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?
I agree with this. I think too much rhetoric on any issue, regardless of your position, cheapens that issue. Pro-choice and pro-life are sound bytes too. I am in favor of abortion being safe, legal and rare. I am not pro-choice.
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?
what about them opposing the violence against women act?
what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?
what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?
what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?
what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?
it is an ideology, and there is really no denying it.
what about people like phyllis schlafly who feel that women belong in the home popping out babies? she is influential in the gop.
what about them demonizing sandra fluke for simply asking for her birth control pills be covered under her student insurance policy?
i could go on, but i think you all get the point.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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?
what about them opposing the violence against women act?
what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?
what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?
what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?
what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?
it is an ideology, and there is really no denying it.
what about people like phyllis schlafly who feel that women belong in the home popping out babies? she is influential in the gop.
what about them demonizing sandra fluke for simply asking for her birth control pills be covered under her student insurance policy?
i could go on, but i think you all get the point.
Are people really not paying attention? (not you gimme) But, JimmyV, JonnyPistachio and Mike Pegg. Have you read this thread? Because the rhetoric about "not getting it" that the GOP are indeed anti-women is glaringly obvious and is in all of the articles that have been posted.
Again, I cannot stand most of these policies and the republicans motivations, but I just like to try to understand what they are doing, rather than just chalk it up to, “republicans hate women” War on women, and anti-woman. It really serves no purpose, and the dems were able to vilify them for it, costing them a heck of a lot of votes. I agree their policies suck, but I just prefer not to spin things..
what about them opposing the violence against women act?
From what I’ve read, republicans are in opposition to this act, because they disagree with additional provisions that would accommodate same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants. They say it also fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. Hey, I might not agree with them, but my point all along is that, shouldn’t we wonder what their motives are? Will they ever benefit from simply wanting to suppress women? I don’t want to believe that is their only goal. I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe, even though their other motives might be ridiculous, we must try to understand their purpose, not just assume they want to suppress women. What does that even achieve? (aside from losing half of the voting pool?)
what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?
Republicans and many business groups are opposed to the bill, in large part because it threatens penalties for different wage scales that might be legitimate and have nothing to do with the gender of the employee. So is their goal to really keep women underpaid? What does that even accomplish? I just can’t settle on an assumption that they just want them to make less, and do this for no other reason. Maybe I’m gullible, but shouldn’t we try to see if there are other reasons other than simply that they want to suppress women?
Some republicans say the Paycheck Fairness Act is another job killer-- It’s another reason for businesses not to want to hire, since each new hire—particularly of a woman—is another potential lawsuit. Businesses worrying about litigation or bureaucrats thumbing through their employment records have less time and money to dedicate to expanding. The Paycheck Fairness Act would be another anchor dragging down economic growth, which is exactly what our economy—and American women—don’t need.
what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?
Falls under the abortion argument. The republicans will do anything to go against it.. always have, always will… not a good argument for a “war on women.” Maybe a war on killing fetuses. I’m pro-choice by the way.
what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?
This is just a stupid republican move to show their support against abortion maybe? Trust me, I agree its stupid, but is this really a strategy to wage “war on women?”
what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?
Not a good argument… I think they simply have it out for Obama (there are a lot of things wrong with Obama care), in my opinion, you cant call opposing this a “war on women.”
A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.
State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.
"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.
Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.
The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.
Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.
In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.
State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.
"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.
Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.
The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.
Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.
In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.
Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......
Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am
Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.
Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.
“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
A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.
State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.
"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.
Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.
The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.
Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.
In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.
Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......
Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am
Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.
Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.
A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.
State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.
"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.
Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.
The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.
Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.
In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.
Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......
Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am
Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.
Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.
There were 2 armed guards at Columbine
In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.
The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.
After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.
Even though Deputy Gardner exchanged shots with the pair, he was over 60 yards away, and the two ducked into the school without being hit. Gardner called for backup on his radio before taking a position outside as more officers arrived. Gardner did not follow the pair, as he helped dozens of fleeing students coming from the building..
Later, Gardner again exchanged gunfire with the pair as they shot from windows into the parking lot. He then saved the lives of 15 students in the line of fire as they hid behind a car. One at a time, he escorted them from cover to safety. About 45 minutes after the shooting began, both Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the school library. All of their victims were killed within the first 15 minutes of the shooting.
The contention that Gardner's presence did not make a difference is not supported by the facts. He not only briefly stopped their assault on students, he made it possible for an untold number of students to escape the cafeteria and get to safety.
Gardner also never got a good chance to shoot either gunman, as they were never closer than 60 yards from him at any time. Officers who arrived on the scene also did not immediately enter the school, which allowed the gunmen to kill several more students. The Columbine incident changed how officers respond to school shootings; instead of waiting to assess the situation, officers now immediately enter the school.
“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
In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.
The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.
After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.
Even though Deputy Gardner exchanged shots with the pair, he was over 60 yards away, and the two ducked into the school without being hit. Gardner called for backup on his radio before taking a position outside as more officers arrived. Gardner did not follow the pair, as he helped dozens of fleeing students coming from the building..
Later, Gardner again exchanged gunfire with the pair as they shot from windows into the parking lot. He then saved the lives of 15 students in the line of fire as they hid behind a car. One at a time, he escorted them from cover to safety. About 45 minutes after the shooting began, both Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the school library. All of their victims were killed within the first 15 minutes of the shooting.
The contention that Gardner's presence did not make a difference is not supported by the facts. He not only briefly stopped their assault on students, he made it possible for an untold number of students to escape the cafeteria and get to safety.
Gardner also never got a good chance to shoot either gunman, as they were never closer than 60 yards from him at any time. Officers who arrived on the scene also did not immediately enter the school, which allowed the gunmen to kill several more students. The Columbine incident changed how officers respond to school shootings; instead of waiting to assess the situation, officers now immediately enter the school.
I did not know any of this. wow. makes one think........
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
probably because the war on women is a real thing. it is even in the republican party platform.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
probably because the war on women is a real thing. it is even in the republican party platform.
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
probably because the war on women is a real thing. it is even in the republican party platform.
People fall for this crap all the time (including me of course), but all this war on women thing is a political strategy by the Dems to keep power. And it has been very successful because people are into headlines and one liners and not the details of the situations.
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
probably because the war on women is a real thing. it is even in the republican party platform.
it is?
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
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
probably because the war on women is a real thing. it is even in the republican party platform.
People fall for this crap all the time (including me of course), but all this war on women thing is a political strategy by the Dems to keep power.
And it has been very successful because people are into headlines and one liners and not the details of the situations.
That can be said for everyone, everywhere. Especially anyone caught up in mainstream media.
Back to this thing against women that republicans have. Tell me, exactly what republicans plan to do with all the lives they save from abortions. Do they propose bills to help them flourish and be taken care of? No! That would be socialism! Because this all just a sham to control women's reproductive rights while continuing to claim that they're against government everything, while maintaining some kind of gov't intervention in nation-wide abortion issues. What a joke.
That can be said for everyone, everywhere. Especially anyone caught up in mainstream media.
Back to this thing against women that republicans have. Tell me, exactly what republicans plan to do with all the lives they save from abortions. Do they propose bills to help them flourish and be taken care of? No! That would be socialism! Because this all just a sham to control women's reproductive rights while continuing to claim that they're against government everything, while maintaining some kind of gov't intervention in nation-wide abortion issues. What a joke.
why would they need to take care of the kids? they view abortion as murder, they don't propose extra bills to take care of every American who has not been murdered, but murder is still illegal. There are protections for kids and programs for kids, if the new kids who would have been aborted qualify for those programs they will benefit from them like any other.
they aren't against a woman's right to choose because they don't like women, they are against abortion because they don't like the idea terminating pregnancies, the result of which is a dead human being (in their mind of course and not an argument I really support). That is how they rectify the idea of wanting government out of people's lives but still telling people they need to remain pregnant. Not sure why that distinction cannot be seen. It is not a sinister plan to control women at every turn.
But you may be right, the crusade to make abortion illegal may just be a sham to specifically control 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
Is the war on women, if it exists, a war on all women or a war just on women who disagree with the GOP platform? Is there a war on women who are "pro-life"? And if there is not, isn't that proof that we could come up with a more descriptive and accurate term than "war on women"?
Keep your facepalms to yourself. It is clear that you don;t have anything of value to say.
Seriously, the admins should have all been given a 2 week time out for adding the facepalm. Talk about instigating shit.
Instigating? Really? You're going to make a claim that the reason republicans have zero respect for the female voter a democrat strategy? That's a classic defensive statement without any backup.
And the admins added the faceplant emoticon to the group of emoticons to be used. If they don't like it being used, then they should get rid of it altogether.
That can be said for everyone, everywhere. Especially anyone caught up in mainstream media.
Back to this thing against women that republicans have. Tell me, exactly what republicans plan to do with all the lives they save from abortions. Do they propose bills to help them flourish and be taken care of? No! That would be socialism! Because this all just a sham to control women's reproductive rights while continuing to claim that they're against government everything, while maintaining some kind of gov't intervention in nation-wide abortion issues. What a joke.
why would they need to take care of the kids? they view abortion as murder, they don't propose extra bills to take care of every American who has not been murdered, but murder is still illegal. There are protections for kids and programs for kids, if the new kids who would have been aborted qualify for those programs they will benefit from them like any other.
they aren't against a woman's right to choose because they don't like women, they are against abortion because they don't like the idea terminating pregnancies, the result of which is a dead human being (in their mind of course and not an argument I really support). That is how they rectify the idea of wanting government out of people's lives but still telling people they need to remain pregnant. Not sure why that distinction cannot be seen. It is not a sinister plan to control women at every turn.
But you may be right, the crusade to make abortion illegal may just be a sham to specifically control women.
You can't propose a law to outlaw abortion if you're not going to take responsibility for its consequences. And that means hoards of unwanted babies and kids. The state systems are already overloaded with foster kids. They are hardly sufficiently in good care, these state programs are constantly looking for foster parents.
If politicians refuse to back birth control (and republicans do) then they need to take full responsibility of the problem that will result from such a law taking effect.
Do I really need to remind you people what's on the other pages of this thread AGAIN? The opposing the violence against women act? New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'? Defunding planned parenthood? Demonizing women who want contraception?
Keep your facepalms to yourself. It is clear that you don;t have anything of value to say.
Seriously, the admins should have all been given a 2 week time out for adding the facepalm. Talk about instigating shit.
Instigating? Really? You're going to make a claim that the reason republicans have zero respect for the female voter a democrat strategy? That's a classic defensive statement without any backup.
And the admins added the faceplant emoticon to the group of emoticons to be used. If they don't like it being used, then they should get rid of it altogether.
Clearly you failed reading comprehension. I said the admins should remove the facepalm thing. All they did was instigate negativity by adding it.
And about this ... "You're going to make a claim that the reason republicans have zero respect for the female voter a democrat strategy"
I don't believe the republicans have zero respect for female voters". I do believe that the Dem party has twisted a number of issues to make it appear so to the headline readers. And I believe it has proven to be a winning strategy for them and they will continue to manipulate people until those people decide to actually skip the headline and look at the details.
It's one thing to disagree with policy, opinion, etc. But to claim a war against women? Really? The dems are pulling the sex card, just as they always pull the race card. And the republicans are so stupid they keep letting them get away with it.
Jeanwah; you've done a good job holding your own here.
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
probably because the war on women is a real thing. it is even in the republican party platform.
it is?
yes it is. and the republicans on here need to own it and not deflect from it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Ya know Cincy, you can't spin the fact that Republicans don't like women using contraception (the defunding of Planned Parenthood). Something else that can't be spun is their resistance to renewing the Violence Against Women Act. Another thing is the mandating of New Mexico with their criminalizing abortions after a rape. How about Todd Akin and his ignorance? You can blame the other side for spinning as much as you'd like but the proof is there.
I'm not even a Dem but I know of Dems who are Pro-women's rights (Tester, Dean). Find me one Republican that defends women and their rights.
Updated 12:52 pm ET. Always one to speak -- or Tweet -- his mind, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Monday made a joke comparing Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a monkey, something one Republican congressman charged was “racist.”
“So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space - wasn't he just there last week?” McCain said in a tweet that also linked to a story about Iran launching a monkey into space.
Some didn’t take so kindly to the not-so-diplomatic quip, prompting McCain, 76, to respond: “Re: Iran space tweet - lighten up folks, can't everyone take a joke?”
“Maybe you should wisen up & not make racist jokes,” Amash tweeted.
Not everyone on the right agreed with Amash. Conservative John Podhoretz, for example, Tweeted this: "How dare McCain say something demeaning & disparaging abt the foremost anti-Semite on the planet." And this: "So...it's defend-the-Jew-hater-from-the-war-hero day."
It’s not the first time McCain’s made a joke about Iran that landed him in some hot water. During his run for president in 2007, McCain sang about bombing the country.
Asked by a GOP primary voter when the U.S. would send an “air-mail message to Tehran,” McCain said, “That old Beach Boys’ song, ‘Bomb Iran?’ Bomb, bomb, bomb—, anyway.”
McCain’s response then as now? It’s just a joke -- "get a life.”
“When veterans are together, veterans joke,” McCain said at the time. “And I was with veterans and we were joking. And if somebody can’t understand that, my answer is, ‘Please, get a life.’”
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
John McCain's time has come and gone. There are so many ways to joke about this fool wanting to go to space and he settles on comparing Iranians to monkeys?
You can't propose a law to outlaw abortion if you're not going to take responsibility for its consequences. And that means hoards of unwanted babies and kids. The state systems are already overloaded with foster kids. They are hardly sufficiently in good care, these state programs are constantly looking for foster parents.
If politicians refuse to back birth control (and republicans do) then they need to take full responsibility of the problem that will result from such a law taking effect.
Do I really need to remind you people what's on the other pages of this thread AGAIN? The opposing the violence against women act? New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'? Defunding planned parenthood? Demonizing women who want contraception?
I put it in earlier and never received an answer, so I will ask again, was the ACLU conducting a war on women for opposing VAWA back in '94?
I have already conceded that they do not have a specific platform policy that is pro women's individual rights, but that doesn't mean they have a platform agenda specifically against women does it?
do you reject the idea that opposing VAWA for specific reasons that were pointed out earlier by JP I believe, and opposing abortion can be done from a motivation outside of perpetrating "war on 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
You can't propose a law to outlaw abortion if you're not going to take responsibility for its consequences. And that means hoards of unwanted babies and kids. The state systems are already overloaded with foster kids. They are hardly sufficiently in good care, these state programs are constantly looking for foster parents.
If politicians refuse to back birth control (and republicans do) then they need to take full responsibility of the problem that will result from such a law taking effect.
Do I really need to remind you people what's on the other pages of this thread AGAIN? The opposing the violence against women act? New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'? Defunding planned parenthood? Demonizing women who want contraception?
I put it in earlier and never received an answer, so I will ask again, was the ACLU conducting a war on women for opposing VAWA back in '94?
I have already conceded that they do not have a specific platform policy that is pro women's individual rights, but that doesn't mean they have a platform agenda specifically against women does it?
do you reject the idea that opposing VAWA for specific reasons that were pointed out earlier by JP I believe, and opposing abortion can be done from a motivation outside of perpetrating "war on women"?
Doesn't the ACLU run pretty far afield from partisan politics? I don't see any connection between them and Reps or Dems.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
where is it in the platform? I couldn't find it. Do you have the specific verbiage they used, I am interested in seeing it as this is the first I have heard they actually are conducting a war on women.
if you oppose abortion being legal, or the vawa for specific reasons, none of which include being 'for' violence on women, or equal pay laws... does that mean you are against women? What if you are a woman and oppose those things? Are you conducting a war on yourself out of self loathing?
Can you be against abortion without being a part of a war on women?
Do house reps who do not think expansion of unemployment is a good idea hate the poor?
And people wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics.
If you are against my position, you HATE and are against the group it would benefit the most.
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
Comments
I agree with this. I think too much rhetoric on any issue, regardless of your position, cheapens that issue. Pro-choice and pro-life are sound bytes too. I am in favor of abortion being safe, legal and rare. I am not pro-choice.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?
what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?
what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?
what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?
it is an ideology, and there is really no denying it.
what about people like phyllis schlafly who feel that women belong in the home popping out babies? she is influential in the gop.
what about them demonizing sandra fluke for simply asking for her birth control pills be covered under her student insurance policy?
i could go on, but i think you all get the point.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Are people really not paying attention? (not you gimme) But, JimmyV, JonnyPistachio and Mike Pegg. Have you read this thread? Because the rhetoric about "not getting it" that the GOP are indeed anti-women is glaringly obvious and is in all of the articles that have been posted.
From what I’ve read, republicans are in opposition to this act, because they disagree with additional provisions that would accommodate same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants. They say it also fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. Hey, I might not agree with them, but my point all along is that, shouldn’t we wonder what their motives are? Will they ever benefit from simply wanting to suppress women? I don’t want to believe that is their only goal. I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe, even though their other motives might be ridiculous, we must try to understand their purpose, not just assume they want to suppress women. What does that even achieve? (aside from losing half of the voting pool?)
Republicans and many business groups are opposed to the bill, in large part because it threatens penalties for different wage scales that might be legitimate and have nothing to do with the gender of the employee. So is their goal to really keep women underpaid? What does that even accomplish? I just can’t settle on an assumption that they just want them to make less, and do this for no other reason. Maybe I’m gullible, but shouldn’t we try to see if there are other reasons other than simply that they want to suppress women?
Some republicans say the Paycheck Fairness Act is another job killer-- It’s another reason for businesses not to want to hire, since each new hire—particularly of a woman—is another potential lawsuit. Businesses worrying about litigation or bureaucrats thumbing through their employment records have less time and money to dedicate to expanding. The Paycheck Fairness Act would be another anchor dragging down economic growth, which is exactly what our economy—and American women—don’t need. Falls under the abortion argument. The republicans will do anything to go against it.. always have, always will… not a good argument for a “war on women.” Maybe a war on killing fetuses. I’m pro-choice by the way.
This is just a stupid republican move to show their support against abortion maybe? Trust me, I agree its stupid, but is this really a strategy to wage “war on women?”
Not a good argument… I think they simply have it out for Obama (there are a lot of things wrong with Obama care), in my opinion, you cant call opposing this a “war on women.”
Not a good argument… There are a lot of old people like that, dems and republicans. Are you saying that Phyllis Schlafly wants a “war on women?”
Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/3 ... 85217.html
A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.
State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.
"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.
Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.
The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.
Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.
In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01 ... ?mobile=nc
Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......
Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5444
Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.
Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.
There were 2 armed guards at Columbine
In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.
The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.
After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.
Even though Deputy Gardner exchanged shots with the pair, he was over 60 yards away, and the two ducked into the school without being hit. Gardner called for backup on his radio before taking a position outside as more officers arrived. Gardner did not follow the pair, as he helped dozens of fleeing students coming from the building..
Later, Gardner again exchanged gunfire with the pair as they shot from windows into the parking lot. He then saved the lives of 15 students in the line of fire as they hid behind a car. One at a time, he escorted them from cover to safety. About 45 minutes after the shooting began, both Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the school library. All of their victims were killed within the first 15 minutes of the shooting.
The contention that Gardner's presence did not make a difference is not supported by the facts. He not only briefly stopped their assault on students, he made it possible for an untold number of students to escape the cafeteria and get to safety.
Gardner also never got a good chance to shoot either gunman, as they were never closer than 60 yards from him at any time. Officers who arrived on the scene also did not immediately enter the school, which allowed the gunmen to kill several more students. The Columbine incident changed how officers respond to school shootings; instead of waiting to assess the situation, officers now immediately enter the school.
I did not know any of this. wow. makes one think........
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
And for myself, you've opened my eyes to "the War on women". I'm not so sure this is not an accurate sentiment. Is it being spun? Probably. Should it be? Probably.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Its even in their binders!!
People fall for this crap all the time (including me of course), but all this war on women thing is a political strategy by the Dems to keep power. And it has been very successful because people are into headlines and one liners and not the details of the situations.
Just report things as they are.
I think cincy's last line of his post is right on.
it is?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Spoken like a true republican... :fp:
That can be said for everyone, everywhere. Especially anyone caught up in mainstream media.
Back to this thing against women that republicans have. Tell me, exactly what republicans plan to do with all the lives they save from abortions. Do they propose bills to help them flourish and be taken care of? No! That would be socialism! Because this all just a sham to control women's reproductive rights while continuing to claim that they're against government everything, while maintaining some kind of gov't intervention in nation-wide abortion issues. What a joke.
why would they need to take care of the kids? they view abortion as murder, they don't propose extra bills to take care of every American who has not been murdered, but murder is still illegal. There are protections for kids and programs for kids, if the new kids who would have been aborted qualify for those programs they will benefit from them like any other.
they aren't against a woman's right to choose because they don't like women, they are against abortion because they don't like the idea terminating pregnancies, the result of which is a dead human being (in their mind of course and not an argument I really support). That is how they rectify the idea of wanting government out of people's lives but still telling people they need to remain pregnant. Not sure why that distinction cannot be seen. It is not a sinister plan to control women at every turn.
But you may be right, the crusade to make abortion illegal may just be a sham to specifically control women.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Keep your facepalms to yourself. It is clear that you don;t have anything of value to say.
Seriously, the admins should have all been given a 2 week time out for adding the facepalm. Talk about instigating shit.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Instigating? Really? You're going to make a claim that the reason republicans have zero respect for the female voter a democrat strategy? That's a classic defensive statement without any backup.
And the admins added the faceplant emoticon to the group of emoticons to be used. If they don't like it being used, then they should get rid of it altogether.
You can't propose a law to outlaw abortion if you're not going to take responsibility for its consequences. And that means hoards of unwanted babies and kids. The state systems are already overloaded with foster kids. They are hardly sufficiently in good care, these state programs are constantly looking for foster parents.
If politicians refuse to back birth control (and republicans do) then they need to take full responsibility of the problem that will result from such a law taking effect.
Do I really need to remind you people what's on the other pages of this thread AGAIN? The opposing the violence against women act? New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'? Defunding planned parenthood? Demonizing women who want contraception?
Clearly you failed reading comprehension. I said the admins should remove the facepalm thing. All they did was instigate negativity by adding it.
And about this ... "You're going to make a claim that the reason republicans have zero respect for the female voter a democrat strategy"
I don't believe the republicans have zero respect for female voters". I do believe that the Dem party has twisted a number of issues to make it appear so to the headline readers. And I believe it has proven to be a winning strategy for them and they will continue to manipulate people until those people decide to actually skip the headline and look at the details.
It's one thing to disagree with policy, opinion, etc. But to claim a war against women? Really? The dems are pulling the sex card, just as they always pull the race card. And the republicans are so stupid they keep letting them get away with it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm not even a Dem but I know of Dems who are Pro-women's rights (Tester, Dean). Find me one Republican that defends women and their rights.
McCain compares Iranian leader to monkey; draws GOP charge of racism
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... acism?lite
Updated 12:52 pm ET. Always one to speak -- or Tweet -- his mind, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Monday made a joke comparing Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a monkey, something one Republican congressman charged was “racist.”
“So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space - wasn't he just there last week?” McCain said in a tweet that also linked to a story about Iran launching a monkey into space.
Some didn’t take so kindly to the not-so-diplomatic quip, prompting McCain, 76, to respond: “Re: Iran space tweet - lighten up folks, can't everyone take a joke?”
Seeing that, Michigan congressman Rep. Justin Amash, 32, shot back.
“Maybe you should wisen up & not make racist jokes,” Amash tweeted.
Not everyone on the right agreed with Amash. Conservative John Podhoretz, for example, Tweeted this: "How dare McCain say something demeaning & disparaging abt the foremost anti-Semite on the planet." And this: "So...it's defend-the-Jew-hater-from-the-war-hero day."
It’s not the first time McCain’s made a joke about Iran that landed him in some hot water. During his run for president in 2007, McCain sang about bombing the country.
Asked by a GOP primary voter when the U.S. would send an “air-mail message to Tehran,” McCain said, “That old Beach Boys’ song, ‘Bomb Iran?’ Bomb, bomb, bomb—, anyway.”
McCain’s response then as now? It’s just a joke -- "get a life.”
“When veterans are together, veterans joke,” McCain said at the time. “And I was with veterans and we were joking. And if somebody can’t understand that, my answer is, ‘Please, get a life.’”
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I put it in earlier and never received an answer, so I will ask again, was the ACLU conducting a war on women for opposing VAWA back in '94?
I have already conceded that they do not have a specific platform policy that is pro women's individual rights, but that doesn't mean they have a platform agenda specifically against women does it?
do you reject the idea that opposing VAWA for specific reasons that were pointed out earlier by JP I believe, and opposing abortion can be done from a motivation outside of perpetrating "war on women"?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Doesn't the ACLU run pretty far afield from partisan politics? I don't see any connection between them and Reps or Dems.
where is it in the platform? I couldn't find it. Do you have the specific verbiage they used, I am interested in seeing it as this is the first I have heard they actually are conducting a war on women.
if you oppose abortion being legal, or the vawa for specific reasons, none of which include being 'for' violence on women, or equal pay laws... does that mean you are against women? What if you are a woman and oppose those things? Are you conducting a war on yourself out of self loathing?
Can you be against abortion without being a part of a war on women?
Do house reps who do not think expansion of unemployment is a good idea hate the poor?
And people wonder why there is so much vitriol in politics.
If you are against my position, you HATE and are against the group it would benefit the most.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan