Yeah I'm back, and wondering if I'll be allowed to let liberals speak for themselves this time...

BOWNmM0W9rY


“The Republican Party is Gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, Latino-bashing, immigrant-bashing, women-bashing every day”

True or false? Who's really bashing who?

This tells me that the Obots are concerned that they won't get a youth vote turnout like they did in 2008 .So they are ginning up as many periphery issues as possible to divert from their poor performance.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-war-on-caterpillars-and-what-reince-priebus-meant/2012/04/05/gIQABU9ixS_blog.html) must be the bashing in question today, Reince Priebus compared women to caterpillars or something and Augusta still won't allow women.

This tells me that the Obots are concerned that they won't get a youth vote turnout like they did in 2008 .So they are ginning up as many periphery issues as possible to divert from their poor performance.

Of course he is concerned with the youth turnout. In that category they have an over 50% unemployment rate. Maybe they should have asked about the shovel ready jobs ?

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-war-on-caterpillars-and-what-reince-priebus-meant/2012/04/05/gIQABU9ixS_blog.html) must be the bashing in question today, Reince Priebus compared women to caterpillars or something and Augusta still won't allow women.


That's an easy one. Reince Priebus is not comparing women to caterpillars.

Tut

Obama thinks women are more concerned about membership to Augusta than the price of groceries .

Reince Priebus compared women to caterpillars or something and Augusta still won't allow women.Hello steve:

If my party had a war on women, and it was showing up STRONGLY in the polls, I too, would pretend it was about the high price of groceries.

On the subject of your OP, I promise, on behalf of ALL liberals, that we won't bash right wingers any more. Feel better?

excon

I assure you that the high price of groceries is of greater concern to the majority of American women than free contraception . But let's examine Obama's record of women participation on the links with him. According to the NY Slimes ,he played 23 rounds of golf in his personal mens only club until he finally invited a woman to play along... and that only happened because to President was getting some heat for running an all mens club environment in the White House.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/politics/25vibe.html?_r=3

The White House Boys' Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem | Swampland | TIME.com (http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/)

I guess it's fine if we spend our time here discussing Augusta club's gender policies ;but I would hope the President would have more on his plate.

I assure you that the high price of groceries is of greater concern to the majority of American women than free contraception Hello again, tom:

FREE Contraception?? Caterpillars?? As long as you MISCAST and/or DENY the problem, it's going to dog you, and that makes me happy.

The economy didn't change over the last month, but you guys went from being AHEAD to being far, far behind. Why? I KNOW, and you do too.

excon

Hello steve:

If my party had a war on women, and it was showing up STRONGLY in the polls, I too, would pretend it was about the high price of groceries.

On the subject of your OP, I promise, on behalf of ALL liberals, that we won't bash right wingers any more. Feel better?

No sir, I wish Howard Dean would speak his mind more often. And dude, there was never any war on women and you know it.

I mean really, most of us are married or have girlfriends (or both I reckon), have daughters, work with or for women and otherwise have women as a huge part of our lives. I adore women, I cook for my wife most days and spend more time with "my girls" at work than I do anyone else. But hey, if you can't run on your record then make stuff up. I get it. You apparently don't get that my wife is much more concerned about the price of groceries and gas than buying birth control pills for everyone.

P.S. Did you notice in tom's article that Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome? I've played golf with women more than him and I love it.

P.S. Did you notice in tom's article that Obama played 23 rounds of golf between January and October of 2009 before inviting a single woman to his foursome?
That's not rare at all, in fact it's the norm. The uptake for golf for women is very low. Other than fun scrambles it isn't often that I play a round with a woman... I'd love to!

That's not rare at all, in fact it's the norm. The uptake for golf for women is very low. Other than fun scrambles it isn't often that I play a round with a woman...I'd love to!

You're right, is "the norm" for those men allegedly fighting for "women's rights" to exclude them. Thanks for clearing that up.

Once again you misrepresent what someone said. That's why you're not taken seriously.

Just following your example.

P.S. I sure manage to get a lot of attention here to be "not taken seriously".

And dude, there was never any war on women and you know it. Hello again, Steve:

No, I don't know that at all. What I DO know that while JOBS were what Republicans ran on, H.R 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion, (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3) was the THIRD piece of business for newly installed right wingers...

Since then, the attack has been consistent and relentless. Just over just the last few weeks, when the right wing's popularity was plummeting, we heard the Limp one call women sluts and prostitutes for wanting access to birth control... We had the Blunt amendment... We had INTER VAGINAL probes.. And, THAT was just on the federal level..

Mississippi (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11039503-mississippi-on-way-to-becoming-abortion-free-state) is just one small example of what the states are doing. We have the Virginia governor telling women if they don't want to watch what the state is MANDATING their doctor to do, they can close their eyes.. All the women I know, LOVE that part.

Have you asked any of the women you love whether they'd LIKE that?? Nahhhh, you didn't.

excon

Again, which of these is a "war on women" and which is manufactured outrage? No taxpayer funding for abortion is a war against making me pay for violating my conscience in the murder of babies. In fact, they're all about protecting the most innocent life among us, while the "pro-choice" crowd continues to push the boundaries (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infan ticide_.html). Protecting children is not a "war on women", you guys are just making stuff up to distract from this administrations failures.


Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.

No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:


[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

What next, killing granny too? Why does the left hate babies and old people?

Again, which of these is a "war on women" and which is manufactured outrage? No taxpayer funding for abortion is a war against making me pay for violating my conscience in the murder of babies. Hello again, Steve:

Couple things... The Hyde Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)made taxpayer funding for abortion illegal way back in '76. So it LOOKS like HB 3 was piling on. What do YOU think it was for?

I understand that you don't favor abortion... Then get it reversed. But, short of doing that, if you chip away at what IS a woman's LEGAL right, it LOOKS like you're perpetrating a war against HER.

I KNOW you don't see it that way, but I'm pretty sure WOMEN do. Oh, not your right wing women - just the ordinary ones.

excon

Every "ordinary" woman I know - and I don't bother to ask them their political leanings - is pro-baby. And the "Hyde Amendment" is not a law as even your link reports. HB3 isn't "piling on", it's making the ban against federal funds for abortion permanent. So since Hyde is renewed every year there should be no outrage over making the ban permanent. Ready for your next manufactured outrage, sir.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/547515_370263603014443_218167498224055_1073198_973 236298_n.jpg

I suppose we're supposed to take that ridiculous thing seriously?

Hello again,

War on women?? Nahhh... Libs are making it up... Or not...

Governor Scott Walker quietly signed a law (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html?1333728572) that repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement law. But, women don't care about equality, do they?

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Hello again,

I just had an epiphany. You don't see the war on women like I don't see the war on religion...

Well, I'll fix that. Happy Easter.

excon

Of course the right wants to frame the war on women as religious freedom, but men telling woman what to do with their bodies will never work. Women don't care how you frame it, they know when they are being screwed with and I doubt they stand for it.

You need proof? You think they listen to the pope about contraception? No evidence of that anywhere. So keep pissing the ladies off by not letting them do what they want and you risk losing at the ballot box, and the bedroom. Keep on thinking you can tell them its for the good of the babies, when you try to take their choices from them.

They know what's best for the babies, you don't so listen, or lose the war.

Nonsense. You guys are smart enough to see the simple fact that the birth control mandate is a new, manufactured "right" while the first amendment has explicitly protected freedom of religion for 220 years. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Hello again,

War on women???? Nahhh... Libs are making it up... Or not...

Governor Scott Walker quietly signed a law (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html?1333728572) that repealed Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement law. But, women don't care about equality, do they?

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I saw nothing about a war on women in that bill. Equal Pay is already covered under federal statute (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm) so SB 2020 was unnecessary.

The real war on women is the Democrat war on families;driving up prices of food and fuel . But I can understand the Republican predicament... It's hard to run against the party that promises 'free 'stuff.

The real war on women is the Democrat war on families;driving up prices of food and fuel .Hello tom:

One minute you tell us that speculators have NO influence on the market, and can't move it an inch, and NOW you're telling us the Democrats CAN??

So, if they can MOVE prices, why do you think they'd move them UP? Seems to me they'd make them as close to "free" as possible. No?

excon

Also have to wonder if the President is having women problems . Recent announcements that Evita and Oprah will not be joining him on the campaign trail... and Babs won't sing at his fund raisers. Something's up there .

Ex it's the policies ;not the speculations that are flawed.

Something's up there .Hello again, tom:

So, you haven't noticed that this far left wing loon is to the right of center?? Babs did. Me too. Oprah?? She's got a network to save.

excon

Nonsense. You guys are smart enough to see the simple fact that the birth control mandate is a new, manufactured "right" Hello again, Steve:

No, I do not. That's why I argued that a women's right to health care has ALWAYS been equal to that of men, and that the president's "mandate" was legally unnecessary... Then the discussion devolved into what a church is...

You won't find a stronger defender of civil liberties on this board, AND of a church's RIGHT to BE tax exempt.. But, a church CANNOT claim a religious exemption when it's dealing with EMPLOYEES. It MUST tax the employees. It MUST PAY its share of the employee's unemployment taxes, EVEN IF it is exempt from OTHER taxes... In short, the workplace in a CHURCH is no different than the workplace in a lumber yard.

Now, nobody is REQUIRING the Catholic church to provide health insurance for its employees... But IF it's going to provide it, it CAN'T discriminate.

I see nothing WEIRD, NEW, ANTI RELIGIOUS, or ILLEGAL in my conclusions.

excon

I know you don't, and I don't see a right to healthcare for men or women in the constitution. And the reason it "devolved into what a church is" is because the mandate redefines what qualifies as religious in contradiction of centuries of historical and legal precedent.

I don't see a right to healthcare for men or women in the constitution. Hello again, Steve:

".. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Let's just take the first one...

excon

That isn't in the constitution, and it doesn't guarantee quality of life. Next?

That isn't in the constitution, and it doesn't guarantee quality of life. Next?Hello Steve:

Amendment IX

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I was just laying the foundation above. Clearly, the reason WHY we revolted DOES have something to do with our founding documents... They certainly thought SOMETHING about life or it wouldn't have been mentioned..

But, if you want to find the RIGHT to healthcare, it's there in the Ninth Amendment.. You know, the catchall amendment... Some of the authors of the Constitution didn't want to enumerate the rights the people have for fear that people like you would say, "well, it's NOT listed, so it's NOT a right". That's EXACTLY why they wrote the wonderful Ninth Amendment - to make sure that OTHER rights retained by the people STAY retained..

excon

Oh, you mean like the right to be free from forced commerce by the federal government and forced violation of my first amendment freedom of religion.

... my first amendment freedom of religion.You are still free to pursue any religion of your choice, nothing has changed there.

I beg your pardon, I have proven conclusively in no uncertain terms that the Obamacare mandate redefines what qualifies as religious. And by the way, "pursuing" religion is not the same as the "free exercise" of religion which is what this mandate changes. Things that have been religious activities for centuries no longer qualify as a religious activity under the mandate AND Catholics are no longer free FROM forced violation of their religious beliefs. It changes everything.

I have proven conclusively in no uncertain terms that the Obamacare mandate redefines what qualifies as religious.For businesses that operate under the guise of religion.

For businesses that operate under the guise of religion.

It is the federal government that keeps intruding on the church, not the church intruding into the business sector. The church was doing health care and education long before the United States existed (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-16.html#post3053924).

Back to this debate ? I thought this was about the canard charge about the Republican war on everything. The reason the Obots trumped up this phony'war on women' stuff is because the President is losing support from his 2008 base almost across the board.
What he sees is that in 2008 he had an overwhelming majority of SINGLE women . But they really didn't show up to vote in the numbers they could've .
What this is ,is the equivant of the Rove 2004 strategery . He knew he couldn't really expand the Bush base ;so he had to do what he could to get maximum turnout from the various constituencies .
The Obama base is a hodgepodge of various special interest groups ,many of them contrived by polling data . He is catering to them and hoping that their interests don't clash too much (like his vulnerability to labor because he chooses fringe environmentalism ) .

As for the mandate that violates the churches rights ,those will be struck down when Obamacare is struck down.

But he's LeBron baby, nothin' but net for Obama (http://bcove.me/bwo9oion).

I saw nothing about a war on women in that bill. Equal Pay is already covered under federal statute (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm) so SB 2020 was unnecessary.


We are in a middle of a debt crisis so we do the only thing we know how to do. Cut away at the safety nets so the minorities can start to fall through.

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nonsense. You guys are smart enough to see the simple fact that the birth control mandate is a new, manufactured "right"

Are you guys smart enough to understand that access to birth control means less abortions?? I guess not, since you rather have a weak government that rather makes poor people have kids, and can't feed or raise them. So they starve and go to jail, stay poor, and then keep the cycle going. Lets be real rich women have abortions every day because they can afford it and don't go to doctors and hospitals poor people do. They can buy insurance, no big deal, but I was in wal mart the other day and even with a discount, this old guy couldn't afford his heart meds, so had to take less than half his prescription, and he has a pill cutter at home (I asked).

That's disgusting, almost as disgusting as being pro life, and don't give a crap about the life 10 minutes after birth. Go ahead, give Romney and his cohorts even more than they have and see what they give you for it.

Real smart right wingers, pay a guy to screw you, and elect a guy who already has, and will again. The genius of such thinking doesn't escape me, but makes me wonder what was so good about slavery that the right volunteers for it? Begs even?

We are in a middle of a debt crisis so we do the only thing we know how to do. Cut away at the safety nets so the minorities can start to fall through.

Genius!!

Nah Tut . The law was redundent since the Federal laws cover these type of cases at least as well as the State one did . In fact ;this law went into effect in 2009 ,and there have yet to be a single case filed under the state law . Now why is that ? Could it be that those evil corporate employers in WI. Have a fairer and more equitable way of paying ? Or was it that there was already a means to address any grevience ? Why establish a duplicate state agency when there is already a Federal remedy... that is unless you are trying to pad the payroll of the state with a useless bureaucracy .

Now you know it takes time to catch a crook breaking the law. The greedy bast@rd know how to cover their butts. Because there are no cases yet doesn't mean there won't be. Or behind the scenes settlements. That's there MO!!

nah Tut . The law was redundent since the Federal laws cover these type of cases at least as well as the State one did . In fact ;this law went into effect in 2009 ,and there have yet to be a single case filed under the state law . Now why is that ? Could it be that those evil corporate employers in WI. have a fairer and more equitable way of paying ? Or was it that there was already a means to address any grevience ? Why establish a duplicate state agency when there is already a Federal remedy ...that is unless you are trying to pad the payroll of the state with a useless bureaucracy .

Hi Tom,

Make enough small cuts and eventually the net will be worthless.

Walker is the handmaiden of big business. The only thing big business knows is specialized types of information. If it is measurable then it is valuable. Equity and fairness are not part of the dialect because they are difficult measure and therefore of no value. Fairness is not subject to the same type of rational analysis.

The market place, or should I say global market place favours managerial elites. These elites are the ones who prosper during a economic crisis. They prosper because they reflect the absolute truth contain within the organizations specialization.

If this represents a modern version of the free market place then it is anti-democratic and anti-equality. It is security that an idealized construct affords the elites.

Tut

I don't get all this whoha over birth control, the pill has been with us for decades, doctors have been consulted, the pill prescribed. If a church wants to say to its members don't use it it is up to them but as far as health fund benefits go, put up, shut up, pay up and give up

The churches here want you to pay for inadaquate health services that they dictate for you, but the law won't let them. Our right wing wants us to pay for inadaquate insurance that our bosses dictate to us, but the law won't let them, so the right wing and the churches want to change the law, but the people are not letting them. So we wait and see what the court has to say.

Stay tuned.

Tut my eyes glaze over when I read code words like equity and fairness. All that really means in the socialist's vocabulary is wealth redistribution and quotas .

Tut my eyes glaze over when I read code words like equity and fairness. All that really means in the socialist's vocabulary is wealth redistribution and quotas .
That's due to your ultra-right-wing indoctrination. Others aren't scared of those words.

Not indoctrination for sure . I was raised in the public education system of the US as a committed leftist. It took years of deprogramming to get me where I'm at .

You should see a doctor for that Tom, maybe there is a cure. I mean just curious why socialism scares you guys do much, or are you still living in fear of the Russians, and Chinese?

This is 2012, not 1960! I know, you can dream can't you?

...living in fear of the Russians, and Chinese?To be fair the Chinese part is legitimate. :-)

Typical left to think that a political position opposed to theirs is an illness that needs a cure . I'm sure there is a gulag or reeduction camp you can direct me to.

I'm sure there is a gulag or reeduction camp you can direct me to.Hello tom:

Nahhh.. I've got a pill.

excon

As opposed to "code words" that hide a conspiracy or thinking that higher education is a another conspiracy to make people liberals? LOL!

Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm sure there is a gulag or reeduction camp you can direct me to.

Six Flags Over Texas, that's where we go! Care to join us?

Are you guys smart enough to understand that access to birth control means less abortions???? I guess not,

What I understand is this is a straw man argument. There is no issue with access to birth control, it's a manufactured crisis. Even Ms Fluke admitted she didn't know she could get hers for $9.00 at the local Target, a far cry from the $3000 price tag she put on it.

Which brings me back to the OP. Stop making stuff up.

We are in a middle of a debt crisis so we do the only thing we know how to do. Cut away at the safety nets so the minorities can start to fall through.

As has been pointed out twice the law was redundant, but yes it would save the state money by not tying up state courts for something enforced at the federal level. It has nothing to do with safety nets.

As has been pointed out twice the law was redundant, but yes it would save the state money by not tying up state courts for something enforced at the federal level. It has nothing to do with safety nets.Hello Steve:

I HEAR you wingers saying that.. But, I'm skeptical.. It looks like you're saying that liberals passed the law when it wasn't necessary at all. But, libs don't do that. If they PASSED the law, it WAS necessary...

Besides, way back in my head, I KNOW you guys don't like ANY laws that smack of freeloading... Plus, I hear Paul Ryan saying that his budget SAVES Medicare, when in fact, it destroys it. So, you'll understand my skepticism.

excon

I HEAR you wingers saying that.. But, I'm skeptical.. It looks like you're saying that liberals passed the law when it wasn't necessary at all. But, libs don't do that. If they PASSED the law, it WAS necessary...

Bahahahaha, that was funny. If a lib passes a law it was necessary, funny stuff.

As has been pointed out twice the law was redundant, but yes it would save the state money by not tying up state courts for something enforced at the federal level. It has nothing to do with safety nets.

Hi Steve,

The fact that the law is redundant is a moot point. We see many postings and opinion pieces which are representative of an individual or groups political persuasions. They leave us in no doubt as to where they stand.

In exactly the same we are left in no doubt as to where Walker stands in relation to women in the workplace.

Safety nets are useless unless individuals have access or the opportunity to redress arbitrary decisions. Attempting to limit access in this case is an example of tampering with the safety net. So I would say it has everything to do with safety nets.

Tut

Tut my eyes glaze over when I read code words like equity and fairness. All that really means in the socialist's vocabulary is wealth redistribution and quotas .


Hi Tom,

They are not code words I am using. Code words are the words I used before, you know the ones: specialization, economic rationalism, human resources, invisible economic hand and the like.

That's the problem with fairness, it doesn't appear in the list because it is difficult to formulate into an ideology. Possibly because it lends itself to working definitions.

Tut

Tom doesn't like fairness it implies it might cost him money.

Fairness is already codified . What you guys are looking for is utopian equality of results. Any way you parce it ,distributive justice means wealth redistribution... which in my view exceeds the constitutional power of the government .

The libs are so inconsistent. The Obots sued the state of Arizona for passing a duplicate to the Federal law on immigration. But they have their panties in a knot because Wisconsin is removing it's duplicate law about incomes discrimination.

And speaking of the fairness of immigration... Is it fair to give a free pass to illegal aliens while immigrants who are trying to follow the rules wait in line ? Is it fair to tell a poor person they have no choice but to send their children to the dangerously inadequate public school system? Is it fair to have minimum wage laws that effectively shut out the young and unskilled from the market ?

What the libs want is some government arbiter using their own values to determine what is "fair" . That fits in well with their view that the government should control every aspects of our lives.

What you guys are looking for is utopian equality of results. Nope.


That fits in well with their view that the government should control every aspects of our lives.Wrong again. Considering the Republicans ordered all the spying on their own citizens I find that to be hypocritical to say the least.

Nope.

Wrong again. Considering the Republicans ordered all the spying on their own citizens I find that to be hypocritical to say the least.


I didn't know Clinton was a republican?? He is the one that started all the electronic spying in the first place.

Didn't know that. It certainly ramped up full spead ahead under Bush though didn't it?

Didn't know that. It certainly ramped up full spead ahead under Bush though didn't it?

Not really. It was more of a matter of trying to take advantage of law/loopholes that existed. There has always been secrecy at the top end. And The bush dynasty started in the dark in the first place. But that doesn't excuse what was going on. It just reafirms that we always need to be vigalant about our rights to privacy and to follow through no matter who is in office. Always question government and then make your own decisions. Clinton did it for more personal reasons (political) and when Bush di it he had his reasons because of outside threats. So its up to us - we the people - to decide how far we let a situation go.

In exactly the same we are left in no doubt as to where Walker stands in relation to women in the workplace.

Federal statue covers workplace discrimination on all counts, race, gender, etc. You’re making an assumption not based on any facts that Walker has attacked women by signing this bill (http://ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/currentSession/LegProps.asp?key=REGSB202). In fact, four women were among the sponsors of the bill.

Patricia Strachota (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Assembly&district=58)
Alberta Darling (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Senate&district=8)
Pam Galloway (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/galloway/Pages/default.aspx)
Michelle Litjens (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Assembly&district=56)

I suppose those lovely ladies hate women, too?


Safety nets are useless unless individuals have access or the opportunity to redress arbitrary decisions. Attempting to limit access in this case is an example of tampering with the safety net. So I would say it has everything to do with safety nets.

I'd say it has more to do with fiscal reality.

Federal statue covers workplace discrimination on all counts, race, gender, etc. You're making an assumption not based on any facts that Walker has attacked women by signing this bill (http://ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/currentSession/LegProps.asp?key=REGSB202). In fact, four women were among the sponsors of the bill.

Patricia Strachota (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/W3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Assembly&district=58)
Alberta Darling (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Senate&district=8)
Pam Galloway (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/galloway/Pages/default.aspx)
Michelle Litjens (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=Assembly&district=56)

I suppose those lovely ladies hate women, too?



I'd say it has more to do with fiscal reality.

Hi Steve,

Yes, you keep mentioning the Federal Statute. Is this meant to absolve Walker from his actions?

No, I am making my assumption based on the fact that there has been a deliberate attempt to deny women the opportunity put their case forward at the local level.

I didn't say anything about hating women. All I can see is four woman voting along party lines.

Tut

Hello again, Steve:

Like you, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has a list of right wing women senators (http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/09/460746/mcconnell-war-on-women/?mobile=nc) who DON'T think there's a war on women... Except, that they DO.

Three of the four women McConnell mentioned have already come out against the GOP's war on women - Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Lisa Murkowski.

In fact, Murkowski specifically pushed back on claims like McConnell's, saying, “If you don't feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

There AIN'T nothing more to say, is there?

excon

Those three aren't exactly "right wing women."

And Tut, Wisconsin women can file a complain from home, it doesn't get any more local than that. In fact, they're REQUIRED to file a federal complaint prior to (http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm) filing a discrimination lawsuit.

Those three aren't exactly "right wing women."

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).Hello NK:

What Steve means is these ladies are moderate Republicans who have been primaried, or are quitting the Senate. There's no room for them in the NEW Republican Tea Party.

excon

Those are moderate republican NK, and a minority in the republican party, that's why Snow (R), of Maine is leaving. As is Hutchins of (R)Texas.

Moderates are not welcome by republicans any more.

Ah, that's too bad. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket with no voice for the moderate people.

Ah, that's too bad. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket with no voice for the moderate people.

And this is different from the left-wing of the Democratic party trying to rope in the blue dogs how?

And this is different from the left-wing of the Democratic party trying to rope in the blue dogs how?Hello again, Steve:

You've been saying for quite some time now, that the country is center right.. If that's so, the Blue Dogs are to the right of center. Getting rid of them, makes the Democrats lean LEFT.

It's different than YOUR party because you ain't just leaning... You're PRONE.

excon

And this is different from the left-wing of the Democratic party trying to rope in the blue dogs how?Don't even know what that means. Sorry.

Ah, that's too bad. Your country is going to hell in a handbasket with no voice for the moderate people.

We have a voice, just no paid lobbyists! Well high paid lobbyist!

The answer to Steve's question is that the Obots have so soured their relationship with the "bitter clinger" blue dogs ,that he isn't even attempting to keep them in the coalition. They are holding onto a special interest grieviance coalition of their own by doing the classic finger pointing diversions. The blue dogs are in their cross hairs

It doesn't really matter what theatrics your politicians do - they will do whatever their donors tell them to do.

The answer to Steve's question is that the Obots have so soured their relationship with the "bitter clinger" blue dogs ,that he isn't even attempting to keep them in the coalition. They are holding onto a special interest grieviance coalition of their own by doing the classic finger pointing diversions. The blue dogs are in their cross hairs

LOL, the right does nothing but point fingers, and blame others. And what do you care about democrats and what we do with our own, as don't you have the extreme right and establishment republicans to reconcile?

LOL, the right does nothing but point fingers, and blame others. And what do you care about democrats and what we do with our own, as don't you have the extreme right and establishment republicans to reconcile?

I didn't point fingers, I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the left criticizing Republicans for not being more "diverse."

Well DUH! You aren't as diverse. Maybe that's why all the republican politicians favor giving the rich, more riches, and the poor, more poverty. I mean you said that we can no longer afford the social safety net, but in the same breathe you want corporations to have more power, and money.

Diversity brings an understanding of the needs of someone other than the ones that are like you. As it is, there is no motivation to listen to any one who doesn't agree with you. There can be no solutions without consensus right?

Hello again:

Now, I KNOW you don't believe the following constitutes a war on women, but I'd like to know what you DO consider it.

States mandating ultrasounds just because women are availing themselves of a legal procedure. Redefining rape in an attempt to limit abortions.
Raising burden of proof for rape victims. Forced vaginal probes. Tom Corbet saying women can just close their eyes while having an ultrasound monitor shoved in their face. Women should just put an aspirin between their knees. Rush Limbaugh "sluts and prostitutes". Personhood bills which could outlaw the pill. Defunding of planned parenthood.
Bills outlawing abortions even in circumstances of rape. Republican Georgia lawmakers barring women from seeking medical intervention in removing the dead fetal tissue from a miscarriage.

Do you want to sugar coat that for me?

excon

PS> (edited) By the way, when the Romney campaign set up a conference call specifically to DEAL with his "women" problem, his campaign was asked if he supported the Lilly Ledbetter law..

The campaign, said they'll get back to the reporter.. It APPEARS that they didn't even KNOW what that law does...

Did he fix his "women" problem?? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

yeah that's right.. we wage war on women, healthcare, housing, immigrants, minorities peace, soldiers, elderly, the helpless,baby seals and smelt... oh yeah drugs. Did I miss anything ?

And so it goes.. Romney ,the preferred RINO for the Dems in the primaries is about to get painted as an extremist by the OBOTS . Got this email... it's a hoot !



Tom,
You saw the news: Mitt Romney is almost certainly the Republican nominee and our opponent in this election.

That means voters are going to have a very clear choice this November. The President is rebuilding an economy meant to last and restoring economic security for the middle class by reclaiming the values that made America great: the simple idea that America prospers when we're all in it together -- when hard work pays off, responsibility is rewarded, and everybody does their fair share and plays by the same rules.

Our opponent thinks our economy will grow by returning to the same failed policies that created the crisis in the first place -- an economy built on risky financial deals, outsourcing, and slashing taxes for millionaires like him, while paying for it by gutting programs that seniors and middle-class families rely on.

Before he gets any closer to the White House, each of us needs to know five key facts about Mitt Romney -- and be ready to share them with everyone we know.

Forward this email -- and if you're ready for this fight, become the newest member of the Truth Team today and help get the facts out from now till Election Day.

1. Romney is the most radically anti-women candidate in a generation. He supports banning all abortions, backed a so-called "personhood" amendment that could make certain forms of birth control illegal, and says he would "get rid of" federal funding for Planned Parenthood that provides preventive services like cancer screenings for millions of women.

2. Romney would repeal Obamacare. Insurance companies would once again be allowed to run up premiums, unjustifiably deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, drop patients when they get sick, discriminate against women by charging them more for coverage than men, and spend more of your premium dollars on CEO profits and bonuses instead of your actual health care.

3. Romney doesn't have what it takes to be Commander in Chief. He shifts positions on serious foreign policy and security questions for political reasons, and his only clear commitment is to endless wars: He has no plan to end the war in Afghanistan and would leave our troops there indefinitely. He called the President's decision to bring our troops home from Iraq by last Christmas "tragic."

4. Romney's economic plans would take more money from the middle class and give it to corporations and millionaires like him who don't need it. Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up. He also opposes the Buffett Rule so that millionaires can continue to take advantage of loopholes and special deals to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And he supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

5. Romney would end Medicare as we know it -- replacing it with a voucher scheme that would drive profits for insurance companies by forcing seniors to purchase private insurance, paying whatever costs a voucher wouldn't cover out of their own limited budgets.

Romney and his special-interest allies are going to spend the next seven months trying to deny, downplay, or hide these facts from voters. It's on us to speak the truth.

So print these out, post them on your fridge, and share them on Facebook. Send this list around to friends who are on the fence.

When and if your mother-in-law, or cousin, or best friend claims that Romney is "moderate," you need to know what to say.

You are the President's voice out there, and I can't stress enough how you will be the difference between voters hearing our message or not. The more Americans learn about Mitt Romney, the less they like him and the less they trust him.

Sign up to join the Truth Team today -- help get the facts out every day, keep the other side honest, and make sure people know the truth about Mitt Romney's and the President's records:

http://my.barackobama.com/Join-the-Truth-Team

If people know the truth about Mitt Romney and President Obama, who they are, and their very different plans for this country, there's no way we can lose this thing.

This race is on.

Let's go,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. -- We put together a video highlighting some of Romney's severely conservative positions -- which we all need to remember as we head into the general election. Take a look, and make sure your friends see it too.

It's all true. Should be a fun election.

Well DUH! You aren't as diverse.

Compare W's cabinet to Obama's.


Diversity brings an understanding of the needs of someone other than the ones that are like you. As it is, there is no motivation to listen to any one who doesn't agree with you. There can be no solutions without consensus right?

And let's see, you're telling this to a white guy who lives in a minority neighborhood and grew up as one of about 3-4 white kids in his class. Really??

Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah that's right.. we wage war on women, healthcare, housing, immigrants, minorities peace, soldiers, elderly, the helpless,baby seals and smelt... oh yeah drugs. Did I miss anything ?

And so it goes.. Romney ,the preferred RINO for the Dems in the primaries is about to get painted as an extremist by the OBOTS . Got this email... it's a hoot !

I get those too, and its all true.

Hello again:

Now, I KNOW you don't believe the following constitutes a war on women, but I'd like to know what you DO consider it..

A diversion. It's absolutely pathetic to believe one can't be both pro-life and pro-woman. It's actually one of the more ridiculous ideas I've ever heard, especially coming from people who won't condemn the misogynists in their own camp and probably drive home listening to Hip Hop and other misogynist music without thinking twice about it.

A diversion. Hello again, Steve:

Ok, it MIGHT be.. But, a lot of women BELIEVE it. So, the way to COUNTER that belief is to hold a conference call with reporters to let the women know what Romney actually believes about women's issues. You know, to set the record straight...

And, that's what he did.. Then Sam Stein asked the "gotcha" question. Does Governor Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act.. The campaign didn't have an answer...

That shows, of course, just how much the Republicans really DO support women... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Oh so we are supposed to just ignore what state legislatures are doing to female rights at the hands of right wing mostly males? That's crazy, and ain't going to happen. Matter of fact, the whole right wing agenda will be called into question, starting with the war on everybody who ain't rich. I honestly think you need to get out of your neighbor hood and see how real minorities live. Outside the bubble you were raised in. Its an eyeopener, I tell you, and you would see you may be the exception, not the rule.

I get you are use to what you are use to, but geez, hip hop ain't all bad nor wrong, as you imply.

Oh so we are supposed to just ignore what state legislatures are doing to female rights at the hands of right wing mostly males? That's crazy, and ain't going to happen. Matter of fact, the whole right wing agenda will be called into question, starting with the war on everybody who ain't rich. I honestly think you need to get out of your neighbor hood and see how real minorities live. Outside the bubble you were raised in. Its an eyeopener, I tell you, and you would see you may be the exception, not the rule.

Doing what? Protecting children? Geez, dude, loving kids is not anti-woman. I love children, I adore children, I put my freakin' money where my mouth is every month to support several children that are not my own so I could just as easily ask why you're waging a war on children.

But see, I don't believe you're anti-baby any more than I'm anti-woman and I would absolutely love to be able to take you around and ask my many female friends just how anti-woman I am. I can promise you they'll have my back, just like I have theirs.


I get you are use to what you are use to, but geez, hip hop ain't all bad nor wrong, as you imply.

Dude, I'm a musician and my tastes range from Allison Krauss to Steven Curtis Chapman to Glenn Miller to Steely Dan and ZZ Top. Much of hip hop is not really music in my opinion and quite a lot of it is extremely hostile to women. That's a fact.

Hello again, Steve:

Ok, it MIGHT be.. But, a lot of women BELIEVE it.

And a lot of women are insulted by the condescension. Other women are speaking out now, but the media lapdogs won't give them the time of day...


New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte:

President Obama refuses to address the fact that women have been hit hardest by his failed economic policies. The poverty rate among women is the highest it has been in nearly two decades, and women have seen massive job losses during his presidency. President Obama’s proposals for higher taxes and more regulation will do nothing to bring our economy back. Women deserve a president who will ensure that they have the opportunity to prosper. Mitt Romney will create an economic environment where women, and all Americans, will be able to find lasting employment.

Former Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey:

If President Obama wants to talk about a ‘war on women,’ he should start by looking at his own economic policies. It is clear that women have become the biggest casualty of the Obama economy. Women account for more than 92 percent of the jobs that have been lost on President Obama’s watch. That is simply inexcusable. We need a president who will make sure that women have the opportunity to prosper. The Obama presidency has set women’s economic security back twenty years. No amount of political spin or sideshows can hide that fact.

Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers:

For more than three years, President Obama’s disastrous economic policies have wreaked havoc on women in the workplace with record levels of unemployment and the highest poverty rate in nearly two decades. Now the President has doubled down on his record of failure by proposing even more regulations and more taxes that will make it more difficult for women to find jobs. Mitt Romney supports pay equity for women and, as president, will do what President Obama has not – implement pro-growth economic policies that will allow women and all Americans to finally get back to work.

California Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack:

Barack Obama talks a good game on women in the economy, but the facts don’t back him up. Women in the Obama economy are facing hardships of historical proportions. Unemployment among women is at record levels and the number of women in poverty has risen to a near-two decade high. Everyone knows that President Obama has presided over massive job losses during his term. What they may not know is that women account for the vast majority of those lost jobs. All the Obama Administration has to offer is more of the same. Simply put, women cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama.

You actually expect a lot of smart women to believe they don't have their own best interests at heart for being conservative and that's pathetic, not to mention as anti-woman as it gets.

Everyone knows that President Obama has presided over massive job losses during his term. What they may not know is that women account for the vast majority of those lost jobs. Hello again, Steve:

Nahhhhh... Not really... Oh, there are those who BELIEVE the right wing schtick about it... Then there's those pay attention. All you have to do is look at a chart.. You'll SEE the "massive" job losses during the Obama administration, was a holdover from the massive job losses that were happening under the Bush administration... The looses DIDN'T turn around the day Obama was sworn in. Nope. It took a bit of effort on his part, but turn them around he DID. Since the turnaround, we've added over 4 million jobs and the rate of job growth has been consistent..

Those are the FACTS in context.

The next bit trivia I'm just guessing about... Since women make up the bulk of the teachers in this country, and since the right wing governors have FIRED teachers willy nilly, it's the right wingers who are responsible for it.

Excon

Source please? And what about those who have given up looking for work, not to mention the gist of my post:

You actually expect a lot of smart women to believe they don't have their own best interests at heart for being conservative and that's pathetic, not to mention as anti-woman as it gets.

You are right, I am against abortions, but I be damned if I make that decision for another. But its just not right to bring any child in the world, and not give them a chance for life as they grow. And despite the republican women who speak out this campaign season, they are rich enough to have choices and opportunities poor women don't have.

Its cause and effect, and for all your good intentions and actions in YOUR personal life, you cannot ignore the fact that right wing politicians don't give a damn about poor people, including all those single moms who need more than what they have.

The last thing a rich guy needs is more money, for more sweat shops, and he created jobs where sweat shops are LEGAL!! Profits before people is a screwed up way of running a business, but you keep defending them until you, and your wife need to gat in the system. You are in Texas, so you do know of the laid off teachers, and the poor people being thrown off medicaid, poor working people who you would rather tax, than help!

Meet me in the middle, and we can solve this. Sitting at the end of the hall, throwing rocks solves nothing! Maybe I can turn you on to some good hip hop. There is some you know!

Everyone has the choice to say no, Tal. No to easy sex, no to abortion. Don't make others pay for your poor choices... personal responsibility. That used to be a noble concept...

Hello again, Steve, and you too TUT:

Somehow I KNEW that Walkers repeal (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/opinion/the-wages-of-ideology.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120412) of the state equivalent of the Lilly Ledbetter law wasn't just getting rid of a duplication, as you suggested... Oh, no! The state court threshold is MUCH easier to reach than the federal one is, so repealing this law has the effect of denying MILLIONS of Wisconsin women the right to SUE for equal pay..

War on women? I'd certainly say so. You, Steve?? Not so much.

excon

Oh pish posh, all a woman has to do is pick up the phone, make a call and file a complaint. Then she can sue her heart out. I already pointed out that filing a complaint with the feds was REQUIRED prior to filing a lawsuit regardless of Wisconsin law or any NY Times editorial.

Can we discuss a real problem, like gas and grocery prices or the national debt? I get that when you don't have a record to run on you make stuff up but geez, this "war on women" nonsense is stupid and does nothing to solve real issues.

http://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/assets_c/2012/04/203__420x_strawman-thumb-700xauto-1029.jpg

Good to see the Dems using Fox News tactics. They learned from the best!

LOL, amazing how you righties can dismiss real people with real problems by saying it's a straw man.

What's more amazing is how you lefties can make a huge deal out of nothing. There is no Republican war on women.

P.S. NK, what does Fox News have to do with this? Fox seems to be your Godwin's law.

Okay, its not a right wing war on women. We just can't afford to support them through joblessness, low wages, lack of choices, and lack of opportunities. Right? We shouldn't allow them abortions, but we nor they, should allow them contraception either.

Why can't they keep their legs closed, and say NO, to the bums that use sweet words and attention to use them for their bodies!

Am I getting close to your thinking yet?

While we are at it, lets give more money to Mitt, and his corporate friends so they can build more sweat shops in Malaysia, invest in India, and get subsidized by tax payer money to help them.

Oh and don't forget all those prisons we need for when the poor people dare to break the law and steal bread, food stamps, and do drugs!!

See I can be a right winger too! Give it up, I nailed it!

Give it up, I nailed it!Hello tal:

You did!

excon

Okay, its not a right wing war on women. We just can't afford to support them thru joblessness, low wages, lack of choices, and lack of opportunities. Right?? We shouldn't allow them abortions, but we nor they, should allow them contraception either.

Why can't they keep their legs closed, and say NO, to the bums that use sweet words and attention to use them for their bodies!

Am I getting close to your thinking yet??

Not even close. I actually respect women and children.

Not even close. I actually respect women and children.

So why are you supporting guys that don't?

Not even close. I actually respect women and children.Hello again, Steve:

But, NOT if they want to have an abortion... Then they need to be talked out of it, because OBVIOUSLY, they don't know what they're doing.. If talking them out of it didn't work, they'll have to WAIT a few days to think about it. Maybe THEN they'll make the RIGHT decision. If not, then they'll have to be SHOWN a picture of their baby, because they OBVIOUSLY don't know what's growing inside them, and need to be told by men. And if you have to stick something way up inside a women, WITHOUT her permission, to get those pictures, that's OK. It's for her own good anyway...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

So why are you supporting guys that don't?

Really? I'm not the one taking a million bucks from that misogynist Bill Maher, that would be Obama.

Hello again, Steve:

But, NOT if they wanna have an abortion... Then they need to be talked out of it, because OBVIOUSLY, they don't know what they're doing..

Dude, I'm not the one lying to women about that child inside her body not being a child.

Dude, I'm not the one lying to women about that child inside her body not being a child.Hello again, Steve:

Then you counter that by telling women the TRUTH. To do anything OTHER than that, belies your respect for women.

Look. We STOPPED millions of people from smoking by telling them the TRUTH. We didn't enforce a waiting period before you could buy smokes. We didn't stick something down their throats to SHOW them the damage. We simply TOLD them the truth, and it worked.

IF you respect women, like you SAY you do, that would the approach you'd take.

excon

I respect the life of the baby that gets snuffed.

I respect the life of the baby that gets snuffed.Hello again, tom:

So, go DEMONSTRATE your anger at the lawmakers and/or the Supreme Court. Why punish the people who are at the EFFECT of the law? Why NOT go after the males who knocked them up? Why NOT go after the makes who APPROVED of their women going to the abortion clinic??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then you counter that by telling women the TRUTH. To do anything OTHER than that, belies your respect for women[

Um, what do you think I've been doing?

Hello again, tom:

So, go DEMONSTRATE your anger at the lawmakers and/or the Supreme Court. Why punish the people who are at the EFFECT of the law?? Why NOT go after the males who knocked them up? Why NOT go after the makes who APPROVED of their women going to the abortion clinic???

excon

I don't go after women period. In fact, I tell every single woman I know to remember one rule, "all men are scum." I also go hard after the biggest liar of them all, Planned Parenthood, that teaches these young scum how to prey on young women - or haven't you noticed?

In fact, I tell every single woman I know to remember one rule, "all men are scum."
Funny, I'm raising my daughter very differently. You have a very sad view on life.

If you have the gaul to make force people into YOUR choices, and YOUR way of thinking about defending the innocent babies, then take responsibility for raising them, feeding them, and educating them.

Free contraceptives is a better choice than banning abortions, then walking away when the real responsibility starts. And it gauls me even more when a rich female defends her choices, and dismisses everyone else's.

But you wingers thinks its okay to tell some one else what to do, and then walk away when they need help doing it. That's a lot of gaul!

Planned Parenthood, that teaches these young scum how to prey on young women - or haven't you noticed?Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, I haven't noticed.. So, you've got some training films or literature you want to share with us? I'd really be interested.

I thought Planned Parenthood just provided medical services to poor women. But, they TEACH scum how to get laid?? Wow. Show me that.

But, uhhh, you don't think young "scum" want to just NATURALLY get laid? They need teaching??

excon

Gual ? Typical liberal logic . Personal choices paid for by someone else.

Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, I haven't noticed.. So, you've got some training films or literature you want to share with us?? I'd really be interested.

I thought Planned Parenthood just provided medical services to poor women. But, they TEACH scum how to get laid??? Wow. Show me that.

But, uhhh, you don't think young "scum" wanna just NATURALLY get laid?? They need teaching???

Dude, you can search my history for all the things I've said on the subject of Planned Parenthood not only actively promoting sexual activity among children, but teaching them the techniques.

P.S. For NK's benefit, it was you who said "Why NOT go after the males who knocked them up?" The girls understand what I mean, and I will do my damnedest to protect the women in my life from scum who use them and abuse them and leave others to help clean up the mess they've left behind.

If you have the gaul to make force people into YOUR choices, and YOUR way of thinking about defending the innocent babies, then take responsibility for raising them, feeding them, and educating them.

Free contraceptives is a better choice than banning abortions, then walking away when the real responsibility starts. And it gauls me even more when a rich female defends her choices, and dismisses everyone elses.

But you wingers thinks its okay to tell some one else what to do, and then walk away when they need help doing it. Thats a lot of gaul!!

And telling me I have to pay for someone else's contraception, or that my ministry is no longer a religious activity requires no "gaul?"

Perfect example of YOUR WAY,OR NO WAY! Don't hide behind your religion, and its not your money, its our money that we all benefit from, even the poor right wing women, who need free female reproductive services. Hell, woman already make less than mean, and have higher insurance premiums. But that's okay with right wing guys protecting the young and innocent from the scum who would exploit them.

Just curious where young poor females go for cancer screening?

Damn, I didn't make a week of thinking like a righty. I failed my mission, it was harder than I thought!

Typical liberal.. taking people's money and calling it "our money".

Perfect example of YOUR WAY,OR NO WAY! Don't hide behind your religion,

I don't force my religion on anyone or hide behind it, I just know the facts (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-16.html#post3053924).


and its not your money, its our money that we all benefit from, even the poor right wing women, who need free female reproductive services

What I'm referring to is the Catholic church's money, not yours.


Hell, woman already make less than mean, and have higher insurance premiums.

I assume you mean less than "men," and I am firm believer that a women should get equal pay or more for the same job. Heck, if I owned the company I work for I'd make a particular single women in our office the highest paid employee in the company.


But that's okay with right wing guys protecting the young and innocent from the scum who would exploit them.

Tal, the women in my life have no doubt that I have their back, and because of that they have mine, too. And yes, they do come to me for advice and to talk because they know I respect and care for them. You can't get that in a Planned Parenthood clinic.


Just curious where young poor females go for cancer screening?

Just curious why you still think conservatives don't care for the poor. I'd much rather pay for cancer screenings for a poor, young woman than bail some drug dealer out of jail (http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104668&article=10033063).


Damn, I didn't make a week of thinking like a righty. I failed my mission, it was harder than I thought!

It's because we actually think, we don't echo.

Hello again, Steve:

Then you counter that by telling women the TRUTH. To do anything OTHER than that, belies your respect for women.

Look. We STOPPED millions of people from smoking by telling them the TRUTH. We didn't enforce a waiting period before you could buy smokes. We didn't stick something down their throats to SHOW them the damage. We simply TOLD them the truth, and it worked.

IF you respect women, like you SAY you do, that would the approach you'd take.

excon

Im trying to wrap my head around the smoking vs abortion argument your making. Lets do some side by side. Smoking - must be 18 years old or greater to purchase said product. Abortion - any age can get an abortion no parental consent needed. Smoking- Has been banned in the workplace in many states as well as bars and eateries. Abortion - Has been taught in schools as a form of birth control.

Somehow I don't see how one relates to the other. The smoking issue was by force not just by pure education. Are you saying that is how you want abortion to be now ?

Allow me to guess. I think what he's saying is if the anti-baby crowd is lying to women about the child inside their womb as I submit, I should counter that by telling them the truth about it instead of mandating an ultrasound. It seems to have worked for smoking he thinks so it should work for abortion.

Of course if it worked for smoking ten why is the Obama administration trying to put some nasty graphic images on cigarette packs? We should apparently be forced to view a picture of a guy exhaling smoke through a hole in his throat but a woman considering an abortion shouldn't have to see an image her child.

Abortion - Has been taught in schools as a form of birth control.Really? Who does this and what is wrong with your education system that this is part of the curriculum??

the anti-baby crowdThe use of terms like these is why discussions barely leave the emotional stages.

The use of terms like these is why discussions barely leave the emotional stages.

When you take on the left and their "anti-choice," "war on women," "teabagger," "functionally retarded adults" and other pathetic rhetoric I might care what you have to say.

Hello again,

So far, I've heard Planned Parenthood TRAINS young boys to defile young girls, and abortion is TAUGHT in public school as a form of birth control...

If I believed that crap, I'd be for defunding PP and for closing down the public schools, too... But, somehow, I'm thinking it's just not true. I'm willing to be wrong, though. Show me.

excon

Hello again,

So far, I've heard Planned Parenthood TRAINS young boys to defile young girls, and abortion is TAUGHT in public school as a form of birth control...

If I believed that crap, I'd be for defunding PP and for closing down the public schools, too... But, somehow, I'm thinking it's just not true. I'm willing to be wrong, though. Show me.

excon

Ok here is a few references to the real world.

Comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education covers the wide array of topics that affect sexuality and sexual health. It is grounded in evidence-based, peer-reviewed science. Its goal is to promote health and well-being in a way that is developmentally appropriate. It includes information and communication skills building as well as values exploration. Ideally, sex ed in school is an integrated education process that builds upon itself year after year, is initiated in kindergarten, and is provided through grade 12.




http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/implementing-sex-education-23516.htm


http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2011/07/19/planned-parenthood-sexual-education-before-abortion-as-stds-on-the-rise/

I think PP is the perfect manifestation of it's founder's Malthusian ,racist ,eugenicist vision.

Ok here is a few references to the real world.

Comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education covers the wide array of topics that affect sexuality and sexual health. It is grounded in evidence-based, peer-reviewed science. Its goal is to promote health and well-being in a way that is developmentally appropriate. It includes information and communication skills building as well as values exploration. Ideally, sex ed in school is an integrated education process that builds upon itself year after year, is initiated in kindergarten, and is provided through grade 12.




Implementing Sex Education (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/implementing-sex-education-23516.htm)

Unfortunately for you none of that supports your assertion. I definitely don't agree with the education starting in kindergarten though.

When you take on the left and their "anti-choice," "war on women," "teabagger," "functionally retarded adults" and other pathetic rhetoric I might care what you have to say.You aim for the lowest common denominator? Achievement unlocked!

You aim for the lowest common denominator? Achievement unlocked!

No sir, I don't take the left's bullsh*t lying down.

Hello again,

So far, I've heard Planned Parenthood TRAINS young boys to defile young girls, and abortion is TAUGHT in public school as a form of birth control...

I searched for my own posts about what they used to call Teenwire and interestingly PP seems to have scrubbed their site (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/contraception-schools-159378-16.html#post777786). Guess they felt like they had to hide some stuff from the public's view.

Info for Teens - Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/info-for-teens/)

Is this what you were looking for? Most parents don't talk to their kids. Just visit the Family, and People/Teens site, and see what I mean. Nothing to do with ideology, just a lack of information, and guidance.

And to promote a religion, any religion, not just yours, into a policy position above an ordinary citizen of any religion, is ludicrist. Your ultra sound position says you know better than a doctor what a patient needs or how to proceed with care, and in truth these are arguments the TParty screamed about, death panels, and buearacrats, remember? Now it's the right wing making sure that happens. UNREAL!

And after many thousands of years I am sure woman know what's going on in there womb, and no matter what you think of it, It's their WOMB, and you are out of bounds telling them how to deal with it, especially making laws that gives them no choice but yours.

The funny part is its okay to make a fat cat fatter with OUR money, but not okay to PREVENT abortions with contraceptives, or make jobs by building schools and bridges, and roads. You would rather build prisons, deny education, and keep a cycle of poverty going and expanding.

Yeah you righties have all the facts, at least the ones you like.

Is this what you were looking for?Hello tal:

That can't be it... I read it.. I didn't see where they're TRAINING young boys to take advantage of young girls... THAT must be the one they're HIDING...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Info for Teens - Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/info-for-teens/)

Is this what you were looking for?

No sir, I was looking for specific info that I've posted about before which is no longer there, such as that from my now corrected link above.

Hello tal:

That can't be it... I read it.. I didn't see where they're TRAINING young boys to take advantage of young girls... THAT must be the one they're HIDING...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

It's not there any more ex, doesn't mean they've changed their ways, they've just gone back to masking them. You going to believe them or me?

We already know they are willing to accept donations earmarked to abort black babies.


Oh yeah about hooking kids on sex
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/02/how-planned-parenthood-hooks-kids-on-sex/

And don't forget looking the other way while providing abortions for the victims of kidnappers (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/223livny.asp) and child molesters (http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16451/).

oh yeah about hooking kids on sex
How Planned Parenthood Hooks Kids on Sex | Conservative Byte (http://conservativebyte.com/2012/02/how-planned-parenthood-hooks-kids-on-sex/)Nice opinion article totally devoid of facts and data. Can you point us to a school(s) that openly welcomes this education for their children?

Condoms for First Graders? Mass. Elementary School Under Fire - HealthPop - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008696-10391704.html)

Are you kidding? Not withstanding this right wing propaganda is from 2002/2007, are you saying victims of crime have to have the perps babies??

Condoms for First Graders? Mass. Elementary School Under Fire - HealthPop - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008696-10391704.html)Disgusting indeed but it has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, just a severely misguided school.

Provincetown school officials refine condom policy | CapeCodOnline.com (http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100625/NEWS/6250328)


Singer said yesterday that the wording of the new policy needs to be clarified to ensure the community understands that young elementary school students are not going to be provided condoms at school.

"A six-year-old wouldn't know that word," she said of condoms. "The policy is aimed at sexually active people."

Just to clarify.

Are you kidding? Not withstanding this right wing propaganda is from 2002/2007, are you saying victims of crime have to have the perps babies???

Are you saying Planned Parenthood has no obligation to obey the law? Are you saying it's more important to protect the abuser than the child?

One girl was 15 and kept under a staircase when not being raped while her mother frantically searched for her. One girl was 13 and raped by her soccer coach. One was raped by her father. Why would you turn away while predators go free?

Why would you turn away while predators go free?Where does Tal say this?

Where does Tal say this?

It's called a question, generally signified by a question mark, genius.

It's called a question, generally signified by a question mark, genius.Nice social skills. :D

Are you saying Planned Parenthood has no obligation to obey the law? Are you saying it's more important to protect the abuser than the child?

One girl was 15 and kept under a staircase when not being raped while her mother frantically searched for her. One girl was 13 and raped by her soccer coach. One was raped by her father. Why would you turn away while predators go free?

Why would you force them to have these children? While we agree that they should be protected by the law, they also must be guided to the proper care as VICTIMS. Making them have the babies of the perps doesn't do that.

The first priority is to protect the child, and that's not the priority of the law.

Tal, where are your priorities? You're worried about whether the victim has a baby above protecting them from predators? Really?

The Predators took them in for the abortion! What are you not getting here?

Nice social skills. :D

As tom said feel free not to respond to my posts.

Tal, where are your priorities? You're worried about whether or not the victim has a baby above protecting them from predators? Really?

The Predators took them in for the abortion! What are you not getting here?

Come on we talk in generalities here. Real life is not as simple or broadbrushed as you paint it. I have agreed with the reporting of crime and abuse, I do not agree with reporting every abortion as a crime, or an abuse.

Yet you, if they report a crime would force them to have the baby anyway, so what's your point? You get the perp, but NOT help the victim?

The Predators took them in for the abortion! What are you not getting here?
Well it didn't happen like that at all, that's why we don't get it:


The Phoenix case began in 1998 when the girl, whose name has been withheld by AP, had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic accompanied by her 23-year-old foster brother, with whom she was having a sexual relationship.


Gault had allegedly hidden a runaway girl, now 15, in the house he shared, Hugh Hefner-style, with two other girlfriends (ages 26 and 40 and also charged with crimes arising from the incident). He had gotten the teenager pregnant and procured an abortion for her on May 1 at a Planned Parenthood clinic in West Hartford.

Clearly these are not normal cases. They certainly messed up on notification of parents but to say this is normal preditory operations is certainly not correct.

What's my point? Anyone that would neglect to report suspected sexual abuse of a child is the scum of the earth.

As tom said feel free not to respond to my posts.Thanks but I'll watch them more closely now to correct them.

What's my point? Anyone that would neglect to report suspected sexual abuse of a child is the scum of the earth.
Like the catholic church for example?

Thanks but I'll watch them more closely now to correct them.

Bahahahahahaha!

Like the catholic church for example?
And your point is??

And your point is????
I haven't seen a thread of yours (or of conservatives) calling the catholic church the scum of the earth. And they have been the cause of far more cases of sexual abuses of children that PP ever will.

I haven't seen a thread of yours (or of conservatives) calling the catholic church the scum of the earth.

I believe one would call that an argument from ignorance.


And they have been the cause of far more cases of sexual abuses of children that PP ever will.

I believe this is called wishful thinking.

So far you've managed nothing but fallacies in attempting to "correct" me.

I believe one would call that an argument from ignorance.Please explain.


I believe this is called wishful thinking.We can start comparing numbers if you wish.


So far you've managed nothing but fallacies in attempting to "correct" me.I'm not certain you understand what a fallacious argument is.

Please explain.

My pleasure. You said "I haven't seen a thread of yours (or of conservatives) calling the catholic church the scum of the earth."

Your ignorance of what we've said on the subject is a poor argument, not to mention a fallacy.


We can start comparing numbers if you wish.

Please do.


I'm not certain you understand what a fallacious argument is.

LOL, I just pointed out two of yours.

My pleasure. You said "I haven't seen a thread of yours (or of conservatives) calling the catholic church the scum of the earth."

Your ignorance of what we've said on the subject is a poor argument, not to mention a fallacy.
Do you have two different sets of standards?
Do you still refer to yourself as a catholic?

Do you have two different sets of standards?

Red Herring.


Do you still refer to yourself as a catholic?

I have never been a Catholic.

I don't believe Steve ever claimed to be catholic . As for me... I wrote of my past participation in a group called Voice of the Faithful . I was on board with their agenda until they expanded it to a radical agenda beyond accountablility for the sex abuse scandals .

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/connecticut-regulate-catholic-church-326891.html
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/how-about-catholic-church-461571.html

For the record I have stated (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/mosque-ground-zero-488247-18.html#post2480290) I am a Baptist to Needkarma himself after a similar diversion (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/mosque-ground-zero-488247-18.html#post2480257). But that was an irrelevant question (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/true-false-648677-18.html#post3087551) to begin with.

I guess we'll give the priests a pass then. Understood.

I guess we'll give the priests a pass then. Understood.

I believe they call that fallacy "poisoning the well." I think that's your favorite.

I believe they call that fallacy "poisoning the well." I think that's your favorite.
Poisoning the well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)

Nope, not even close; but it is in fact a favorite tactic of pretty much all threads in the Current Events board.

Um yes, I am exactly right and so far you're batting .000 in your "corrections." Time to move on.

Typical right-wing tactic: repeating a falsehood over and over to try to make it a fact.

Just another red herring. I can do this all day but I'd rather get back to the subject.

Also, poisoning the well again.

These Current Event threads always go off in varying directions. Just waiting for the baseball pool chats.
I've got a very large website deployment coming up so have at 'er.

It's not a pool, it's a fantasy league and you'd be welcome to join.

True or false? Who's really bashing who?Hello wingers:

Looks to me like Ted Nugent is bashing everybody (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0417/Ted-Nugent-Threat-to-Obama-or-harmless-loudmouth). I thought you guys were the ones who're going to be nice.. No, huh?

excon

I never said the right is always nice, but good luck getting Ted to shut up. I certainly don't think he said anything worthy of a Secret Service visit.

Sadly I think some nut may take his BS seriously, like the NUT who killed those abortion doctors, empowered by BS rhetoric like this. I think you are supposed to keep a serious eye on somebody who shoots his mouth off about death, dying, killing, and chopping some ones head off. Ignore these fools is what makes them dangerous. Left or right makes no difference.

Sadly I think some nut may take his BS seriously, like the NUT who killed those abortion doctors, empowered by BS rhetoric like this. I think you are supposed to keep a serious eye on somebody who shoots his mouth off about death, dying, killing, and chopping some ones head off. Ignore these fools is what makes them dangerous. Left or right makes no difference.

Oh brother, can we get a little more dramatic?

Well ignore it, and disregard the concerns of any ideas that don't line up with your own like you usually do. Isolate yourself in your own ideology all you want, just don't tell me what I do or how I do it, and expect any sympathy because I have none. But when my side succeeds, so will you!

Dude, even the article states it "could also be interpreted as a threat to kill himself, if you ask us." Ted is not stupid, he knows you can't threaten the president and we have better things to do than speculate on what he meant. Howard Dean was quite clear on the other hand.

P.S. I am not better off than I was 4 years ago and if your side "succeeds" we're in for much, much worse.

I am, since those tax cuts have helped a lot! What didn't you get yours?

Oh boy!! The government returns some of the money they shouldn't have taken in the 1st place and you think they are giving you something...

oh boy !!! the government returns some of the money they shouldn't have taken in the 1st place and you think they are giving you something ...Imagine is Bush had done it, you'd be singing a different for sure.

I was in favor of a flat tax during the Bush years ;as I am today.

Dude, even the article states it "could also be interpreted as a threat to kill himself, if you ask us." Ted is not stupid, he knows you can't threaten the president and we have better things to do than speculate on what he meant. Howard Dean was quite clear on the other hand.
.

Makes no difference.
It can be taken three possible ways.
One of those ways constitutes a credible threat.

Tut

Dude, even the article states it "could also be interpreted as a threat to kill himself, if you ask us." Ted is not stupid, he knows you can't threaten the president and we have better things to do than speculate on what he meant. Howard Dean was quite clear on the other hand.

P.S. I am not better off than I was 4 years ago and if your side "succeeds" we're in for much, much worse.

I have an idea that I know what he meant. And there are many that agree with him. He is worried about the position that this government has been taking against gun owners. Ted is adament about the second amendment and he enjoys the freedoms his fame can bring him. He lives in the shadows of his NRA predisessor Charlton Heston. A great and longtime spokesperson for the NRA at large.

What IS the position of the government that scares you 2nd amendment warriors?

What IS the position of the government that scares you 2nd amendment warriors?

When the government wants to take all guns from private hands. Then everyone should be worried. It's the second amendment that protects all the others.

Why do you fear that's going to happen? When?

"shall not be infringed " should be unambiguous enough... even for the "living breathing " crowd .

Federalist . 28 ,Hamilton states that when a government betrays the people by becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their right of self defense ,against the government
Federalist 29,Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army that becomes oppressive.
Federalist 46,Madison states that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people had the right to armed resistance.

Federalist . 28 ,Hamilton states that when a government betrays the people by becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their right of self defense ,against the government
For most of us, that hasn't happened, as we still vote for all our reps, senators, and presidents, and some judges. If we don't like who we elect we can vote them out, So there goes that argument as unfounded in todays society.

Federalist 29,Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army that becomes oppressive.
Okay show me in modern times where a standing Army is oppressive. Another one bites the dust.

Federalist 46,Madison states that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people had the right to armed resistance.
That ain't happened either. We still vote them out, so who needs a gun to do that. More so, you may not like the choices the people make, but its still the peoples choice, so who is coming for the guns is my question, and as yet, NO answer.

Talk about not having a leg to stand on, and this smacks of opinions based on FEAR, and NOT FACTS!

Federalist . 28 ,Hamilton states that when a government betrays the people by becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their right of self defense ,against the government
Federalist 29,Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army that becomes oppressive.
Federalist 46,Madison states that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people had the right to armed resistance.

Hamilton was trying to win support for the ratification of the Constitution. Let's just put it mildly and say the Federalist Papers were are very well constructed example of persuasive writing.

Hamilton and et.al were pushing an agenda. Could be wrong, but I get the feeling you would cite the Federalist Papers as an example of original intent. My reading of the papers suggests a person(s) who using language in a clever fashion. He minimizes certain risks in order to placate certain factions risks while overplaying others.

I think the Federalist Papers are of historical interest. That's where I would stop.

Tut

They are in fact the primary reference to use in determining intent. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were the primary authors of the Constitution.

Tal ;if you don't like the 2nd Amendment then there is a Constitutional way to amend or abolish it. Work on that after you finish that abolishment of religious liberty.

they are in fact the primary reference to use in determining intent. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were the primary authors of the Constitution.


Hi Tom,

No quite. In the end it is ratification 'is' all that matters. Primary authors don't constitute original intent. What about the secondary? You can persuade and even try to dominate, but in the end you end up with a compromise. There is no original intent.

Tut

Then there is no meaning to the words as Humpty Dumpty said .

How about this?

(quote)

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.


(end quote)

Im not saying it is currently happening but it could happen and that is why you have to watch and see. That is the intent of the second amendment. Its like a fuse for the constitution.



Ref:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/obama_2anews.html

How about this?

(quote)

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.


(end quote)

Im not saying it is currently happening ut it could happen and that is why you have to watch and see. That is the intent of the second amendment. Its like a fuse for the constitution.



Ref:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/obama_2anews.html

You say this as if it were a bad thing, but your liberty is a travesty of justice

then there is no meaning to the words as Humpty Dumpty said .


Humpty Dumpty shows us that those who control language call the shots. Words mean whatever the skilled architect decides.
The Federalist Papers represent the skilled art of language. Like anyone who writes a piece of persuasive text they choose to make clear certain concepts and leave others obscure. As far as I can see Hamilton was no different.

His words don't echo some underlying reality that governs the universe (or politics for that matter). Obviously Hamilton was a very intelligent man, but that's all he was. No more or no less.

From my readings I get the impression that he was very aware of the fact that government is an experiment.

Tut

Yes and he was aware that republics and democracies have a short shelf life's prone to the eventual rule of the tyrant .

Hi Tom, actually I am a believer in the second amendment, but not paranoid over perceived threats as you seem to be, and until we actually have a tyrant to overthrow by force and not ballots, what's the problem? History has shown us many religious tyrants, and you seem to be pushing for one of those here.

Ain't going to happen. And I grew up in the woods, and a 32 shot glock, and a automatic assault rifle were never used to shoot deer, or rabbits, or bear for that matter. They are collectibles though, and its not citizens I worry about, but criminals who kill innocents.

You think Romney is a religious tyrant?

You think Romney is a religious tyrant?Hello again, Steve:

Who're you talking to?? It don't matter. I'll answer...

Well, he thinks Obama is waging a "war" on religion (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/03/457068/romney-obama-hopes-to-establish-secularism-as-an-official-religion/). If that thought remains in his head, then I wouldn't think he's a religious tyrant...

But, if he DOES anything about that paranoid thought, I'd say he'd be DAMN tyrannical. He's going to DO something too, or he wouldn't have mentioned it.

Guard your religious liberties.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Who're you talking to??? It don't matter. I'll answer...

Well, he thinks Obama is waging a "war" on religion (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/03/457068/romney-obama-hopes-to-establish-secularism-as-an-official-religion/). If that thought remains in his head, then I wouldn't think he's a religious tyrant...

But, if he DOES anything about that paranoid thought, I'd say he'd be DAMN tyrannical. He's gonna DO something too, or he wouldn't have mentioned it.

Guard your religious liberties.

excon
I've never seen that video, thanks for sharing.
Scare tactics play on the recipient's innate sense of security... or insecurity.

You think Romney is a religious tyrant?

No, I think he is a corporate 1%, opportunist, who makes his money off the backs of others. He doesn't care if you or your company goes under, or lose your pension, or lively hood. He cares about making money, and that's it.

As president, ordinary people will get screwed more than they are now.he wants to be king of the oligarchs, so they can keep extracting money at a record pace, and make a lot of poor people to enslave by giving us no other choice but the ones they want us to have.


Yeah I'm back, and wondering if I'll be allowed to let liberals speak for themselves this time...

No problem!!

NO sir, I was asking Tal a question, who said to tom "History has shown us many religious tyrants, and you seem to be pushing for one of those here." Which religious tyrant would that be?

P.S. telling the Catholic church they MUST violate their conscience and redefining their ministries - which I have shown predate government involvement - to no longer qualify as religious in violation of our constitution is tyranny.

P.S. telling the Catholic church they MUST violate their conscience and redefining their ministries - which I have shown predate government involvement - to no longer qualify as religious in violation of our constitution is tyranny.Well then if that's the case the conservatives will be a shoe-in in the next election. Let's see if the populace agrees with your opinion.

Well then if that's the case the conservatives will be a shoe-in in the next election. Let's see if the populace agrees with your opinion.

As always, but at least you don't dispute my facts.

No, I think he is a corporate 1%, opportunist, who makes his money off the backs of others. he doesn't care if you or your company goes under, or lose your pension, or lively hood. He cares about making money, and thats it.

As president, ordinary people will get screwed more than they are now.he wants to be king of the oligarchs, so they can keep extracting money at a record pace, and make a lot of poor people to enslave by giving us no other choice but the ones they want us to have.



No problem!!!!!!!!!

So who's the religious tyrant tom seems to be supporting?

As always, but at least you don't dispute my facts.Well there are no facts. If it was a violation of the constitution it never would have passed... but it did.

So your church has more rights than my business and that's tyranny?? I say its tyranny when the church runs a business, and doesn't have to follow the rules. When they become employers, and provide services, THEY ARE A BUSINESS, NOT a ministry, and who cares what they did centuries or decades ago.

If it's the rule for a hospital, it's the rule for all hospitals. Ministries got nothing to do with it. You cannot discriminate against any employee, or subject his right to your religious test. What part of obeying the law is it you righties don't understand??

Clearly you think your religious rights trump the law, but they don't. Matter of fact if you had your way, religious law would trump government law, and that would be tyranny. It was in Europe, that's why they ran over here. Have you learned nothing of history? Stop cherry picking the FACTS!!

Since I haven't endorsed anyone except ABO ,I'd like to know which one too. Actually ;if those Obama front group phonies at Americans Elect 2012 field a 3rd party candidate ,I won't vote for that candidate either .

Romney is the republican establishments choice and thanks to Karl, and all the other front groups, you guys have a candidate, whether you endorse him or not. He is the only ABO around, so you got him, nobody else is running as far as that goes.

So unless you have other alternatives, that's your vote, and he will get your vote, right??

So you do think he's a religious tryant ?

No he is a self serving corporate tyrant .And must be checked and defeating at all costs!he doesn't have my interest, or the conservative interests in his heart.

Then who is this religious tyrant you referred to? That is the question.

The one you are trying to create in the name of religious freedom. Don't worry, it ain't going to happen, no matter how you phrase it, so I ain't worried, just wary. Diligent, but not paranoid.

And I defend my females as passionately as you do.

So in fact there is no religious tryrant I "seem to support" .

What is going on here is a replay of what happened to McCain, He was the media darling ;he won the endorsement of the NY Slimes in the NY primary . He was everyone's favorite "maverick " until he locked up the nomination.

Then over night he was an extreme reactionary crazy geezer Senator and the left demonized him the rest of the campaign.

Romney is going to learn that his best friends in this campaign will be the base that he is going to try to etch a sketch away.

Then over night he was an extreme reactionary crazy geezer Senator McCain is a sad political story. When he was himself years ago he was likeable and consistent. Once the party handlers got a hold of him it was all over.

Hello wingers:

Looks to me like Ted Nugent is bashing everybody (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/0417/Ted-Nugent-Threat-to-Obama-or-harmless-loudmouth). I thought you guys were the ones who're gonna be nice.. No, huh?

excon

Just thought an update was due, Ted and the Secret Service met and resolved things (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secret-service-on-nugent-meeting-the-issue-has-been-resolved/).