Chickens or Women? Which Would You Protect?
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Link
Let's say you're a legislator. Let's say you're in the State House. Let's say on a particular day, you get two bills, one about cockfighting, and the other about domestic violence. Let's say you vote to make cockfighting a felony and table the domestic violence bill, effectively killing it for the year, and assuring that it remains a misdemeanor for that amount of time.
Welcome to South Carolina.
There's more to the story, though, mostly because of the gems that came out of Rep. John Graham Altman's (R-Dist. 119-Charleston) mouth.
(my thoughts appear in italics)
On the domestic violence bill:
"I think this bill is probably drafted out of an abundance of ignorance."
Yeah, cuz domestic violence isn't real. And street lights are made of candy canes, and if lighting hits you, it tickles.
"There's just an outcry going on."
I don't know about you, but when innocent people are getting beaten, I tend to outcry. Maybe it's just me.
On the cockfighting bill:
"I was all for that. Cockfighting reminds me of the Roman circus, coliseum."
Really. Cockfighting reminds him of the Roman coliseum. Chickens beating chickens reminds the man of the Roman coliseum. People beating people, however, this doesn't invoke any memories. Interesting. Can anyone remind me what Roman coliseum held the "King of All Poultry" tournament?
On suggestions that there is something callous about leaving domestic violence a misdemeanor while making cockfighting a felony:
"People who compare the two are not very smart and if you don't understand the difference...between trying to ban the savage practice of watching chickens trying to kill each other and protecting people rights in CDV statutes, I'll never be able to explain it to you..."
I'm not very smart for making comparisons? Here's what I understand: I understand that if I live in South Carolina, I can BEAT MY WIFE and be done with it in 30 days, but I cannot ATTEND a cockfight without the risk of losing 5 years of my life. You have levied a heavier punishment for WATCHING something than for DOING something. Good call.
On being asked if the previous statement meant that a chicken's life is more valued than a woman's:
"You're really not very bright and I realize you are not accustomed to this, but I'm accustomed to reporters having a better sense of depth of things and you're asking this question to me would indicate you can't understand the answer. To ask the question is to demonstrate an enormous amount of ignorance. I'm not trying to be rude or hostile, I'm telling you."
So, let's review: He is asked if his statements, and the voting, suggest a rather callous attitude that means that a chicken's life is more valued than a woman's. His response is, "Shut up, you're stupid." Need I say more?
On domestic violence:
"There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I've asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don't understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand."
John Graham needs to take a basic psychology course. John Graham needs to understand how crippling low self-esteem can be. John Graham needs to understand that sometimes you crave approval so much that you'll go through anything to get it. John Graham needs to have a child with a woman who beats the crap out of him, and be dependent on that woman's paycheck as well. John Graham needs to endure a f*cked up childhood that leads him to seek unsuitable partners. John Graham needs to shut the f*ck up. The world isn't black and white.
After being asked if his previous statement meant he blames the victims:
"Now there you go, trying to twist that too. And I don't mind you trying. It's not the woman's fault, it's not blaming the victim, but tell me what self-respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?"
That's the point, jackass! Their self-esteem has been mauled by something! I'd hate to hear what he thinks about those damn kids who get beaten by their parents and keep going back to them.
On working with abused women:
"They listen to me, they don't go back."
"At least not while I'm representing her."
Yeah, and the homeless guy swore he wouldn't spend my change on booze.
On domestic abuse again:
"You seem to be drawn to this fixation that women have to go back. I don't think that speaks highly of women. I think women can think and be responsible for their own actions. Woman are not some toys out there, drawn back to the magnet of the man a lot of these men are bums and cretins and they have to be punished but I think women are independent enough to not go back to the men who beat them. And we have a lot of men who are abused by women, but they are too ashamed to admit it."
Apparantly, the bigger cretins are the ones that attend cockfights, though, right? And where's your outrage for the men that get beaten and go back?
On tabling the CDV Bill:
"I know you're after a story. And it's kind of a nice story, that we've tabled a CDV Bill. Because then you can talk about the insensitive man, the insensitive legislature, but that's not the case. But I don't know why a woman, there would ever be a second offense."
Why do cashiers keep working at the 7-11 after getting robbed. Why do people keep driving after being in car accidents? Why do gang members stay in gangs after being shot? Why do people keep smoking after having heart attacks? Do I need to go on?
On a section of the CDV Bill that suggest domestic violence training for judges:
"What are you going to tell a family court judge that a family court judge doesn't already know about domestic violence?"
Yeah, cuz judges know everything. They're appointed by God, you know.
Let's say you're a legislator. Let's say you're in the State House. Let's say on a particular day, you get two bills, one about cockfighting, and the other about domestic violence. Let's say you vote to make cockfighting a felony and table the domestic violence bill, effectively killing it for the year, and assuring that it remains a misdemeanor for that amount of time.
Welcome to South Carolina.
There's more to the story, though, mostly because of the gems that came out of Rep. John Graham Altman's (R-Dist. 119-Charleston) mouth.
(my thoughts appear in italics)
On the domestic violence bill:
"I think this bill is probably drafted out of an abundance of ignorance."
Yeah, cuz domestic violence isn't real. And street lights are made of candy canes, and if lighting hits you, it tickles.
"There's just an outcry going on."
I don't know about you, but when innocent people are getting beaten, I tend to outcry. Maybe it's just me.
On the cockfighting bill:
"I was all for that. Cockfighting reminds me of the Roman circus, coliseum."
Really. Cockfighting reminds him of the Roman coliseum. Chickens beating chickens reminds the man of the Roman coliseum. People beating people, however, this doesn't invoke any memories. Interesting. Can anyone remind me what Roman coliseum held the "King of All Poultry" tournament?
On suggestions that there is something callous about leaving domestic violence a misdemeanor while making cockfighting a felony:
"People who compare the two are not very smart and if you don't understand the difference...between trying to ban the savage practice of watching chickens trying to kill each other and protecting people rights in CDV statutes, I'll never be able to explain it to you..."
I'm not very smart for making comparisons? Here's what I understand: I understand that if I live in South Carolina, I can BEAT MY WIFE and be done with it in 30 days, but I cannot ATTEND a cockfight without the risk of losing 5 years of my life. You have levied a heavier punishment for WATCHING something than for DOING something. Good call.
On being asked if the previous statement meant that a chicken's life is more valued than a woman's:
"You're really not very bright and I realize you are not accustomed to this, but I'm accustomed to reporters having a better sense of depth of things and you're asking this question to me would indicate you can't understand the answer. To ask the question is to demonstrate an enormous amount of ignorance. I'm not trying to be rude or hostile, I'm telling you."
So, let's review: He is asked if his statements, and the voting, suggest a rather callous attitude that means that a chicken's life is more valued than a woman's. His response is, "Shut up, you're stupid." Need I say more?
On domestic violence:
"There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I've asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don't understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand."
John Graham needs to take a basic psychology course. John Graham needs to understand how crippling low self-esteem can be. John Graham needs to understand that sometimes you crave approval so much that you'll go through anything to get it. John Graham needs to have a child with a woman who beats the crap out of him, and be dependent on that woman's paycheck as well. John Graham needs to endure a f*cked up childhood that leads him to seek unsuitable partners. John Graham needs to shut the f*ck up. The world isn't black and white.
After being asked if his previous statement meant he blames the victims:
"Now there you go, trying to twist that too. And I don't mind you trying. It's not the woman's fault, it's not blaming the victim, but tell me what self-respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?"
That's the point, jackass! Their self-esteem has been mauled by something! I'd hate to hear what he thinks about those damn kids who get beaten by their parents and keep going back to them.
On working with abused women:
"They listen to me, they don't go back."
"At least not while I'm representing her."
Yeah, and the homeless guy swore he wouldn't spend my change on booze.
On domestic abuse again:
"You seem to be drawn to this fixation that women have to go back. I don't think that speaks highly of women. I think women can think and be responsible for their own actions. Woman are not some toys out there, drawn back to the magnet of the man a lot of these men are bums and cretins and they have to be punished but I think women are independent enough to not go back to the men who beat them. And we have a lot of men who are abused by women, but they are too ashamed to admit it."
Apparantly, the bigger cretins are the ones that attend cockfights, though, right? And where's your outrage for the men that get beaten and go back?
On tabling the CDV Bill:
"I know you're after a story. And it's kind of a nice story, that we've tabled a CDV Bill. Because then you can talk about the insensitive man, the insensitive legislature, but that's not the case. But I don't know why a woman, there would ever be a second offense."
Why do cashiers keep working at the 7-11 after getting robbed. Why do people keep driving after being in car accidents? Why do gang members stay in gangs after being shot? Why do people keep smoking after having heart attacks? Do I need to go on?
On a section of the CDV Bill that suggest domestic violence training for judges:
"What are you going to tell a family court judge that a family court judge doesn't already know about domestic violence?"
Yeah, cuz judges know everything. They're appointed by God, you know.
