democracies.  A very ugly concept to the view of many in this country.

    The Arab spring didn’t happen because of the overwhelming desire for freedom.  It started over the price of bread.  In Egypt and Palestine they have gone to the polls and voted in the likes of Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood.  While you do have to take into account that many of these elections are likely rigged, but sorry to burst your bubble, many people willingly voted these people into office.

    While that sometimes is mind-boggling, one has to remember that both of these terrorist organizations also have an arm to them that aren’t at all terrorist, but work as a charitable organization.  They help the unemployed feed their families, they help with goods and services that many of the poor in those areas simply cannot afford to get on their own.  When you have close to 70% unemployment in the Palestinian Territories, you are going have a great deal of need.  These organizations go in and fill those needs.  It allows them to do their terrorist activities with a wink and nod from the population, they aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them.  For many, this isn’t just a saying, but a literal thing for them.  They are dependent on these people for their livelihoods and for those of their children.  It is far more complicated than many in this country dare to even try to understand.

    The world is a very complicated place.  It is very easy to sit in the cheap seats, which believe me the U.S. are the cheap seats, and make statements about what others want and need.   When you live in the U.S. you have safety nets in place (we can argue the right and wrong of these at another time).  No matter how poor you are in this country, you are still richer than approximately 70% of the rest of the world.  This isn’t about bashing poor people in this country, but just about perspective.

    I saw this posted by Kira Davis on her Facebook page yesterday:

    I make it a general rule not to argue about the Constitution or the principles of freedom with non-Americans. Not because of anything biased or personal, but just because being an immigrant myself I know that the way the rest of the world views freedom is far, far different than how Americans view freedom – yes, even the lefties. You can’t debate someone who has a fundamentally different understanding of what it means to be a free citizen and what a “right” is.

    Decades ago we saw people in the streets in China demanding more “freedoms”.  The government crackdown was harsh and immediate.  But, in those preceding decades, the government of China has loosened some of the restrictions.  The citizens are getting more freedom over their lives from an economic perspective.  There are more jobs.  There is more autonomy.  They are allowing more and more people to drive cars.  I look at that country and am horrified at how little freedom those people have, yet they are feeling more comfortable with the changes the government is making.  It is about perspective.  I don’t get to define what freedom means to the average Chinese citizen. I wouldn’t want to live there, but that doesn’t mean that many of the people who do aren’t satisfied with their lives.

    Emerging markets growth will also dramatically redistribute the bourgeois around the world. For instance, as our Rapid-Growth Markets Forecast explores, the number of households in Mexico with annual disposable incomes over US$50,000 is expected to reach 7.1 million by 2020, and 9.4 million in Brazil. For both countries this is an increase of over 50%.

    Nevertheless, China’s and India’s contributions will be substantial.

    Today, China has around 150 million people earning between US$10 and US$100 per day. As long as China continues to grow, and necessary economic reforms are made, we expect as many as 500 million Chinese could enter the global middle class over the next decade.

    By 2030 around one billion people in China could be middle class — as much as 70% of its projected population.

    To them this may mean “freedom”.  You can’t say that it does or it does not.  But many have said over the years the reasons that the communist government of China made economic reforms to help its citizens, is because it wanted to keep mass unrest from happening.  This likely will allow them to control the country for a longer period of time.  Are the people stupid for going along with it?  Some will say yes, others will say no.  That will depend on your perspective.  Many in this country look at this as a model of how government should work.  The heavy hand of government to guide economic policies that help all.  That is their idea of freedom.

    We can talk all we want about what people in foreign lands want and or need.  We are doing so from our perspective, not from theirs.  We have not lived their lives in those places.  We don’t get to define what their lives should be, what their hopes and desires should be.  We also can do the same about people in this country.  We have plenty of people in this country who define freedom in ways that I don’t.

    When you make broad statements about what abstract concepts mean, just remember that just because you define it a certain way that doesn’t mean that others do the same way.  When you talk about how everyone just wants freedom, just remember what they view as freedom won’t necessarily match up with what you think it means.

    Tony Blair believes in “freedom” heck President Bush even gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he is a socialist.

    “We are a left of centre party, pursuing economic prosperity and social justice as partners and not as opposites”

     
  • just a conservative girl 10:36 AM on 02/19/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , minimum wage,   

    Liberal Meme Fail of the Day – Paul Ryan Edition 

    This is floating around social media.  I guess they have problems with reading comprehension.  They are correct that a congressman named Ryan voted yea on the minimum wage hike in 2007.  The problem is that Ryan is Tim Ryan of Ohio, a democrat. Paul Ryan voted no.  Read the Roll Call on the vote here.

    Asshats.

    RYAN min wage

     
  • just a conservative girl 2:16 AM on 02/12/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cartoon, , daily kos, ,   

    Yep, The Democrats are Proud of Fewer Jobs in Our Future Due to Obamacare 

    Truly sad.  This is something that the Daily Kos is circulating through social media.

    obamacare jobs

     
  • just a conservative girl 4:12 PM on 02/11/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , threatening behavior,   

    Feminist Blogger Now In Fear – Men May Have Discovered That We Are On To Them 

    A “radical feminist” blogger wrote a post a while back on how all “Penis in Vagina” or PIV intercourse is rape.  Of course myself and others who read this dribble rebutted and or made fun of the post.  Well, that caused more traffic at her blog.  Most bloggers are happy to get additional traffic.  Isn’t the entire point of writing these posts is getting others to read them?  Not in her case.

    When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general. They do it to collect information so they know what next to do to prevent women from going there. They batter radfem work in public for all women to see and show the result of their verbal and written battering as an example of what will await women if they do, think or say the same. They write nasty and threatening comments, that in order to trash, I have to read at least a few words of. Even though it doesn’t hurt my feelings, they are still harmful and inevitably affect my thoughts.

    How exactly does she know the gender of the those making the hits?  I need to update my analytics, I don’t these type of break-downs immediately.  Anyhoo, at least some are men.  Those men are hateful beasts that only want to destroy.

    85,000, that’s the maximum number of views I had in one day a couple of weeks ago when the liberals and MRAs circulated my PIV blogpost for punishment. Unlike a normal blogger, attracting 85,000 hits isn’t something I want to celebrate. It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life. Probably a bit less if you discount the women. If that happened, how on earth could I hide from tens of thousands of men?

    There is no denying there is a whole lot of crazy out there, but hey isn’t this type of talk adding to it?  I mean does she really believe that men are worried about her getting the word out that having intercourse is rape that they want to silence her?  We. Must. Not. Let. This. Out.  She must be stopped at all costs.  She is letting out their little secret.  They only want intercourse to subjugate us.  We are nothing without them and they must be allowed to continue to rule the world.  Oh my.

    All this is gaslighting and bullying, men’s lies are meant to sound convincing. They convince with the use of force, ordering me to comply to their view by using an authoritarian, terrorising tone. ‘How dare you see otherwise. You’re crazy. You’re a bully. Etc.’ Which is why it works so well to instil self-doubt because it’s a mindfuck, it’s thought-blocking, it’s also an assault and it creates fear and willingness to appease to avoid further assaults. Brainwashing works through a mix of mind assaults, terror and constant repetition of a same message until it’s hammered into our brain, which is psychological violence. 85,000 views and hundreds of trolling comments is in effect a blitzkrieg brainwashing attack by men and male-colonised women. Hundreds of men and their pawns attempting to reprogram the minds of deviant female bloggers, women who don’t comply and who break through men’s myths and lies.

    It’s interesting that Cathy Brennan’s response to the whole thing led a commenter, Tracy, to comment about what it meant on reformism: I hadn’t framed it in that way (see discussion herehere and here). I’ve been thinking about it for a while but haven’t had the time to comment on it properly so I’ll continue my thoughts in this post. Tracy defined CB’s post as reformist to the extent that CB doesn’t name the agent, that is why men isolating us from one another is so dangerous, why it’s so important to huddle together in this circumstance [because men are waiting in line to rape and kill us]. CB asks us to take safety measures against a threat -men- that she won’t name, and at the same time treats men as an audience to appease, as if they would take note and change their behaviour accordingly. Tracy named that gaslighting because it’s acting as if two opposites (truth vs. omission/lie; threat vs. safety) were the same. Of course it’s not CB’s fault because she herself is victim of it.

    Men are waiting in line to rape and kill us?  Really?  I have never seen nor heard of such a line.  May I make a suggestion, if such a line exists outside of your home, move.  My neighborhood is quite safe.  No men actively trying to rape you on a daily basis around.

    I get that most women that call themselves a “feminist” call this thinking silly.  The problem is that this is the logical conclusion to that thinking.  Men are bad.  Women are victims.  Women are treated so unfairly that the government must step in to  protect them.  If the entire belief system is based on that women are tough enough and smart enough to be like just like men why in the world would you need the government to step in?

    Life will never be fair nor will women and men ever be totally equal.  There are differences between men and women that just are.  Most men are stronger.  Our upper body strength isn’t what there is.  Of course there are women who are stronger than men, but generally speaking that isn’t the case.  There was just a scientific study released that our brains are hardwired differently.  It shows up in the scans. We are built this way.  It is biological.

    What really gets my goat about feminism is the fact that the majority of the work for women and “fairness” is done in the industrialized west.  If they spend the majority of their time talking about how in some cultures the physical abuse of women is not only commonplace, but perfectly acceptable it would be different.  In some countries, such as Afghanistan, women were beaten in public for having one strand of hair showing.  The same still happens in Iran.  Some women are not allowed to work.  To heck with the fact that their husband or main provider has been killed or is missing for any reason, she still is not allowed to get a job to support herself.  At least not without the threat of jail, physical abuse, up to and including the threat of death.  I don’t hear these topics being discussed much in the world of feminism.

    Feminism also makes great assumptions about men that I take issue with.  Why do these women think that men don’t feel bad about working long hours and being away from their children?  Do they think that they don’t care that they miss the school plays?  Do they honestly believe that men don’t get wanky when the house needs work?  It is assumed that they don’t feel overwhelmed by a weekend of yard work, soccer games, shopping, and whatever else their particular chores end up being.  I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe.

    I know plenty of men who feel just as overwhelmed as women do when it comes to using their time most efficiently to get everything they want done accomplished.  I also know men who are stay at home dads, so it is their job to clean, to cook, to do laundry, and whatever else needs to be done around the house all the while taking care of the kids.  It is simply a silly assertion that men don’t feel the same type of things that women do.  We all feel a certain amount of guilt in our lives.  We all question our choices from time to time.  I don’t think I have ever met a parent, male or female, that doesn’t wonder if they could have done certain things differently.  That don’t dwell, even temporarily, on the mistakes that we all make when raising children.  They don’t come with a handbook, it is trial by fire.  That is especially true with the first one.

     Just because we make different choices in many instances it doesn’t mean that men don’t have the same type of emotions that women do.  One of the main differences is that men tend to keep these things to themselves.  They don’t dwell on them in the same way that some women tend to do.   Many men look at this as part of life and complaining about it makes them “less manly”.   Men deal with them differently, that doesn’t mean that they don’t feel it.  That is what feminism today says.  That somehow men are emotionless and guilt free.  They live lives that they actively believe makes them superior to women.  A very silly and uncaring assertion.

     

     
    • Kaufman's Kavalkade 4:20 PM on 02/11/2014 Permalink | Reply

      She seems insane actually.

    • Deekaman 4:24 PM on 02/11/2014 Permalink | Reply

      Wow. Just wow. One has to wonder what experience(s) drove her to this point. The point where she sees all men as evil, as a a threat to be reckoned with, to fear and loathe. I love women. When I am with them, I want to serve them, not own them. I want them to feel beautiful, wanted, adored. Apparently that is “rape”.

      • genderneutrallanguage 12:48 AM on 02/12/2014 Permalink | Reply

        It doesn’t take any wondering to know what drove her to this point, it’s feminism. This is unsugar coated feminism. The only real difference between this nut and Feminism101 is how well they hide the crazy. Both are saying the same things, but sites like Feminism101 is more creative with euphemisms and metaphor to avoid the obvious balls out crazy this one spouts.

        Really, this is what I see when I read almost anything written by a feminist.

        • just a conservative girl 1:00 AM on 02/12/2014 Permalink | Reply

          I actually enjoy reading Camille Paglia. I normally disagree with what she writes and her conclusions, but every so often I do agree with her. To me she is one of the “feminists” that gets it. American and European women are not the issues anymore. It is the women who live in non industrailized countries that are facing real issues. We have it made in comparison.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,399 other followers