-
GOP’s war on women
I’m not a big fan of the [i]”war on <war du jour>”[/i] news loop clique, but a couple of synchronicities have happened the past few days that make me realize the GOP is testing the water in a very House-Of-Cards-esque intrigue.
First Michelle Bachmann goes on media tour claiming that America isn’t ready for a female POTUS (based on [i]her[/i] experience as a candidate!). She frames it as a “guilt” issue: We apparently voted for Obama as a reflex response to our guilt for how we’ve treated black people in American history. But apparently we have nothing to feel guilty about regarding our treatment of women (!), and so America is really not all that ready or anxious to vote a female into POTUS.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michele-bachmann-female-president-103731.html]http://www.politico.com/s…-president-103731.html[/link]
[link=http://video.foxnews.com/v/3257267861001/us-not-ready-for-female-president/#sp=show-clips]http://video.foxnews.com/…esident/#sp=show-clips[/link]
But THEN, the Heritage Foundation is now trying to promote the luddite notion that women should throw in the towel and stay at home, raise the kids, wash clothes, and let the men bring home the bacon!
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-conservatives-to-women-lean-back/2014/03/31/e8b96c00-b91b-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?hpid=z2]http://www.washingtonpost…b08_story.html?hpid=z2[/link]
I’m not surprised that some lunatic GOP white man wants to pull the lackey puppet strings, a.k.a. Bachmann, like she was some kind of Peter Russo doing the dirty deed, but the out-of-the-closet followup by Heritage is very strange indeed. I wonder how many female votes the white GOP males expect to get if they continue to pursue this risky path. Do they not know about internet, video replay, TV commercials, and the fact that Obama won a 20% gender gap vote in 2012?
What on earth is going on in the GOP platform?
-
77 Replies
-
well Christie seems to think IMHO that he is still in the running but his recent lawyer’s report concerning the portrayal of Loretta Weinberg, Mayor Zimmer and Bridget Kelly makes u wonder how he would appeal to women voter’s
Quote from Lux
I’m not a big fan of the [i]”war on <war du jour>”[/i] news loop clique, but a couple of synchronicities have happened the past few days that make me realize the GOP is testing the water in a very House-Of-Cards-esque intrigue.
First Michelle Bachmann goes on media tour claiming that America isn’t ready for a female POTUS (based on [i]her[/i] experience as a candidate!). She frames it as a “guilt” issue: We apparently voted for Obama as a reflex response to our guilt for how we’ve treated black people in American history. But apparently we have nothing to feel guilty about regarding our treatment of women (!), and so America is really not all that ready or anxious to vote a female into POTUS.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/michele-bachmann-female-president-103731.html]http://www.politico.com/s…-president-103731.html[/link]
[link=http://video.foxnews.com/v/3257267861001/us-not-ready-for-female-president/#sp=show-clips]http://video.foxnews.com/…esident/#sp=show-clips[/link]But THEN, the Heritage Foundation is now trying to promote the luddite notion that women should throw in the towel and stay at home, raise the kids, wash clothes, and let the men bring home the bacon!
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-conservatives-to-women-lean-back/2014/03/31/e8b96c00-b91b-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?hpid=z2]http://www.washingtonpost…b08_story.html?hpid=z2[/link]
I’m not surprised that some lunatic GOP white man wants to pull the lackey puppet strings, a.k.a. Bachmann, like she was some kind of Peter Russo doing the dirty deed, but the out-of-the-closet followup by Heritage is very strange indeed. I wonder how many female votes the white GOP males expect to get if they continue to pursue this risky path. Do they not know about internet, video replay, TV commercials, and the fact that Obama won a 20% gender gap vote in 2012?
What on earth is going on in the GOP platform?
-
Funny. The GOP is taking a huge risk detonating the female-in-the-workplace (let alone politics) mine field.
I hope no male politician’s rhetoric ends up calling a female opponent “hysterical” about anything. That’ll be the kiss of death for him.
I wonder why the GOP chose to test [i]that[/i], of all things, as a wedge issue. I can see them trying to vilify the Democrat philosophy for running national defense or the economy, but to promote the broadband withdrawal of opportunity for females?! It’s as if the GOP is running a [i]”Let’s turn women into a bunch of takers!”[/i] campaign. Horrible strategy.
Can’t wait to see what else they come up with.
-
Remember the ladies
-
The latest GOP slur against women…
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-republicans-kiss-votes-from-women-goodbye/2014/04/08/6411f6c6-bf50-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…d0c1174052c_story.html[/link]
“Consider Paul Ryans budget, which the House is debating this week. Among those functions of government the Republican congressman from Wisconsin would cut, many disproportionately benefit women, according to the National Womens Law Center.
“For example, Medicaid (about 70 percent of adult recipients are women), food stamps (63 percent of adult recipients are women) and Pell grants (62 percent) would be cut. Then there are programs in categories that would face cuts Ryan hasnt specified: Supplemental Security Income (two-thirds of the poor and elderly recipients are women), welfare (85 percent of adult recipients are women), housing vouchers (82 percent of recipient households headed by women), child-care assistance (75 percent female-headed households) and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.
“By contrast, government payments that go disproportionately to men active-duty military and veterans are relatively untouched. The highest earners, who are disproportionately male, benefit most under Ryans tax proposal, while those receiving low-income tax credits, often families headed by women, would fare poorly.”
-
I don’t get the equivalence here. A bunch of social programs being cut and percentages of women. Then payments going to active duty or vets. Aren’t active duty earning people earning a payment, and vets are probably getting whatever they’re entitled to?
-
The “equivalence” is that the GOP wants to cut programs where the preponderance of recipients are needy females while leaving untouched (or even expanding) those programs where the preponderance of recipients are males who are either in the military or are rich.
-
Quote from Lux
The “equivalence” is that the GOP wants to cut programs where the preponderance of recipients are needy females while leaving untouched (or even expanding) those programs where the preponderance of recipients are males who are either in the military or are rich.
this does not compute. The programs it refers to for women that are being cut are not in the same ballpark as paying active duty military person. Not even the same sport. Males in the military not equal to women on welfare.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Males in the military not equal to women on welfare.
Hah, says you. I disagree. What’s the point of funding a military if they’re defending a third world society?
If the American Way of Life is to starve the needy and deprive them of healthcare and shelter, then it’s not worth defending with a well-funded military.We’ll vote for different people.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Males in the military not equal to women on welfare.
Hah, says you. I disagree. What’s the point of funding a military if they’re defending a third world society?
If the American Way of Life is to starve the needy and deprive them of healthcare and shelter, then it’s not worth defending with a well-funded military.
We’ll vote for different people.
The military is a paying job or career for some of the enlisted. You are providing work for payment. Welfare is not the same. I don’t know what you’re saying they’re defending. Even if you don’t agree with what the military is doing they’re still doing a job. I don’t think the American Way of Life is about depriving people. I’d agree the military is probably over funded and is supremely wasteful.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Lux
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Males in the military not equal to women on welfare.
Hah, says you. I disagree. What’s the point of funding a military if they’re defending a third world society?
If the American Way of Life is to starve the needy and deprive them of healthcare and shelter, then it’s not worth defending with a well-funded military.
We’ll vote for different people.
The military is a paying job or career for some of the enlisted. You are providing work for payment. Welfare is not the same. I don’t know what you’re saying they’re defending. Even if you don’t agree with what the military is doing they’re still doing a job. I don’t think the American Way of Life is about depriving people. I’d agree the military is probably over funded and is supremely wasteful.
You act as through it is impossible to apply any economic cutback to the military. You can’t possibly think that’s true. The feds can reduce military pay, furloughs, benefits, family support, there are billions of dollars that Ryan can save in his budget if he hacked a body part off the military. I think you’re not seeing the main point here.
-
Quote from Lux
You act as through it is impossible to apply any economic cutback to the military. You can’t possibly think that’s true. The feds can reduce military pay, furloughs, benefits, family support, there are billions of dollars that Ryan can save in his budget if he hacked a body part off the military. I think you’re not seeing the main point here.
I don’t think that accurate. If you look I wrote ” I’d agree the military is probably over funded and is supremely wasteful.” Cutting military spending sure, cutting pay to active duty no. Not buying tanks when the pentagon says they don’t need them, yes, cut away. -
Next up in the GOP’s batting roster: Phyllis Schlafly…
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/04/15/phyllis-schlaflys-funny-logic-on-the-wage-gap-and-the-husband-gap/]http://www.washingtonpost…p-and-the-husband-gap/[/link]
[i]Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated, she wrote in the Christian Post. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate. Why? Well, women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men dont have the same preference for a higher-earning mate. [/i]
[i] “If women make less money than men thats wonderful news. That means more young men to choose from! The best thing of all is for a woman to make no money at all, because then her pool of eligible fellows includes EVERY man! Forget earning potential. Maximize your husband-earning potential!” [/i]
-
I’d suggest the ‘war on women’ is coming more from the white house these days.. they seem to be scapegoating so many women with obama’s failed projects.. Susan Rice. Kathleen Sebelius.. Hillary Clinton.. So where is it the ‘war on women’ is coming from?
-
The women you listed were captains of their ship who were big enough to accept accountability regardless of where the true operational fault occurred. That’s a rather far cry from Bachmann decreeing that the USA is not ready for a female president, or that women should not earn the same pay as men or, indeed should not have a paying job at all so that they could attract a man!
The fact that they were put into such positions of responsibility speaks volumes about the WH’s respect and acknowledgement of women. If Brownie, Greenspan, or Rummy were women they would have resigned in an open display of accountability for their catastrophic failures.
Have all the vocal right wingers in these discussions gone mad? Or are they just resorting to pure illogical jibberish because they’re out of any productive ideas?
-
Quote from Lux
The women you listed were captains of their ship who were big enough to accept accountability regardless of where the true operational fault occurred. That’s a rather far cry from Bachmann decreeing that the USA is not ready for a female president, or that women should not earn the same pay as men or, indeed should not have a paying job at all so that they could attract a man!
The fact that they were put into such positions of responsibility speaks volumes about the WH’s respect and acknowledgement of women. If Brownie, Greenspan, or Rummy were women they would have resigned in an open display of accountability for their catastrophic failures.
Have all the vocal right wingers in these discussions gone mad? Or are they just resorting to pure illogical jibberish because they’re out of any productive ideas?
It is pathetic that the obummer political machine must resort to lies such as “war on women”, “Conservatives are racists”, et.al. It wouldn’t be as bad if they didn’t send out those ugly demo-lemming women such as debbie wassermann to spread the bovine excrement. Now she is one ugly demo-crite. But in comparison to other lib women she is a godess. -
You certainly deserve credit for one thing, Pointless: you truly are the poster child of conservative ignorance.
Keep up the good work!
-
Quote from Lux
You certainly deserve credit for one thing, Pointless: you truly are the poster child of conservative ignorance.
Keep up the good work!
Why thank you soapy !!! Coming from an old libinski like yourself, I consider it a compliment. Read the following and see why I am a Conservative:
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg]
Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. [/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg]He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book [/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg]Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote her term paper on Sol Alinsky’s work and President Obama also studied him.[/link]
[b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg]How To Create a Social State[/link][/b]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg]by Saul Alinsky[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]There are 8 levels of control[/b] that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]1) Healthcare[/b] – Control healthcare and you control the people [/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]2)[/b] [b]Poverty[/b] – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]3) Debt[/b] – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]4)[/b] [b]Gun Control[/b] – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]5)[/b] [b]Welfare[/b] – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]6)[/b] [b]Education[/b] – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]7) Religion -[/b] Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saul_Alinsky.jpg][b]8)[/b] [b]Class Warfare[/b] – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.[/link]
Now soapy, isn’t that the obummer’s plan?
-
Too bad your information is not true, Pointman. It is not something Alinsky said or wrote anytime or anywhere.
It is a falsehood, as in a lie perpetrated by the Right for the easily fooled & ignorant. It is the fanciful propaganda equivalent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. -
Here is Alinsky.
[link=http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1711776-rules-for-radicals-a-pragmatic-primer-for-realistic-radicals]http://www.goodreads.com/…for-realistic-radicals[/link]
A word about my personal philosophy. It is anchored in optimism. It must be, for optimism brings with it hope, a future with a purpose, and therefore, a will to fight for a better world. Without this optimism, there is no reason to carry on.”
The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt whether we are right, while those who believe with certainty that they possess the right are dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice.
[i]If people don’t think they have the power to solve their problems, they won’t even think about how to solve them. [/i]
[i]
[/i]
Do one of three things.One,go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves.Two,go psycho and start bombing-but this will only swing people to the right.Three,learn a lesson.Go home,organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegatepos[i] [link=http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/59314.Saul_D_Alinsky]Saul D. Alinsky[/link], [i][link=http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1711776]Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals[/link][/i][/i]
[i][i] [/i] [/i]
[i]And[/i]
Alinsky did not join political parties. When asked during an interview whether he ever considered becoming a [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA]Communist party[/link] member, he replied:
[blockquote]Not at any time. I’ve never joined any organizationnot even the ones I’ve organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism]Marxism[/link]. One of the most important things in life is what Judge [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand]Learned Hand[/link] described as ‘that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.’ If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition]Inquisition[/link]on down to [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge]Communist purges[/link] and [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust]Nazi genocide[/link].
[/blockquote]
And:
in his interview with [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy]Playboy[/link][/i]:[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky#cite_note-Playboy-4][4][/link][/sup]
ALINSKY: … if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.PLAYBOY: Why?ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I’ve been with the have-nots. Over here, if you’re a have-not, you’re short of dough. If you’re a have-not in hell, you’re short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I’ll start organizing the have-nots over there.PLAYBOY: Why them?ALINSKY: They’re my kind of people.
-
[link=http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp]http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp[/link]
11.0 on the “Jerky” scale.
Pointless, you believe everything anti-liberal that you read on the web and in your chain mail. It obviously does not matter one bit whether any of it is actually true. It’s not the poor or the liberals who are going to be the downfall of this county. It’s ignant bigots like YOU.
-
Quote from Lux
[link=http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp]http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp[/link]
11.0 on the “Jerky” scale.
Pointless, you believe everything anti-liberal that you read on the web and in your chain mail. It obviously does not matter one bit whether any of it is actually true. It’s not the poor or the liberals who are going to be the downfall of this county. It’s ignant bigots like YOU.
Soapy, you can’t deny that 5 of the 8 points have not already been enacted by the obummer. -
Pointman,
You can’t deny the fact that your information is never factual. -
Quote from Frumious
Pointman,
You can’t deny the fact that your information is never factual.
5 out of 8 already in place, 5 out of 8. Deny that bandersnatch!! -
OK, I deny it.
Not only “can” I deny your “5 out of 8” comment, I most definitely DO deny it (by the way, which five? And wha hoppen to the other three?!). The fact is, I simply don’t find your comments worthy of analytical thought.
-
Quote from Lux
OK, I deny it.
Not only “can” I deny your “5 out of 8” comment, I most definitely DO deny it (by the way, which five? And wha hoppen to the other three?!). The fact is, I simply don’t find your comments worthy of analytical thought.
I know you are rather dense, but DUH!!! Which 5? DUH!!! Analytical thought?? Analytical thought?? You can’t even define it rather than handle it(analytical thought).
-
-
-
-
-
Yes Dan you are correct, however that does not support Luxie’s desire/attempt to support the premise of a GOP war on women—its all about spin!
OR possibly she cannot grasp the concept of being paid for work/service vs government assistance/entitlement for some “need”.
-Peace Out-
Why is it that Obama’s White House pays women 11% less than men?
Hypocrites!-
Consistent hypocrites. At least they are consistent at something.
-
Well at least 11 cents is an improvement over the national average of a 23 cent discrepancy between genders. Besides, where does it state that all of the women working at the White House have jobs that are all at an equal level of burden and responsibility with men? Is it not permissible for there too be a measly 11% split in average job level, or do we now need to scrutinize to an exactly equal level? So we also need to ensure that blacks and asians make exactly the same pay as whites females and males in the White House, regardless of job level?
I mean, come on guys, at some point you need to at least [i]salt[/i] your spin soup with reality, no?!
-
Quote from aldadoc
Why is it that Obama’s White House pays women 11% less than men?
Hypocrites!As usual, you spout off with no real understanding of what you’re spouting off about. In the Obama White House, men and women doing the same jobs are paid equally. It’s public information. Go look it up.
-
I also notice that McAllister campaigned in support of “traditional marriage”:
[link=http://www.mcallisterforcongress.com/issues]http://www.mcallisterforcongress.com/issues[/link]
That takes balls and indeed does throw a wrench into how seriously we should treat any expressed love for “traditional definition” and “family values”.
And the man has the nerve to ask the public to put this behind us so that it doesn’t adversely affect his kids! Like there’s no chance they’ll grow up resenting their father for using them as a human shield.
-
Quote from Back in the Saddle
Quote from aldadoc
Why is it that Obama’s White House pays women 11% less than men?
Hypocrites!As usual, you spout off with no real understanding of what you’re spouting off about. In the Obama White House, men and women doing the same jobs are paid equally. It’s public information. Go look it up.
Then why does the WH not apply the same math to the BLS numbers ? Once you do, the pay gap between men and women doing the same job with the same hours and identical seniority drops to 3-4%. Also there is only a very small wage gap for unmarried women. The majority of the pay gap is based on the choice of women to get married and have children. Obama has earned 2 pinocchios from his own house-paper regarding the lie he keeps spreading about the ’23 Cent pay gap’.-
I’d like to see that as well fw. I had a good chance to drive for about 4 hours today and had a chance to listen to a NPR piece about 3 times and they brought to a head that some of the facts stated in the pay gap are not comparing Apples to Apples. The biggest gap was hors worked and pay per hours. A couple of facts that NPR stated.
1. More women are in college then men. However, they pick careers that have a lower value pay scale then men.
2. Single women in the same career as a single man make the same pay scale with no variance starting off. Why? Big companies don’t want the hassle of having to go through discrimination based on sex.
3. While married women in the work force do take maturnity leave and take the burden of taking the day off when it relates to their childrens health needs. Men do not as much. A married working career woman taking the blunt of raising her children, does not work as many hours as a career focused Married man with Children. Again, NPR statements on the Radio.
4. There is a stigma in our current work society that a man just cannot take a male maturnity leave to help raise their children. Yet, it is a given for Women and in the larger work force, almost pushed upon them to do so.
Personally, while working in my career and being a manager in a hosptial, I have never seen a pay difference between technologists based on their sex. Rather, I have seen staff leave and return, and at times, be reinstated to their old pay with compensation for their absence.
I’d would have loved to take 3 months off as a father and not worry of the reprocussions of doing that. But alas… I could not because… I’m a man. How discriminating.
-
Woman are probably all going to vote republican now because of you guys pointing out all this blatant hypocrisy
-
Quote from CudaRad
2. Single women in the same career as a single man make the same pay scale with no variance starting off. Why? Big companies don’t want the hassle of having to go through discrimination based on sex.
Pay discrimination is illegal, has been for a long time. The only thing the trial-lawyers party wants to change is that the companies are guilty until proven innocent.
3. While married women in the work force do take maturnity leave and take the burden of taking the day off when it relates to their childrens health needs. Men do not as much. A married working career woman taking the blunt of raising her children, does not work as many hours as a career focused Married man with Children. Again, NPR statements on the Radio.
Nobody works harder than a married woman with kids and a full-time job. They may not be able to put in as many hours in their career as similarly qualified men and miss out on opportunities for advancement based on that. Unmarried women who focus solely on their career have a negligible pay-gap with their male counterpart, probably related to the choices of career fields women make vs. men.
Personally, while working in my career and being a manager in a hosptial, I have never seen a pay difference between technologists based on their sex. Rather, I have seen staff leave and return, and at times, be reinstated to their old pay with compensation for their absence.
Facts dont matter in this discussion. -
You’re the one that claimed something was true when Snopes clearly verified it was a hoax.
So you’ve got nerve talking about the importance of facts in this discussion.
-
Quote from Lux
You’re the one that claimed something was true when Snopes clearly verified it was a hoax.
So you’ve got nerve talking about the importance of facts in this discussion.
Not even sure what you are blathering on about today. -
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
You’re the one that claimed something was true when Snopes clearly verified it was a hoax.
So you’ve got nerve talking about the importance of facts in this discussion.Not even sure what you are blathering on about today.
Well let me fill you in…
First, you lied by claiming Ailinsky said something he didn’t really say at all.
Then, you tried to backpedal that only 5 out of the 8 things he allegedly said actually apply to Obama.
Then, when I asked which 5 do you mean and what happened to the other 3 thing that you claimed were also true, you said: “Facts dont matter in this discussion”So it’s pretty funny that when I simply point out the irony that your “facts don’t matter” statement applies to what YOU said, you conveniently lose track of the discussion with: “Not even sure what you are blathering on about today”
Keep up, fw. This isn’t that hard.
-
Quote from Lux
Well let me fill you in…
First, you lied by claiming Ailinsky said something he didn’t really say at all.
Alinsky who ??
-
Gee, how could I possibly have mistaken you for Pointless?!
Guess I need another cup of speed this morning.Hey, Pointless. I guess it’s ok to lie about Alinsky after all, because fw says facts don’t matter here.
-
Quote from Lux
Gee, how could I possibly have mistaken you for Pointless?!
Guess I need another cup of speed this morning.Hey, Pointless. I guess it’s ok to lie about Alinsky after all, because fw says facts don’t matter here.
Another example of soapy libifusion. You are one confused demolemming. -
Everyone makes mistakes.
Some of us are big enough to admit when we’ve done it.
And then there are those of us who are merely Pointless. -
Alinsky is the whacko extremist argument that has been flapped out there by militant wing nuts
They are birther types
No one listens to them except of course the point heads
This type of argument, the birther argument and the war on women makes democrats look more mainstream than reoublicans
Stick to obamacare at least it’s an argument you can win and don’t look so far out there
It’s funny when the wing nuts bring up Alimsky or when they attempt to defend their policies pertaining to woman the democrats win withouth even opening their mouth
-
Presumably they believe that even their argument with Obamacare has gotten so weak which is why they need to probe these other issues. It’s only after Obamacare started to show clear signs of success that we notice a significant increase in “war on women” stories surfacing, starting with Bachmann’s ridiculous comment about Americans not being ready for a female president yet based on her own “experience”, as if Bachmann’s candidacy was a legit probe to test that water.
-
My opinion
The democrats are going to start fighting back on the obamacare
Obamacare has been a winner for republicans because the democrats were afraid to defend it
Reminds me of the Iraq war debate. Dems curled into a ball and let republicans ram their misinformation down people’s throats and beat the dems over the head with it……then the reality of the situation gave the dems a spine and they beat the republicans over the head with it
I think for 2014 obamacare is a slight plus for republicans but in 2016 it may be just the opposite
The tide is turning on it
-
I cannot imagine any scenario where America would vote against ACA at this point. Even if ACA far exceeds CBO extrapolation for cost, Americans will never vote it down. I predict that there will be many studies showing that a healthier America is a far more productive America with a solid, sustainable economy and America will make whatever provisions it needs to in order to keep ACA alive and well. There will be no repeal, just adjustments, and most of those adjustments will be made by Republicans in order to save face and get their name all over it, which is all that they intended to do if they ever had gotten repeal in the first place, i.e., if repeal had succeeded they would simply have re-introduced the exact same plan with different terminology and called it their own “version”.
As more Republican politicians see their extended families suffering from health problems, they will come to acquiesce what they’ve always known to be true behind closed doors: everyone does indeed deserve true over-the-counter proactive healthcare coverage and not just reactive catastrophic/ER “coverage”. They will come to realize what Democrats have known since the beginning: that our society must be judged NOT by how well it takes care of its dead, but by how well it takes care of its LIVING.
-
Quote from Lux
I cannot imagine any scenario where America would vote against ACA at this point. Even if ACA far exceeds CBO extrapolation for cost, Americans will never vote it down. I predict that there will be many studies showing that a healthier America is a far more productive America with a solid, sustainable economy and America will make whatever provisions it needs to in order to keep ACA alive and well. There will be no repeal, just adjustments, and most of those adjustments will be made by Republicans in order to save face and get their name all over it, which is all that they intended to do if they ever had gotten repeal in the first place, i.e., if repeal had succeeded they would simply have re-introduced the exact same plan with different terminology and called it their own “version”.
As more Republican politicians see their extended families suffering from health problems, they will come to acquiesce what they’ve always known to be true behind closed doors: everyone does indeed deserve true over-the-counter proactive healthcare coverage and not just reactive catastrophic/ER “coverage”. They will come to realize what Democrats have known since the beginning: that our society must be judged NOT by how well it takes care of its dead, but by how well it takes care of its LIVING.
Taken right out of the socialist playbook. More cut and paste from the soapster. -
[b]”The tide is turning on it”[/b]
Ain’t gonna’ be no tide for you demo-lemmings in November – y’all will be hit by a moral Republican sunami. Hope you can swim better than you vote.
[b]
[/b] -
Quote from Point Man
[b]”The tide is turning on it”[/b]
Ain’t gonna’ be no tide for you demo-lemmings in November – y’all will be hit by a moral Republican sunami. Hope you can swim better than you vote.
[b]
[/b]
ACA will be a net negative in November. No way around that. Good chance of costing democrats the Senate. The [i]politics[/i] aren’t going to change that much over the next 5 months.
But … come January 2017, the next potential opportunity for the ACA to be actually considered for repeal, there will be probably be tens of millions of people with coverage through the exchanges, tens of millions on expanded medicaid, and tens of millions enjoying portable health insurance with subsidies. [i]That[/i] program is simply not going to be repealed. It might limp along at low popularity since still the majority of people will still be getting employer sponsored coverage and won’t personally be seeing the benefits, but it will stay intact as an entitlement. -
Pointless, no matter how you look at the facts, you’re wrong. Republicans might win a battle here and there over the next few elections, but in the long haul, you cannot stop the changing demographics. The Republican Party is pushing itself farther back into its pre-1787 WASP male cave.
-
Quote from dergon
ACA will be a net negative in November. No way around that. Good chance of costing democrats the Senate. The [i]politics[/i] aren’t going to change that much over the next 5 months.
Maybe.
Or maybe not. Depends who does or does not turn out. And opinion about the ACA is changing favorably.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model]http://www.nytimes.com/ne…hics/2014/senate-model[/link]
-
The only thing Republicans have in 2014 is the map advantage…that is the senate seats up for grabs are in places where Republicans can compete. Over the next 6 months it will be harder and harder for them to find their faux horror stories AND they will have to defend stripping health care from PPACA recipients. They may have enough of a 2014 demographic edge based on location and turn out; but that disappears in 2016 which puts them in a bind even if they do re-take the Senate
-
[link=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-lawmaker-women-paid-less-men-motivated]http://talkingpointsmemo….aid-less-men-motivated[/link]
A
Republican lawmaker from New Hampshire on Wednesday said that women are paid less than men because they don’t work as hard or as often, insisting throughout his speech that his argument was legitimate, despite objections from his fellow lawmakers.
“Men, by and large, make more because of some of the things they do,” state Rep. Will Infantine (R) said during a speech on a paycheck fairness bill. “Their jobs are, by and large, riskier. They dont mind working nights and weekends. They dont mind working overtime or outdoors.”Infantine’s colleagues’ protested almost immediately, to which he responded that he pulled all of his information from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
“This is not me,” he said before continuing to explain why women make less.
“Men work on average more than six hours a week longer than women do,” he said, adding that even among business owners, women earn less. “Women make half of what men do because of flexibility of work, men are more motivated by money than women are.”
At the end of his speech, Infantine defended himself one last time.
“Guys, I’m not making this stuff up,” he said. “My apologies if I have some people upset.”
This is the kind of stuff dems need to hold off 2014. 🙂 -
Lazy women. Always looking to mooch off the rich hard-working guys. Always wanting it their way. The BLS says so.
All these people’s mothers and wives and sisters must have set a poor example for them. What else can one conclude? -
[link=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/25/sc-gop-candidate-women-cause-95-percent-of-divorces-by-loving-their-kids-too-much/#.U1q6n0QMLFA.facebook]http://www.rawstory.com/r…#.U1q6n0QMLFA.facebook[/link]
Keep it up GOP!
One of the six Republican primary challengers to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) once blamed women for causing most divorces even when their husbands are unfaithful.
I find that in about 95 percent of broken marriages, though the husbands the one that ran out on his wife, the wife loves her children more than she does her husband, Bowers said. That is an abominable idolatry.
He then directed his comments, his voice rising, to the women in his congregation, which he led from 2000 to 2012.
Do you hear me, ladies? Bowers said. It is an abominable idolatry to love your children more than you love your husband, and it will ruin your marriage. And yet you blame it on him because he ran off with some other woman! He did run off with some other woman, and you packed his bags. All of his emotional bags, you packed for him. Is that true in every case? No, but its true in the vast preponderance of them.
He described abominable idolatry as unlawful worship as he continued lecturing women.
You just ran him off, Bowers said. You paid more attention to your children than you did to him. Oh, he doesnt need me? He needs you more than they do. He chose you, they didnt. An abominable idolatry. -
Well, he was a pastor for more than a decade, so he should know, right? Stand by your man, ladies, regardless of how much of a philandering, wife-beating, drunken gigolo he is. Your excessive love for your children is going to send you straight to the Fiery Furnace.
Gee, I wonder why they removed his podcast sermon just before the primary.
I wouldn’t be surprised in the RNC paid him to run against Lindsey Graham just to make Graham look good.
Anyway, he’ll lose of course, but it’s fun to see him get the airplay.
-
[b]”Well, he was a pastor for more than a decade, so he should know, right? Stand by your man, ladies, regardless of how much of a philandering, wife-beating, drunken gigolo he is. Your excessive love for your children is going to send you straight to the Fiery Furnace.” [/b]
Well…..Hillary did!!!
[b]
[/b] -
Yeah, one moral transgression makes Bill a philandering, wife-beating, drunken gigolo.
Confirms your approach to “facts”.
-
“Yeah, one moral transgression makes Bill a philandering, wife-beating, drunken gigolo”.
Wow. Do you really believe in your heart that Bill has made but one
moral transgression? That might be the most laughable thing I seen
posted here. I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to be so naive….guess I was wrong. BTW, his transgressions are irrelevant to me. Just lumps him in with probably 75% of men. -
Ok, so according to you, 75% of all men are “philandering, wife-beating, drunken gigolos”. And yet I am the now who’s naive, huh?
God help us, Orwell was right.
-
Philandering yes. Wife beating, drunken gigolos no. Just my opinion based on observations, so don’t ask me to produce a double blind
study on the matter. But to point — you really think Bill made just
one moral transgression? -
“Presumed innocence” is the American way.
And I know, based on the Zimmerman/Martin discussion, that most conservatives in this forum feel the same way. -
Quote from Lux
Yeah, one moral transgression makes Bill a philandering, wife-beating, drunken gigolo.
Confirms your approach to “facts”.
Soapy, if ol’ Are-kansas billy had been a wide receiver, man could he have really run a great “fly” pattern. Just the facts man!!! -
Is this meant to somehow say that Bill’s seriel infidelity is a political counterweight to GOP commentary on womens’ right, equal pay, abortion access, etc?
If so …. the weight is going to fall well short.
Sure… Bill Clinton was (and probably still is) unfaithful. But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world.
To put forward that Bill’s 20+ year old indiscretions somehow make an equivalency to ongoing, repetitive, and consistent misogynistic attitude in public statements in 2014 by republican politicians is wishful thinking at best, blissful ignorance of political reality more likely. -
Quote from dergon
Is this meant to somehow say that Bill’s seriel infidelity is a political counterweight to GOP commentary on womens’ right, equal pay, abortion access, etc?
If so …. the weight is going to fall well short.
Sure… Bill Clinton was (and probably still is) unfaithful. But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world.
To put forward that Bill’s 20+ year old indiscretions somehow make an equivalency to ongoing, repetitive, and consistent misogynistic attitude in public statements in 2014 by republican politicians is wishful thinking at best, blissful ignorance of political reality more likely.
Impressive dergon, but lemming-like. “[b]But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world[/b].” Popular to the extreme left, 24 hour a day, lib loving media and the good- for- nothing, welfare subsiding demo-crite base. Billy is goat-like in his quest to satisfy his unquenchable taste for female companionship. Admit it, libs are false, devious and transparent. -
Quote from Point Man
Quote from dergon
Is this meant to somehow say that Bill’s seriel infidelity is a political counterweight to GOP commentary on womens’ right, equal pay, abortion access, etc?
If so …. the weight is going to fall well short.
Sure… Bill Clinton was (and probably still is) unfaithful. But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world.
To put forward that Bill’s 20+ year old indiscretions somehow make an equivalency to ongoing, repetitive, and consistent misogynistic attitude in public statements in 2014 by republican politicians is wishful thinking at best, blissful ignorance of political reality more likely.
Impressive dergon, but lemming-like. “[b]But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world[/b].” Popular to the extreme left, 24 hour a day, lib loving media and the good- for- nothing, welfare subsiding demo-crite base. Billy is goat-like in his quest to satisfy his unquenchable taste for female companionship. Admit it, libs are false, devious and transparent.
OK – I should have used different qualifiers.
Here is the rephrased statement:
Bill Clinton is the most popular living US politician.
(( His favorables sit at 66% — putting him at the top position))
So I guess not qualifying that the politician is [i]alive[/i] and in the US was incorrect.
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from Point Man
Quote from dergon
Is this meant to somehow say that Bill’s seriel infidelity is a political counterweight to GOP commentary on womens’ right, equal pay, abortion access, etc?
If so …. the weight is going to fall well short.
Sure… Bill Clinton was (and probably still is) unfaithful. But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world.
To put forward that Bill’s 20+ year old indiscretions somehow make an equivalency to ongoing, repetitive, and consistent misogynistic attitude in public statements in 2014 by republican politicians is wishful thinking at best, blissful ignorance of political reality more likely.
Impressive dergon, but lemming-like. “[b]But he is also the most popular politician in the Western world[/b].” Popular to the extreme left, 24 hour a day, lib loving media and the good- for- nothing, welfare subsiding demo-crite base. Billy is goat-like in his quest to satisfy his unquenchable taste for female companionship. Admit it, libs are false, devious and transparent.
OK – I should have used different qualifiers.
Here is the rephrased statement:
Bill Clinton is the most popular living US politician.
(( His favorables sit at 66% — putting him at the top position))
So I guess not qualifying that the politician is [i]alive[/i] and in the US was incorrect.
Thank you, dergon!! He is popular and I admit I do like him. -
Quote from dergon
OK – I should have used different qualifiers.
Here is the rephrased statement:
Bill Clinton is the most popular living US politician.(( His favorables sit at 66% — putting him at the top position))
So I guess not qualifying that the politician is [i]alive[/i] and in the US was incorrect.
And now I guess we can expect the conservative extremists in this forum to find someone out there that’s a commissioner or mayor or Representative or senator who has more than a 66 approval rate, so that you’ll feel compelled to go back and correct it further to say “Bill Clinton is the most popular living [i][u]federally[/u] [u]elected[/u][/i] politician”…
And that’s exactly the kind of picayune trivia that conservatives must resort to in most debates these days because they have evolved into an obsession with being on the wrong side of virtually every issue anymore.
-
And now for some comedy from Republicans (who said they weren’t funny?).
[link=http://www.theolympian.com/2015/02/23/3592315/lawmaker-asks-if-swallowed-camera.html]http://www.theolympian.co…-swallowed-camera.html[/link]An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Barbieri later said that the question was rhetorical and intended to make a point.
Dr. Julie Madsen, a physician who said she has provided various telemedicine services in Idaho, was testifying in opposition to the bill. She said some colonoscopy patients may swallow a small device to give doctors a closer look at parts of their colon.
Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is? Barbieri asked.
Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
Fascinating. That makes sense, Barbieri said, amid the crowds laughter.
One wonders how close Vito has ever come to female anatomy. Total ignorance doesn’t stop him from having an opinion. What else doesn’t he know? -
Vito needs some binders full of women.
-
what a wonderful moment to be caught on camera..because the pill won’t end up in the vagina
Quote from Frumious
And now for some comedy from Republicans (who said they weren’t funny?).
[link=http://www.theolympian.com/2015/02/23/3592315/lawmaker-asks-if-swallowed-camera.html]http://www.theolympian.co…-swallowed-camera.html[/link]
An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.
The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.
Barbieri later said that the question was rhetorical and intended to make a point.
Dr. Julie Madsen, a physician who said she has provided various telemedicine services in Idaho, was testifying in opposition to the bill. She said some colonoscopy patients may swallow a small device to give doctors a closer look at parts of their colon.
Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is? Barbieri asked.
Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.
Fascinating. That makes sense, Barbieri said, amid the crowds laughter.
One wonders how close Vito has ever come to female anatomy. Total ignorance doesn’t stop him from having an opinion. What else doesn’t he know?
-
This video from SNL is a few years old but it popped on my FB page again today. Funny. 🙂
“As a woman my health is important to me. So when it comes to [i]that[/i] time of the month I don’t trust my body to just anyone. That’s why I choose the one brand of tampons created by the people that know my body best …
The gentlemen of the Republican party … ”
[url]https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gob-tampons/n27699[/url]
-
Poor Megyn Kelly, now Ted is blowing her off as a Liberal tool.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/megyn-kelly-ted-cruz-immigration-question-121756.html]http://www.politico.com/s…n-question-121756.html[/link]When Kelly pressed the Texas senator on what he would do as president, Cruz said that hes not playing the game and declined to answer the question.
What would President Cruz do? Do American citizen children of two illegal immigrants, who are born here, the children, get deported under a President Cruz? Kelly asked.
Donald Trump, she said, has answered that question explicitly.
Megyn, I get that thats the question you want to ask, Cruz said. Thats also the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask.Asked whether it is an unfair question, Cruz said that it is a distraction from solving the issue.
You know, its also the question that Barack Obama wants to focus on, Cruz retorted.
-
“The women you listed were captains of their ship who were big enough to accept accountability regardless of where the true operational fault occurred.”
They are all shills who know that someone with power will protect them, or as in the case of Rice, will get promoted for being an outright liar to the American Public.
These are the same people that call Islam a religion of peace but say that in the USA there is a War on Women.
Not only are they liars, they are stupid. Nobody buys this crap. The feelings of spoiled Americans will only last so long. Sorry, the cycle is reaching its natural end, little by little. Then we start over, which is actually being honest about how the world works and what human nature is.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/07/marco_rubio_says_pregnant_women_with_zika_shouldn_t_be_allowed_to_have_abortion.html]Marco Rubio: No abortions for women infectedf with Zika virus despite microcephaly risk[/url]
-
[b]Trump Figures Out a Way to Further Alienate Women[/b][/h1]
[link=https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/mister-rogers-versus-nasty-uncle-trump]Susan Glasser[/link]: I do not know who will win the election less than three weeks from now. But I do know this: if Trump does lose, hes right that his sheer, massive unlikability will be a major contributing factor. Hes a bully and a boor. Hes overbearing, self-absorbed, impossible to shut up, and especially patronizing to women, which, of course, is one of the reasons why those suburban moms he is begging to vote for him are telling pollsters that they are decidedly against him.
Trump was certainly no nice guy in his Thursday-evening town hall, on NBC, offering those who tuned in a repeat of his harsh performance in his first debate against Joe Biden. This time, Trumps foil was not Biden, because Trump had refused to debate him on the terms set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, but Savannah Guthrie, the NBC News moderator. Guthrie seemed to infuriate Trump with her quick questions and real-time fact-checking of some of his most egregious whoppers. The President was loud, and increasingly red in the face, as he struggled to respond. He berated Guthrie and refused to answer questions. He offered a sarcastic aside about how something she said was so cute. He lectured her on how underlevered he was. None of that seemed likely to win over suburban women.-
Next quote will be Margaret Sanger
oh wait, no, that was the racist leftist eugenicist that RBG also loved
i wonder why
-
-
