I'm making a valid comparison on how much life is lost as compared to what the left perceives as the real issue. If you can't take honest debate don't create threads. Or at least state that you only want those that agree with you to reply.
Here are more stats.
In 2011 there were 2,513,171 documented deaths in the US.
.34% were gun related, about 8500.
.012% were related to so-called assault weapons, about 300.
By comparison 1,210,000 abortions were performed in the US in 2008.
Keep telling me that guns are the problem. You always say that a person is a law-abiding citizen until they use a gun in a crime. By that logic a dr is law abiding until he performs an abortion, now he is a murderer.
Rand Paul 2016.
Thank god we have abortion, planet happy for those 1.2 million not coming to term.
one of those 1.2 millionmighthave saved the planet justsaying
there are plenty of out of touch republicans, there are plenty of out of touch Dems and independents..
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )
also remember this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...take that for what it is worth...I don't think congressmen and women are naturally evil people, I just think that their ideas that come from a place of good often do unintended harm and that opponents use that unintended harm and say it was the reason for the bill in the first place.
As for the anti this and pro that talk...it is childish.
no one is anti handicapped, no one is anti women, no one is anti asian, etc...That is a ridiculous claim.
but that is a losing battle to fight because people are hell bent on thinking that those that disagree with them are out to deliberately cause harm to the group they are "fighting" for...I put that in quotes because most people who make those types of arguments do very little to further their cause. (Not making assumptions about people on here, as even having a discussion of politics on a website is more than most do)
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
t
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )
t
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )
My list might start with those 2
I am sure a lot of them do! it was more a joke than anything. I don't know how you can serve in congress that long, as long as the both of them did, and not become out of touch on some things. The good thing is that those two have stayed the most consistent throughout their time with very little principle wavering.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
there are plenty of out of touch republicans, there are plenty of out of touch Dems and independents..
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )
also remember this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...take that for what it is worth...I don't think congressmen and women are naturally evil people, I just think that their ideas that come from a place of good often do unintended harm and that opponents use that unintended harm and say it was the reason for the bill in the first place.
As for the anti this and pro that talk...it is childish.
no one is anti handicapped, no one is anti women, no one is anti asian, etc...That is a ridiculous claim.
but that is a losing battle to fight because people are hell bent on thinking that those that disagree with them are out to deliberately cause harm to the group they are "fighting" for...I put that in quotes because most people who make those types of arguments do very little to further their cause. (Not making assumptions about people on here, as even having a discussion of politics on a website is more than most do)
Yet... there ARE politicians that are anti women and are racist. The bulk (and also those who feel the need to make laws against some people (women)) happen to be republicans. That is factual. And just refer to Mr. Colin Powell if you think that collectively that they are not racist.
I know some of you get tired of hearing me go on about environmental issues (I know- "no shit Sherlock") but this is one of the main reasons I believe the Republican party in general is more out of touch than the Democratic party. In my opinion not even the Democrats are firm enough on environment but at least they tend in general to support pro-environmental issues far more than Republicans. As Yvon Chouinard pointed out, without a healthy planet for us to live on there will be no social or economic issues to think about.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
there are plenty of out of touch republicans, there are plenty of out of touch Dems and independents..
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )
also remember this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...take that for what it is worth...I don't think congressmen and women are naturally evil people, I just think that their ideas that come from a place of good often do unintended harm and that opponents use that unintended harm and say it was the reason for the bill in the first place.
As for the anti this and pro that talk...it is childish.
no one is anti handicapped, no one is anti women, no one is anti asian, etc...That is a ridiculous claim.
but that is a losing battle to fight because people are hell bent on thinking that those that disagree with them are out to deliberately cause harm to the group they are "fighting" for...I put that in quotes because most people who make those types of arguments do very little to further their cause. (Not making assumptions about people on here, as even having a discussion of politics on a website is more than most do)
Yet... there ARE politicians that are anti women and are racist. The bulk (and also those who feel the need to make laws against some people (women)) happen to be republicans. That is factual. And just refer to Mr. Colin Powell if you think that collectively that they are not racist.
for sake of argument, name one that is anti-woman
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This was an interesting read. While I do agree that Democrats can be out of touch as well, I do believe the problem is worse on the Republican side of the aisle.
The future of conservatism in America is bright, since it offers the best insights into human nature, the relationship between the citizen and the state, and how to achieve a more just social order.
Those who travel under the banner of conservatism need to do some repair work and embrace a genuine conservative disposition. What that means is appreciating the complexity of human society and the importance of human experience in shaping our approach to contemporary challenges, and recognizing that politics involves prudential and imperfect judgments. Which is to say that conservatism is hurt when its adherents treat it as an adamantine ideology, which is quite different from grounding it in enduring principles.
An example: During a 2012 GOP primary debate, Fox News’s Bret Baier posed a question to the eight candidates on the stage. “Say you had a deal, a real spending-cuts deal, 10-to-1 spending cuts to tax increases.?.?.?.?Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”
Each of the eight candidates raised his or her hand.
This was, to me, a danger sign. I say that not because I favor higher taxes (I don’t). But we had reached a point where none of those running for president on a conservative platform could admit to any scenario in which he, or she, would raise taxes, even if as a result doing so might roll back the modern welfare state.
“No new taxes” is fine as a goal. It is certainly a reasonable starting point in negotiations. It may even be the right end point. But to elevate it to an inviolate principle–and to insist that politicians take pledges opposing tax increases under any and all circumstances–strikes me as misguided. Taxation is always a balancing process, one that needs to be seen in the context of specific economic conditions and other possible gains. For example, no responsible conservative would forgo reforming Medicare (which is the main driver of our fiscal crisis) by injecting competition and choice into the system in exchange for slightly higher taxes on the top income earners in America.
Every political movement, including conservatism, faces the danger of elevating certain policies into catechisms and failing to take into account new circumstances. When that occurs, we lose the capacity to correct ourselves. Conservatism, at least as I understand it, ought to be characterized by openness to evidence and a search for truth, not attachment to a rigid orthodoxy. “If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction,” Ronald Reagan said in 1977, “it is American conservatism.”
What I’m talking about, then, is a conservative temperament, which affects everything from tone to intellectual inquiry to compromise. It champions principles in reasonably flexible ways that include a straightforward evaluation of facts.
To put things in a slightly different way: Conservatives need to reacquaint themselves with the true spirit of conservatism, which is reform-minded, empirical, anti-utopian, and somewhat modest in its expectations. It doesn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. It doesn’t treat political opponents as enemies. And it isn’t in a state of constant agitation. Winsomeness goes a long way in politics.
Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable, impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not. Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled politics of America’s 40th president.
there are plenty of out of touch republicans, there are plenty of out of touch Dems and independents..
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch )
also remember this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...take that for what it is worth...I don't think congressmen and women are naturally evil people, I just think that their ideas that come from a place of good often do unintended harm and that opponents use that unintended harm and say it was the reason for the bill in the first place.
As for the anti this and pro that talk...it is childish.
no one is anti handicapped, no one is anti women, no one is anti asian, etc...That is a ridiculous claim.
but that is a losing battle to fight because people are hell bent on thinking that those that disagree with them are out to deliberately cause harm to the group they are "fighting" for...I put that in quotes because most people who make those types of arguments do very little to further their cause. (Not making assumptions about people on here, as even having a discussion of politics on a website is more than most do)
Yet... there ARE politicians that are anti women and are racist. The bulk (and also those who feel the need to make laws against some people (women)) happen to be republicans. That is factual. And just refer to Mr. Colin Powell if you think that collectively that they are not racist.
for sake of argument, name one that is anti-woman
John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
I know I've said this before, but I have a few very die hard republican relatives/friends, and this past year, they were cringing at the idea of Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Romney (kinda, but not as bad as the others), Gingrich...the entire cast that rolled out of the red carpet was a wash... The party will be overhauled if they want to get anywhere.
Do you think that this past election would have still been a landslide if republicans didn't turn their backs on women? They lost a lot of support from the women vote, and rightfully so.
I know I've said this before, but I have a few very die hard republican relatives/friends, and this past year, they were cringing at the idea of Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Romney (kinda, but not as bad as the others), Gingrich...the entire cast that rolled out of the red carpet was a wash... The party will be overhauled if they want to get anywhere.
Mitt Romney was a different person when he ran here in Massachusetts. I am betting that Romney would not have made your Republican friends cringe at all.
Do you think that this past election would have still been a landslide if republicans didn't turn their backs on women? They lost a lot of support from the women vote, and rightfully so.
So you believed the propaganda " War On Women"? What is the War on Women? is it because they kill there babies? They want that right? Were is the democratic compassion for the babies? I can see if it is a matter of life or death for the mother.
Everyone on here needs to think about ......What if your mother aborted you? and what about the fathers right to let his child be born? are Dem. anti men?
Personally I believe in the right to choose.....and let God be the judge in the end.
Like someone said on here before the government should stay out of peoples business and stop legislating peoples lives.
Our Civil Servants in the White House no longer work for the people. They are all self serving.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
Did you read the OP??
Thanks for proving my point
how is this anti women? it is certainly anti abortion, anti choice, but how is it anti women? Was this bill proposed to punish women or protect the unborn fetus?
I don't think the authors of the bill got together and said, I really hate women, what can I do to be against them today? So if the goal of the legislation was to make it illegal to perform this abortion, why would we call it anti women? pro-fetus, anti women... not constructive to any debate.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Do you think that this past election would have still been a landslide if republicans didn't turn their backs on women? They lost a lot of support from the women vote, and rightfully so.
So you believed the propaganda " War On Women"? What is the War on Women? is it because they kill there babies? They want that right? Were is the democratic compassion for the babies? I can see if it is a matter of life or death for the mother.
Everyone on here needs to think about ......What if your mother aborted you? and what about the fathers right to let his child be born? are Dem. anti men?
Personally I believe in the right to choose.....and let God be the judge in the end. Like someone said on here before the government should stay out of peoples business and stop legislating peoples lives.
Our Civil Servants in the White House no longer work for the people. They are all self serving.
I'll take it that you didn't read the OP neither. :roll:
I'm guessing that all the white males claiming to be pro-life will stand up and personally take oath to raise and take care of all those unwanted babies. Yeah...
for a party that's so focused on keeping government-controlled anything off the table, they certainly feel the need to keep government involved in the laws against women....and their reproductive organs.
John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
Did you read the OP??
Thanks for proving my point
how is this anti women? it is certainly anti abortion, anti choice, but how is it anti women? Was this bill proposed to punish women or protect the unborn fetus?
I don't think the authors of the bill got together and said, I really hate women, what can I do to be against them today? So if the goal of the legislation was to make it illegal to perform this abortion, why would we call it anti women? pro-fetus, anti women... not constructive to any debate.
I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:
For the rest of our futures any liberal or Democrat can easily get away with calling conservatives mean just for the fact that conservatives want to cut spending. That is the easiest argument. Anyone who wants to take away someone elses entitlements, money or budgets is mean and nasty! WOW From here on out, its never going to end.
The public has been brainwashed! Conservatives will always be mean in the eyes of the un-informed!
Where is the credit for trying to be fiscal?
Where is the credit for trying to balance a budget and make cuts?
We are done!
Let's see.....how do I put this......oh yeah....
I am not a conservative nor a republican. Im a middle class white guy who is not part of Romneys 47%.
I do not get, take, or expect any entitlements. But what I am not is an old white guy living in the 50s
The republicans in office and most of the old white guys who put them there are ...
Anti women
anti immigrant (legal and otherwise)
anti black
anti youth
anti gay
anti hispanic
anti asian
anti handicapped
anti lower class white people
anti anyone who does not look, act, or think like them
The U.S. is changing and the old white guys can't accept change. And clearly neither can you :nono:[/quote]
WOW! You brought me into it personally! LOL Republicans have the only black senator. We had Mia Love and Allen West. We have Herman Cain. We have Condi Rice and Colin Powell. We have Ted Cruz and other Hispanics. Republicans are the civil rights advocates. We are the party of civil rights. You ever look at history? TRUTH AND FACTS. Martin Luther King was a Republican. His father was a Republican.
Sounds like you really bit into that bite of propaganda that the liberal news feeds you!
You dont know me personally, so dont judge me personally.
All my policies come from facts, common sense and faith! Its that simple.
I dont believe in emotions and feelings for policy....i believe in facts, common sense and reality![/quote]
MLK has been dead for almost 45 years. Thats more than a generation ago. So you need let that one go.
In addition it's a common misconception that MLK was a republican. The claims but the GOP that King was one of them is based purely on specuiation. King never expressed an affiliation with nor endorsed candidates for any political party. Even his son MLK III said it is disingenuous to imply that his father was a republican. That not noly did he never endorse any candidate there is no evidence that he ever voted for a republican.[/quote]
It should come as no surprise to you that ALL blacks were Republicans back then! We are the party of civil rights! Democrats were the party of the KKK. You dont know history? Also, MLK was a proud Republican! What facts are you reading! I want you to show us where his son said that! His neice Alveida to this day is a Republican and always quotes MLK. Good try bud!
REPUBLICANS are the party of civil rights![/quote]
dude Social Security is NOT an entitlement. I pay into that fucker as does my employer for my benefit. It belongs to me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Among its first order of business, the newly sworn in 113th Congress is trying yet again to expand protections for women across the country. Who knew it would prove so difficult?
On Tuesday, Sen. Mike Crapo, R—Idaho, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D—Vermont, reintroduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
VAWA, which aims to protect victims of rape and domestic abuse, was allowed to expire late last year by the 112th Congress after the Senate reauthorized the measure with bipartisan support, but the GOP-led House refused to sign off on it.
Instead, House Republicans unsuccessfully tried to push their own watered-down version of the bill which controversially excluded three key groups that are especially vulnerable to sexual and domestic violence—Native American women, immigrant women, and members of the LGBT community.
For many House Republicans, the most contentious portion of the bill dealt with the increased number of visas for undocumented victims of domestic violence.
The Senate-passed version of VAWA would have worked toward encouraging victims to report their attackers by granting them temporary legal status in the form of “U-visas.” Right now the number of visas allowed are capped at 10,000 per year.
The visas also serve as a source of revenue because there is an application fee associated with them. But that is precisely where House Republicans have taken issue. According to the Constitution, bills that raise revenue must originate in the House, not the Senate.
The newest version of the bill resolves the GOP’s procedural objection by removing the section aimed at increasing the number of visas, but that still doesn’t mean the House will get behind it. Many reports claim that House Republicans also take issue with the portion aimed at protecting Native American women from violence.
In a statement released Tuesday, Sen. Patty Murray, D—Washington, urged the House to rethink their position on the bill.
“The fate of the Violence Against Women Act still lays squarely on the shoulders of Eric Cantor and John Boehner.To date they have refused to listen to countless law enforcement and women’s groups as well as moderate voices in their own party in the House and Senate who’ve said we need to pass the Senate’s bipartisan bill that extends protections to millions of new women.
“In a new Congress, on a newly reintroduced bill, the House Republican leadership faces the same choice. They can either kowtow [to] those on the far right of their caucus who would turn battered women away from care, or they can stand with Democrats, moderate Republicans, and the many millions of Americans who believe that who a person loves, where they live, or their immigration status shouldn’t determine whether they are protected from violence.
“In the days ahead, I encourage the moderate Republican voices in the House to call on their leadership to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. Too many women have been left vulnerable while House Republican leaders have played politics.”
But until Congress reaches an agreement on this measure, countless innocent women will remain in harm’s way with few places to turn for assistance.
Do you think that this past election would have still been a landslide if republicans didn't turn their backs on women? They lost a lot of support from the women vote, and rightfully so.
So you believed the propaganda " War On Women"? What is the War on Women? is it because they kill there babies? They want that right? Were is the democratic compassion for the babies? I can see if it is a matter of life or death for the mother.
Everyone on here needs to think about ......What if your mother aborted you? and what about the fathers right to let his child be born? are Dem. anti men?
Personally I believe in the right to choose.....and let God be the judge in the end.
Like someone said on here before the government should stay out of peoples business and stop legislating peoples lives.
Our Civil Servants in the White House no longer work for the people. They are all self serving.
I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:
just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,
what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?
you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.
The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?
I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery (just a joke, tone is hard in emails)...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Wealthy conservative investor Foster Friess is best known in Washington, D.C. for helping fund Rick Santorum's presidential campaign. And the multimillionaire says he would support the former Pennsylvania senator again if he runs in 2016, even likening Santorum to Ronald Reagan.
"If people let him out of that box of social conservative, and appreciate how much more he brings to the table, I think he's still one of my favorite candidates," says Friess.
Friess spent well over a million dollars on Santorum's campaign, and says SuperPACs -- specifically the injection of large amounts of cash in elections -- were not really anything new in the 2012 cycle.
"People forget that the SuperPACs are just the reiteration of the 527s," says Friess, referring to independent groups that are allowed to raise money for political activities and issue advocacy.
"George Soros and Peter Lewis gave, what, $14 million and $20 million to make hard times for Bush and no one seems to talk about that," adds the conservative multimillionaire.
Since the November election, the Republican party has been in hand-wringing mode, trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. But Friess says he sees nothing in need of fixing.
"I believe we have an opportunity now to lift up a whole new group of young Republicans, and young new faces that are going to change our country back to where it was maybe 20 years ago," says Friess.
But the country's demographics are a far cry from what they were 20 years ago, and there has been talk of the Republican party's need to change in order to survive.
"I think the smartest thing the Republican party can do is stick to the principles that Republicans stand for -- limited government, respect for the constitution and free markets," says Friess. "If you stick with that, there's no way we're not going to win."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
Did you read the OP??
Thanks for proving my point
how is this anti women? it is certainly anti abortion, anti choice, but how is it anti women? Was this bill proposed to punish women or protect the unborn fetus?
I don't think the authors of the bill got together and said, I really hate women, what can I do to be against them today? So if the goal of the legislation was to make it illegal to perform this abortion, why would we call it anti women? pro-fetus, anti women... not constructive to any debate.
I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:
I find the stupid war on women rhetoric to be for the simple minded.
If there are any female voters out there still thinking about voting for Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans, I have a binder for you. Not the one Romney mentioned during last week's presidential debate at Hofstra University. No, my binder is full of examples of why the GOP war on women is real.
If you consider each of them on a stand-alone basis only, then you'd be right to conclude the Republican track record on women's issues is merely pathetic. However, when they are lumped together, one after the other, they should make make a grown woman blush or angry. Or both.
Here are the unvarnished facts:
Back in February, one of the most conservative board members of the Susan G. Komen Foundation wildly applauded the organization for cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. That was until public opinion swamped Komen and the board member in question resigned.
Shortly afterwards, a GOP Indiana state lawmaker publicly attacked the Girl Scouts, claiming that organization was a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. Wow. I'll bet the millions of former scouts, many of whom are lifelong Republicans, never dreamed they were doing anyone's political bidding when they were 12.
These are the same mothers who, for the last decade or longer, have encouraged their daughters to play Little League baseball. Should that organization be worried?
A little less than two months ago, Rep. Todd Akin, the GOP Senate candidate in Missouri, made his indefensible, reprehensible comment about "legitimate rape." He hardly finished his sentence before leaders in his own party, including House Speaker John Boehner, urged him to quit from the race. His opponent is incumbent Claire McCaskill.
Sadly, several prominent conservatives, like Jim DeMint, Roy Blunt, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have stuck by Akin. It makes me wonder, how could a Romney-Ryan-Akin ticket possibly help women?
Lastly, Republican Joe Walsh (Ill.) inaccurately announced last Thursday that abortions are "absolutely" never necessary to save the lives of pregnant women.
"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," Walsh said. His opponent is Tammy Duckworth.
As these examples demonstrate, the Republican attacks on women are not isolated, one-of-a-kind events. They are national in scope. What's clear is this: These chilling attacks are meant to demonize women, regardless of age, ethnicity or geography. Is this really a winning strategy? If it is, who's next ... Barbie?
Women make up more than 50% of the electorate. When you consider how close the race for the White House is right now, the GOP clearly needs them to vote Nov. 6. Given all that's happened in 2012, I'm pretty sure women will. Only trouble is, I don't think they will vote Republican. Why should they?
First, one of the nation's leading sources for breast cancer research was dragged into the mud. Then, young girls selling cookies were viciously attacked. The GOP platform from this summer's presidential nominating convention makes it clear where the party stands on abortion. So do Reps. Akin and Walsh.
No, these attacks are not random kid games. To a certain breed of Republican, they are a matter of national pride or divine intervention. To the rest of us, they are politics gone wild.
Are there any women voters out there who need an extra binder?
A former congressional staff assistant, Freidenrich is the founder of First Strategies consulting in Laguna Beach, California. Follow him on Twitter @freidomreport
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
When 31 male Republican senators vote against the Violence Against Women Act, it becomes more difficult for them to claim that the war on women of which they are accused is made up by Democrats. This is a perfect example of a policy decision that fuels the narrative that the Republican Party has declared war on American women.
Is the Republican Party at war with American women? It certainly looks like it when one examines their policies. Here's how Jobsanger recently put it:
They oppose the right of a woman to control her own body. They oppose giving women equal pay in the workplace. They oppose free and easy access to contraception for women. They oppose healthcare reform (Obamacare) which outlaws higher insurance premiums for women. They want to defund Planned Parenthood (which provided need health care for poor women). And they want to slash social programs (where the majority of participants are single women with children).
Any one of these policy positions looks bad in isolation. When combined with each other, they look downright despicable. This is precisely the sort of narrative that could do real damage to the Republican Party in the 2012 elections.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:
just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,
what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?
you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.
The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?
I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery (just a joke, tone is hard in emails)...
Explain what? How abortions are directly linked to women via their reproductive organs? How legislatures that are in need to make laws about abortions are directly affecting the decision-making power of women in the entire country? How making a woman carry to term a baby that is the result of a rape is now considered law in New Mexico? What about how it was REPUBLICANS who REFUSED to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act?
From Mitt Romney’s blasé declaration that he would just “get rid of” Planned Parenthood to Sally Kerns’ claim that women don’t work as hard as men there are volumes of examples that the War on Women does exist and it is being waged by the Republican Party.
Of course, if you watch Fox you might hear the denials before the projections. Republicans have denied that there is a war on women. Then they denied that reproductive rights were about women’s rights, but rather about religious freedom, according to Darell Issa and his all male panel . Their denials turned to embarrassment when it came to equal pay, as Jason Easley reported on May 1.
When the denials failed, Republicans turned to projection.
Here’s an example from TPM:
“On Tuesday, Romney surrogate Bay Buchanan, former treasurer to President Reagan, pushed back aggressively in a call with reporters, suggesting that the “real war on women” is reflective in President Obama’s handling of the economy. The impacts of his policies, she said, have been “frightening,” “unsettling” and “an outrage.”
It’s clear his policies have failed women miserably,” Buchanan said. “It has set women in the workplace back 20 years and we certainly can’t afford it, nor can the children of these women, afford to continue in this direction.”
Try as they might to deny they have a war on women, their words and policies betray them. Whether they identify themselves as Republicans or members of the Koch Brothers’ Tea Party; Conservatives have said the darndest things about women in the recent past.
If there was a conservative man, who epitomizes the attitude reflected in Republican it would be Reverend Jesse Peterson – proud Tea Party member and friend of Fox’s Shawn Hannity.
When TRS reported on the Reverend’s encounter with Kirsten Powers’ confrontation with Reverend Peterson during the Hannity Show, their report offered a little taste of the Reverend’s attitude toward women:
“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,” Peterson says. “We should’ve never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.”
“And this probably was the reason they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman,” he adds. “They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.”
That pales in comparison to Peterson’s other comments during a Sermon called: How Women are Building a Shameless Society, published on youtube on March 5, 2012.
Here are just a couple of little nuggets of Peterson’s rational thinking about women.
“My America is gone… and short of God intervening, I don’t see any turnaround… I realize that one of the primary reasons… that it is over for America is because women are taking over… Most cannot (make sound decisions).
One thing I know for sure, without a doubt, women cannot handle power. It’s not in them to handle power in the right way. They don’t know what to do with it.”
Maybe these comments are not meant to be about a war on women. Maybe, the good pastor is auditioning to be president of Rush Limbaugh’s Fan Club. We all know how classy Rush during his commentaries on women.
“Rush Limbaugh called her a slut (Sandra Flute) and she didn’t realize that she looked like a slut sitting there making that type of confession…
How did we get to a point where women think we should pay for them to have sex?
They want to force us to buy them birth control.
No one’s saying, ‘Where’s your shame, woman?’
Rush Limbaugh called her… “a whore and a slut” and I agree with him. And I heard this morning that he had apologized for it… Men would have stood with Rush on this. But the women, because they’re so emotional and they don’t know how to handle things, they don’t want to hear any truth about anything.”
Don’t you just feel the logical analysis and good old fashioned manners in that tirade?
Peterson’s comments sound like something right wing politicians would say if they thought they could get away with it. Republican politicians may not use the fire that comes with Peterson’s hateful rhetoric toward women. The Republican War on Women, or as Peterson puts it, men being tough, is reflected in statements and policy enacted in state and national legislatures. Unlike Peterson’s sermons, you can’t just turn to another video or read a book to make these policies go away.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson’s Dirty Thirty post gives an idea of the sheer volume of radical laws through which the Republican Party is waging its war on women’s reproductive rights. It doesn’t end with social policy. As Rmuse explains, the Republican War on women includes cuts to programs that benefit women, as well as the poor and anyone other that the GOP’s corporate sugar daddies.
The legislative war on women’s reproductive rights is radical with rhetoric to match.
Indiana State Rep. Eric Turner claimed that women lie about rape and incest in the name of getting an abortion.
“I just want you to think about this, in my view, giant loophole that could be created where someone who could — now I want to be careful, I don’t want to disparage in any way someone who has gone through the experience of a rape or incest — but someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.”
Chuck Winder, State Senator for Idaho shares Turner’s concerns. Nope, there’s nothing disparaging at all about suggesting that women lie about rape or incest to get an abortion.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett gushed about his state’s transvaginal ultra-sound bill, a.k.a. state sanctioned rape. But hey, you’ll be glad to know that this doesn’t mean a woman will be forced to look at the monitor directly in front of her while she is undergoing this humiliating process. As the Governor points out women can “just close their eyes”.
Something just tells me he and Reverend Peterson would get along just fine.
Further evidence of the Republican Party’s war on women is reflected in their opposition to women being paid the same as a man for doing the same job.
Here is Peter Hockstra on the Ledbetter Act:
Will, you know, will repealing it be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that’s really the thing that’s hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create — that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn’t be the law.
Republican opposition to the Violence Against Women Act amounts to a nod and a wink to domestic violence. If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, you just might get some comfort out of knowing that House Republicans have proposed their own version of the VAWA because they are so very concerned about violence against women, unless the woman is a Native American, an undocumented immigrant or a member of the LGBT community. According to Lamar Smith:
Fraud and abuse in the U.S. immigration system must be stopped,” Smith said. “Immigrants who perpetuate fraud in order to get visas or U.S. citizenship devalue U.S. immigration laws and hurt legitimate victims who are the intended beneficiaries of the generous programs we have established.
The Republican War on Women is real. No amount of spin or denial will change that. Their policies and rhetoric speak as loudly, if not louder than their denials.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:
just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,
what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?
you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.
The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?
I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery (just a joke, tone is hard in emails)...
Explain what? How abortions are directly linked to women via their reproductive organs? How legislatures that are in need to make laws about abortions are directly affecting the decision-making power of women in the entire country? How making a woman carry to term a baby that is the result of a rape is now considered law in New Mexico? What about how it was REPUBLICANS who REFUSED to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act?
I didn't know that the GOP not voting on the VAWA renewal means they are anti woman. I thought it meant they were FOR domestic violence. It gets hard for me to keep it straight.
Hell the ACLU didn't want it passed the first time around. They have since changed their tune, but does that mean in 1994 the ACLU was anti-women?
I am anti drug war, which of course means I am PRO Heroin use and drug overdoses. Got it, I am getting good at this denial thing.
They certainly don't have a pro specific women's rights agenda. That is clear. If anything, their actions tell me the GOP is anti-'getting votes in elections'. But that doesn't mean they are anti women
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
As much as I don't like a lot of the Republican's ideas, I really do despise the term "war on women" and anti-woman. If they're anti-abortion, can we please just use anti-abortion, instead of adding all that rhetoric? I dont think they sit around hoping to simply control women and have the desire to take rights from them, no matter what they are. Isnt it possible that they have genuine concern for fetuses?
Comments
in fact, by my count there are ~436 in the house and ~100 in the senate ( I realize that there are actually 438 members of the house but Paul and Kucinich don't count as being out of touch
also remember this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...take that for what it is worth...I don't think congressmen and women are naturally evil people, I just think that their ideas that come from a place of good often do unintended harm and that opponents use that unintended harm and say it was the reason for the bill in the first place.
As for the anti this and pro that talk...it is childish.
no one is anti handicapped, no one is anti women, no one is anti asian, etc...That is a ridiculous claim.
but that is a losing battle to fight because people are hell bent on thinking that those that disagree with them are out to deliberately cause harm to the group they are "fighting" for...I put that in quotes because most people who make those types of arguments do very little to further their cause. (Not making assumptions about people on here, as even having a discussion of politics on a website is more than most do)
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
My list might start with those 2
I am sure a lot of them do! it was more a joke than anything. I don't know how you can serve in congress that long, as long as the both of them did, and not become out of touch on some things. The good thing is that those two have stayed the most consistent throughout their time with very little principle wavering.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Wow, there sure are a lot of opinions on this one.
Exactly what AMT is about...BUT...
Be sure you deliver your opinion respectfully. It's required here, thanks.
Yet... there ARE politicians that are anti women and are racist. The bulk (and also those who feel the need to make laws against some people (women)) happen to be republicans. That is factual. And just refer to Mr. Colin Powell if you think that collectively that they are not racist.
for sake of argument, name one that is anti-woman
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/wehne ... servatism/
PETER WEHNER
The future of conservatism in America is bright, since it offers the best insights into human nature, the relationship between the citizen and the state, and how to achieve a more just social order.
Those who travel under the banner of conservatism need to do some repair work and embrace a genuine conservative disposition. What that means is appreciating the complexity of human society and the importance of human experience in shaping our approach to contemporary challenges, and recognizing that politics involves prudential and imperfect judgments. Which is to say that conservatism is hurt when its adherents treat it as an adamantine ideology, which is quite different from grounding it in enduring principles.
An example: During a 2012 GOP primary debate, Fox News’s Bret Baier posed a question to the eight candidates on the stage. “Say you had a deal, a real spending-cuts deal, 10-to-1 spending cuts to tax increases.?.?.?.?Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”
Each of the eight candidates raised his or her hand.
This was, to me, a danger sign. I say that not because I favor higher taxes (I don’t). But we had reached a point where none of those running for president on a conservative platform could admit to any scenario in which he, or she, would raise taxes, even if as a result doing so might roll back the modern welfare state.
“No new taxes” is fine as a goal. It is certainly a reasonable starting point in negotiations. It may even be the right end point. But to elevate it to an inviolate principle–and to insist that politicians take pledges opposing tax increases under any and all circumstances–strikes me as misguided. Taxation is always a balancing process, one that needs to be seen in the context of specific economic conditions and other possible gains. For example, no responsible conservative would forgo reforming Medicare (which is the main driver of our fiscal crisis) by injecting competition and choice into the system in exchange for slightly higher taxes on the top income earners in America.
Every political movement, including conservatism, faces the danger of elevating certain policies into catechisms and failing to take into account new circumstances. When that occurs, we lose the capacity to correct ourselves. Conservatism, at least as I understand it, ought to be characterized by openness to evidence and a search for truth, not attachment to a rigid orthodoxy. “If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction,” Ronald Reagan said in 1977, “it is American conservatism.”
What I’m talking about, then, is a conservative temperament, which affects everything from tone to intellectual inquiry to compromise. It champions principles in reasonably flexible ways that include a straightforward evaluation of facts.
To put things in a slightly different way: Conservatives need to reacquaint themselves with the true spirit of conservatism, which is reform-minded, empirical, anti-utopian, and somewhat modest in its expectations. It doesn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. It doesn’t treat political opponents as enemies. And it isn’t in a state of constant agitation. Winsomeness goes a long way in politics.
Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable, impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not. Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled politics of America’s 40th president.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
Did you read the OP??
Mitt Romney was a different person when he ran here in Massachusetts. I am betting that Romney would not have made your Republican friends cringe at all.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
So you believed the propaganda " War On Women"? What is the War on Women? is it because they kill there babies? They want that right? Were is the democratic compassion for the babies? I can see if it is a matter of life or death for the mother.
Everyone on here needs to think about ......What if your mother aborted you? and what about the fathers right to let his child be born? are Dem. anti men?
Personally I believe in the right to choose.....and let God be the judge in the end.
Like someone said on here before the government should stay out of peoples business and stop legislating peoples lives.
Our Civil Servants in the White House no longer work for the people. They are all self serving.
Thanks for proving my point
how is this anti women? it is certainly anti abortion, anti choice, but how is it anti women? Was this bill proposed to punish women or protect the unborn fetus?
I don't think the authors of the bill got together and said, I really hate women, what can I do to be against them today? So if the goal of the legislation was to make it illegal to perform this abortion, why would we call it anti women? pro-fetus, anti women... not constructive to any debate.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'll take it that you didn't read the OP neither. :roll:
I'm guessing that all the white males claiming to be pro-life will stand up and personally take oath to raise and take care of all those unwanted babies. Yeah...
And as for your bold statement?
I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:
Let's see.....how do I put this......oh yeah....
I am not a conservative nor a republican. Im a middle class white guy who is not part of Romneys 47%.
I do not get, take, or expect any entitlements. But what I am not is an old white guy living in the 50s
The republicans in office and most of the old white guys who put them there are ...
Anti women
anti immigrant (legal and otherwise)
anti black
anti youth
anti gay
anti hispanic
anti asian
anti handicapped
anti lower class white people
anti anyone who does not look, act, or think like them
The U.S. is changing and the old white guys can't accept change. And clearly neither can you :nono:[/quote]
WOW! You brought me into it personally! LOL Republicans have the only black senator. We had Mia Love and Allen West. We have Herman Cain. We have Condi Rice and Colin Powell. We have Ted Cruz and other Hispanics. Republicans are the civil rights advocates. We are the party of civil rights. You ever look at history? TRUTH AND FACTS. Martin Luther King was a Republican. His father was a Republican.
Sounds like you really bit into that bite of propaganda that the liberal news feeds you!
You dont know me personally, so dont judge me personally.
All my policies come from facts, common sense and faith! Its that simple.
I dont believe in emotions and feelings for policy....i believe in facts, common sense and reality![/quote]
MLK has been dead for almost 45 years. Thats more than a generation ago. So you need let that one go.
In addition it's a common misconception that MLK was a republican. The claims but the GOP that King was one of them is based purely on specuiation. King never expressed an affiliation with nor endorsed candidates for any political party. Even his son MLK III said it is disingenuous to imply that his father was a republican. That not noly did he never endorse any candidate there is no evidence that he ever voted for a republican.[/quote]
REPUBLICANS are the party of civil rights![/quote]
dude Social Security is NOT an entitlement. I pay into that fucker as does my employer for my benefit. It belongs to me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/violence ... ntroduced/
Among its first order of business, the newly sworn in 113th Congress is trying yet again to expand protections for women across the country. Who knew it would prove so difficult?
On Tuesday, Sen. Mike Crapo, R—Idaho, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D—Vermont, reintroduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
VAWA, which aims to protect victims of rape and domestic abuse, was allowed to expire late last year by the 112th Congress after the Senate reauthorized the measure with bipartisan support, but the GOP-led House refused to sign off on it.
Instead, House Republicans unsuccessfully tried to push their own watered-down version of the bill which controversially excluded three key groups that are especially vulnerable to sexual and domestic violence—Native American women, immigrant women, and members of the LGBT community.
For many House Republicans, the most contentious portion of the bill dealt with the increased number of visas for undocumented victims of domestic violence.
The Senate-passed version of VAWA would have worked toward encouraging victims to report their attackers by granting them temporary legal status in the form of “U-visas.” Right now the number of visas allowed are capped at 10,000 per year.
The visas also serve as a source of revenue because there is an application fee associated with them. But that is precisely where House Republicans have taken issue. According to the Constitution, bills that raise revenue must originate in the House, not the Senate.
The newest version of the bill resolves the GOP’s procedural objection by removing the section aimed at increasing the number of visas, but that still doesn’t mean the House will get behind it. Many reports claim that House Republicans also take issue with the portion aimed at protecting Native American women from violence.
In a statement released Tuesday, Sen. Patty Murray, D—Washington, urged the House to rethink their position on the bill.
“The fate of the Violence Against Women Act still lays squarely on the shoulders of Eric Cantor and John Boehner.To date they have refused to listen to countless law enforcement and women’s groups as well as moderate voices in their own party in the House and Senate who’ve said we need to pass the Senate’s bipartisan bill that extends protections to millions of new women.
“In a new Congress, on a newly reintroduced bill, the House Republican leadership faces the same choice. They can either kowtow [to] those on the far right of their caucus who would turn battered women away from care, or they can stand with Democrats, moderate Republicans, and the many millions of Americans who believe that who a person loves, where they live, or their immigration status shouldn’t determine whether they are protected from violence.
“In the days ahead, I encourage the moderate Republican voices in the House to call on their leadership to pass the bipartisan Senate bill. Too many women have been left vulnerable while House Republican leaders have played politics.”
But until Congress reaches an agreement on this measure, countless innocent women will remain in harm’s way with few places to turn for assistance.
As Romney said they have binders full of women!!!
just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,
what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?
you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.
The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?
I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
did this man not pay attention the the last election where he wasted over a million bucks trying to get santorum elected???
this guy is not just out of touch, but he is living in a bubble....
he gets the godzilla facepalm...
Standing by his man: GOP millionaire Foster Friess wants Santorum in 2016
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playe ... 16973.html
Wealthy conservative investor Foster Friess is best known in Washington, D.C. for helping fund Rick Santorum's presidential campaign. And the multimillionaire says he would support the former Pennsylvania senator again if he runs in 2016, even likening Santorum to Ronald Reagan.
"If people let him out of that box of social conservative, and appreciate how much more he brings to the table, I think he's still one of my favorite candidates," says Friess.
Friess spent well over a million dollars on Santorum's campaign, and says SuperPACs -- specifically the injection of large amounts of cash in elections -- were not really anything new in the 2012 cycle.
"People forget that the SuperPACs are just the reiteration of the 527s," says Friess, referring to independent groups that are allowed to raise money for political activities and issue advocacy.
"George Soros and Peter Lewis gave, what, $14 million and $20 million to make hard times for Bush and no one seems to talk about that," adds the conservative multimillionaire.
Since the November election, the Republican party has been in hand-wringing mode, trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. But Friess says he sees nothing in need of fixing.
"I believe we have an opportunity now to lift up a whole new group of young Republicans, and young new faces that are going to change our country back to where it was maybe 20 years ago," says Friess.
But the country's demographics are a far cry from what they were 20 years ago, and there has been talk of the Republican party's need to change in order to survive.
"I think the smartest thing the Republican party can do is stick to the principles that Republicans stand for -- limited government, respect for the constitution and free markets," says Friess. "If you stick with that, there's no way we're not going to win."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I find the stupid war on women rhetoric to be for the simple minded.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... en-is-real
If there are any female voters out there still thinking about voting for Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans, I have a binder for you. Not the one Romney mentioned during last week's presidential debate at Hofstra University. No, my binder is full of examples of why the GOP war on women is real.
If you consider each of them on a stand-alone basis only, then you'd be right to conclude the Republican track record on women's issues is merely pathetic. However, when they are lumped together, one after the other, they should make make a grown woman blush or angry. Or both.
Here are the unvarnished facts:
Back in February, one of the most conservative board members of the Susan G. Komen Foundation wildly applauded the organization for cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. That was until public opinion swamped Komen and the board member in question resigned.
Shortly afterwards, a GOP Indiana state lawmaker publicly attacked the Girl Scouts, claiming that organization was a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. Wow. I'll bet the millions of former scouts, many of whom are lifelong Republicans, never dreamed they were doing anyone's political bidding when they were 12.
These are the same mothers who, for the last decade or longer, have encouraged their daughters to play Little League baseball. Should that organization be worried?
A little less than two months ago, Rep. Todd Akin, the GOP Senate candidate in Missouri, made his indefensible, reprehensible comment about "legitimate rape." He hardly finished his sentence before leaders in his own party, including House Speaker John Boehner, urged him to quit from the race. His opponent is incumbent Claire McCaskill.
Sadly, several prominent conservatives, like Jim DeMint, Roy Blunt, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have stuck by Akin. It makes me wonder, how could a Romney-Ryan-Akin ticket possibly help women?
Lastly, Republican Joe Walsh (Ill.) inaccurately announced last Thursday that abortions are "absolutely" never necessary to save the lives of pregnant women.
"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," Walsh said. His opponent is Tammy Duckworth.
As these examples demonstrate, the Republican attacks on women are not isolated, one-of-a-kind events. They are national in scope. What's clear is this: These chilling attacks are meant to demonize women, regardless of age, ethnicity or geography. Is this really a winning strategy? If it is, who's next ... Barbie?
Women make up more than 50% of the electorate. When you consider how close the race for the White House is right now, the GOP clearly needs them to vote Nov. 6. Given all that's happened in 2012, I'm pretty sure women will. Only trouble is, I don't think they will vote Republican. Why should they?
First, one of the nation's leading sources for breast cancer research was dragged into the mud. Then, young girls selling cookies were viciously attacked. The GOP platform from this summer's presidential nominating convention makes it clear where the party stands on abortion. So do Reps. Akin and Walsh.
No, these attacks are not random kid games. To a certain breed of Republican, they are a matter of national pride or divine intervention. To the rest of us, they are politics gone wild.
Are there any women voters out there who need an extra binder?
A former congressional staff assistant, Freidenrich is the founder of First Strategies consulting in Laguna Beach, California. Follow him on Twitter @freidomreport
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.redstateprogressive.com/2012 ... lling.html
When 31 male Republican senators vote against the Violence Against Women Act, it becomes more difficult for them to claim that the war on women of which they are accused is made up by Democrats. This is a perfect example of a policy decision that fuels the narrative that the Republican Party has declared war on American women.
Is the Republican Party at war with American women? It certainly looks like it when one examines their policies. Here's how Jobsanger recently put it:
They oppose the right of a woman to control her own body. They oppose giving women equal pay in the workplace. They oppose free and easy access to contraception for women. They oppose healthcare reform (Obamacare) which outlaws higher insurance premiums for women. They want to defund Planned Parenthood (which provided need health care for poor women). And they want to slash social programs (where the majority of participants are single women with children).
Any one of these policy positions looks bad in isolation. When combined with each other, they look downright despicable. This is precisely the sort of narrative that could do real damage to the Republican Party in the 2012 elections.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Explain what? How abortions are directly linked to women via their reproductive organs? How legislatures that are in need to make laws about abortions are directly affecting the decision-making power of women in the entire country? How making a woman carry to term a baby that is the result of a rape is now considered law in New Mexico? What about how it was REPUBLICANS who REFUSED to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act?
By: Adalia Woodbury May. 11th, 2012
http://www.politicususa.com/the-war-on- ... ction.html
From Mitt Romney’s blasé declaration that he would just “get rid of” Planned Parenthood to Sally Kerns’ claim that women don’t work as hard as men there are volumes of examples that the War on Women does exist and it is being waged by the Republican Party.
Of course, if you watch Fox you might hear the denials before the projections. Republicans have denied that there is a war on women. Then they denied that reproductive rights were about women’s rights, but rather about religious freedom, according to Darell Issa and his all male panel . Their denials turned to embarrassment when it came to equal pay, as Jason Easley reported on May 1.
When the denials failed, Republicans turned to projection.
Here’s an example from TPM:
“On Tuesday, Romney surrogate Bay Buchanan, former treasurer to President Reagan, pushed back aggressively in a call with reporters, suggesting that the “real war on women” is reflective in President Obama’s handling of the economy. The impacts of his policies, she said, have been “frightening,” “unsettling” and “an outrage.”
It’s clear his policies have failed women miserably,” Buchanan said. “It has set women in the workplace back 20 years and we certainly can’t afford it, nor can the children of these women, afford to continue in this direction.”
Try as they might to deny they have a war on women, their words and policies betray them. Whether they identify themselves as Republicans or members of the Koch Brothers’ Tea Party; Conservatives have said the darndest things about women in the recent past.
If there was a conservative man, who epitomizes the attitude reflected in Republican it would be Reverend Jesse Peterson – proud Tea Party member and friend of Fox’s Shawn Hannity.
When TRS reported on the Reverend’s encounter with Kirsten Powers’ confrontation with Reverend Peterson during the Hannity Show, their report offered a little taste of the Reverend’s attitude toward women:
“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,” Peterson says. “We should’ve never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.”
“And this probably was the reason they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman,” he adds. “They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.”
That pales in comparison to Peterson’s other comments during a Sermon called: How Women are Building a Shameless Society, published on youtube on March 5, 2012.
Here are just a couple of little nuggets of Peterson’s rational thinking about women.
“My America is gone… and short of God intervening, I don’t see any turnaround… I realize that one of the primary reasons… that it is over for America is because women are taking over… Most cannot (make sound decisions).
One thing I know for sure, without a doubt, women cannot handle power. It’s not in them to handle power in the right way. They don’t know what to do with it.”
Maybe these comments are not meant to be about a war on women. Maybe, the good pastor is auditioning to be president of Rush Limbaugh’s Fan Club. We all know how classy Rush during his commentaries on women.
“Rush Limbaugh called her a slut (Sandra Flute) and she didn’t realize that she looked like a slut sitting there making that type of confession…
How did we get to a point where women think we should pay for them to have sex?
They want to force us to buy them birth control.
No one’s saying, ‘Where’s your shame, woman?’
Rush Limbaugh called her… “a whore and a slut” and I agree with him. And I heard this morning that he had apologized for it… Men would have stood with Rush on this. But the women, because they’re so emotional and they don’t know how to handle things, they don’t want to hear any truth about anything.”
Don’t you just feel the logical analysis and good old fashioned manners in that tirade?
Peterson’s comments sound like something right wing politicians would say if they thought they could get away with it. Republican politicians may not use the fire that comes with Peterson’s hateful rhetoric toward women. The Republican War on Women, or as Peterson puts it, men being tough, is reflected in statements and policy enacted in state and national legislatures. Unlike Peterson’s sermons, you can’t just turn to another video or read a book to make these policies go away.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson’s Dirty Thirty post gives an idea of the sheer volume of radical laws through which the Republican Party is waging its war on women’s reproductive rights. It doesn’t end with social policy. As Rmuse explains, the Republican War on women includes cuts to programs that benefit women, as well as the poor and anyone other that the GOP’s corporate sugar daddies.
The legislative war on women’s reproductive rights is radical with rhetoric to match.
Indiana State Rep. Eric Turner claimed that women lie about rape and incest in the name of getting an abortion.
“I just want you to think about this, in my view, giant loophole that could be created where someone who could — now I want to be careful, I don’t want to disparage in any way someone who has gone through the experience of a rape or incest — but someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.”
Chuck Winder, State Senator for Idaho shares Turner’s concerns. Nope, there’s nothing disparaging at all about suggesting that women lie about rape or incest to get an abortion.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett gushed about his state’s transvaginal ultra-sound bill, a.k.a. state sanctioned rape. But hey, you’ll be glad to know that this doesn’t mean a woman will be forced to look at the monitor directly in front of her while she is undergoing this humiliating process. As the Governor points out women can “just close their eyes”.
Something just tells me he and Reverend Peterson would get along just fine.
Further evidence of the Republican Party’s war on women is reflected in their opposition to women being paid the same as a man for doing the same job.
Here is Peter Hockstra on the Ledbetter Act:
Will, you know, will repealing it be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that’s really the thing that’s hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create — that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn’t be the law.
Republican opposition to the Violence Against Women Act amounts to a nod and a wink to domestic violence. If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, you just might get some comfort out of knowing that House Republicans have proposed their own version of the VAWA because they are so very concerned about violence against women, unless the woman is a Native American, an undocumented immigrant or a member of the LGBT community. According to Lamar Smith:
Fraud and abuse in the U.S. immigration system must be stopped,” Smith said. “Immigrants who perpetuate fraud in order to get visas or U.S. citizenship devalue U.S. immigration laws and hurt legitimate victims who are the intended beneficiaries of the generous programs we have established.
The Republican War on Women is real. No amount of spin or denial will change that. Their policies and rhetoric speak as loudly, if not louder than their denials.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I didn't know that the GOP not voting on the VAWA renewal means they are anti woman. I thought it meant they were FOR domestic violence. It gets hard for me to keep it straight.
Hell the ACLU didn't want it passed the first time around. They have since changed their tune, but does that mean in 1994 the ACLU was anti-women?
I am anti drug war, which of course means I am PRO Heroin use and drug overdoses. Got it, I am getting good at this denial thing.
They certainly don't have a pro specific women's rights agenda. That is clear. If anything, their actions tell me the GOP is anti-'getting votes in elections'. But that doesn't mean they are anti women
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan